fl 
 

 
 STATE TRIALS 
 
 FOR 
 
 HIGH TREASON, 
 
 EMBELLISHED WITH PORTRAITS. 
 PART THE FIRST, 
 
 CONTAINING THE 
 
 TRIAL OF THOMAS HARDY, 
 
 REPORTED BY A STUDENT IN THE TEMPLE. 
 TO WHICU ts PREFIXED 
 
 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE EYRE'S Charge to the 
 GRAND JURT. 
 
 I. Original Observations on the Charge 
 and the Laws againil High Treafon. 
 
 II. Names of the Grand Jury. 
 
 III. Proceedings on finding the Bills of 
 Indiftment. 
 
 IV. Particulars of Mr. Holcroft's Sur- 
 render and Commitment, with_atten- 
 dant Observations. 
 
 V. Copy of the Bill of Indiftmem. 
 
 VI. Lilt of the Petty Jury. 
 
 VII. Wknefles for the Crown. 
 
 VIII. Names of the principal Perfoni 
 fubjxeriaed by the Pnloners. 
 
 IX. Counfel for the Crown. 
 
 X. Counfel tor the Prilbners. 
 
 WITH EVERY OTHER IMPORTANT OCCURRENCE RESPECT- 
 ING THIS MOST INTERESTING SUBJECT OF PUBLIC 
 CONCERN AND CURIOSITY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for B. CROSBY, No. 4, Stationers Court, Ludgafe Streej; Ltc, 
 Street, Covent Garden ; MASON and WHITX, Piccadilly; and all 
 the Bookfellers under the Royal Exchange. 
 
 1 7 9 4-
 
 271 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT! 
 
 HPHE prefent trials for High Treafon, being 
 -*- jedis of equal importance and curiofhy to ever/ 
 native of the realm, this work is intended to contain 
 the mod minute and accurate detail of every pro- 
 ceeding, restive to the judicial enquiries into the 
 truth or fallacy of the charges exhibited in the feve- 
 ral bills of indictment found againft the prifoners. 
 
 As thoufands now exifting, and yet unborn, may- 
 be implicated in the prefent deciftons of the Law 
 refpedbing High Treafon, the ftricleft attention will 
 be paid to the opinions of the court, the pleadings of 
 the counfel, the reference to precedents, and the 
 fiinclio.li of the great law authorities that may be ad- 
 duced. 
 
 We (hall be faithful to'the difcharge of fuch an. 
 important undertaking, as that of publifhing effen- 
 tial information for every fubjec~t in fo interefting a 
 point as High Treafon, in which the welfare of a na- 
 tion is involved, and efpccially as individuals of the 
 purcft intentions may be endangered. Particular at- 
 tention will be given to whatever relates to the exifr- 
 ing laws, their application to the prefent circum- 
 ftances, and the contfruclion of the ftatutes refpecling 
 the crime. 
 
 In a word, whatever can tend to inform the mind, 
 gratify the curioiity, and direct every fubject in the 
 knowledge of a law wherein the firft of civilians 
 ha\ e looked with awe, doubt, and perplexity, will be 
 inoft carefully recorded in the feries of our publica- 
 tions of the trials, as they happen in their deftined 
 order of fuccdlion. 
 
 A 2
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON HIGH TREASON. 
 
 LORD Chief Juftice Eyre having, in his Charge to the Grand 
 Jury, informed them that they were aflembled under the 
 authority of the King's commiflion, ifiued for hearing and de- 
 termining .the offences of High Treafon and mifprifions ot Trea- 
 fan againft the perfon and authority of the King, induces us to ftate 
 a few preliminary obfervations on the exitting law refpe&ing 
 this fpecies of criminality. 
 
 According to the ftatute of the 25th of Edw. III. which was 
 exprefsly cnadted to define what was High-Treafon, fo as to fe- 
 cure the fubjel from arbitrary decifions, an overt al muft be 
 proved by two witneffes, of compafling or imagining the death of 
 the King. 
 
 Having ftated that the fubftantiating the crime of High Trea- 
 fon depends on overt ats being proved, it .is necefiary to obferve 
 what conftitutes an overt al. According to every principle of 
 law, it muft be an a& determined or executed for the fpecific 
 purpofe of comparing the death of the King. Without this can 
 be ptoved, neither the defign nor the facl: can be deemed High 
 Xreafon. No plans or operations that are not prouably directed 
 to effct the above purpofe, are to be confidered as overt afts of 
 this atrocious crime. The moft certain rule i*, therefore, by the 
 a& of Edw. III. eftabliihed for directing the Jury in their deci- 
 fion on the charges of High Treafon fubmitted to their inquiry. 
 Overt acts, however various in their nature, unlefs definite in 
 their object, have no law to fan&ion their being clalTed in the 
 criminal lifts of treafons. The defign or " wicked imagination 
 of the heart" mtift be obvioufly, and not conftru&ively, tending 
 to the atrocious purpofe of comparing or imagining the death of 
 the King But, unhappily for the fubjet, arbitrary monarchs, 
 fervile judges, and dependant juries, have abufed a ftatute that 
 every perfon mould admire for it's fimplicity, humanity, and per- 
 fpicuity. In the reign of Charles II. one Gibbs was executed 
 for High Treafon, who had only heard treafonable words fpoken 
 againft the King, and had not difcovered the perfon who uttered 
 them. And although this happened from his ignorance of the 
 law, and he had hazarded his life in defence of Charles *I. 
 againft the fifth-monarchy men, yet inch was the vindictive per- 
 fecution of that rtign, that he fuffered equally with the molt 
 atrocious of traitors. 
 
 Such a&s of tyrannical feverity could no but excite the greateft 
 
 jealou r y
 
 [ 5 3 
 
 jealoufy in th$ miuds of the people refpefting the inveftigation of 
 charges for High Treafon. Although it is a crime which mnft 
 be abhorrent to the citizen of integrity and patriotifm, yet it lias 
 fmce been confidered as a fubjecl: of the moil alarming import 
 with regard to the abufe of it's profecution. 
 
 We, therefore, cannot but agree \vith Mr. Juftice Blackftone, 
 wjio faye, "as this is the higheft civil crime, (confidered as a 
 member of the community) any man can poffibly commit, it 
 ought, therefore, to be precifely determined. For if the crime of 
 treafon be indeterminate, this alone (fays the prefident Montef- 
 quieu) is fufficient to make any governnent degenerate into arbi- 
 trary power. And yet, by the ancient common law, there was a 
 great latitude left in the bread of the judges, to determine what 
 was treafon, or not fo: whereby the creatures of -tyrannical 
 Princes had opportunity to create abundance of conjlruSUve 
 Treafons ; that is, to raife by forced and arbitrary conftruclion, 
 offences into the crime and punifhment of Treafon, which were 
 never fufpefted to be fuch.* 
 
 But to remedy fuch an abufe of jurifprudence, the aft of 
 Edward III. thus provides, " Becaufeother like cafes of Treafon 
 may happen in time to come, which cannot be thought of, nor 
 declared at prefent ; it is accorded, that if any other cafe,fuppofed 
 to be, treafon, which is not above fpecified, doth happen before any 
 judge, the judge lhall tnrry without going to the judgment of the 
 treafon, till the caufe be fliewed and declared before the King 
 and his Parliament, whether it ought to be judged treafon, or 
 other felony." On this fubjecl, Sjr Matthew Hale has beftowed 
 the mod diftinguifhed approbation. He praifes the wifdom and 
 care of the Parliament in thus keeping judges within the bounds 
 and limits of the . al ; by not fufFcring them to eftablifh con- 
 ftruftive Treasons on the bahs of their arbitrary motives, the 
 Subject is fecurtd from perfecution, and the conftitutional law is 
 protected from violation. 
 
 ReJerving cafes not fpecified in the aft of Edw. III. to the 
 deciiiun of Parliament, prevents, as Matthew Hale obferves, 
 Judges from running out upon their own opinions into conitrur- 
 tive treafons. Well may, therefore, Jultice Blackftone ftatc, 
 "This is a great fecurity to the public, the judges, and even 
 this (acred a<5l itfclf, and k-aves a weighty memento to judges to 
 be careful, and r.(/t over- hairy in letting in treafons by conllruc- 
 tion and interpretation, efpecially in new cafes that have not 
 been refolved and fettled." 
 
 Matthew Hale obferves, that as the authoritative decifion of 
 theft cufiis omijji is referved to the King aad Parliament, the deci- 
 fion 
 * Vol. iv. page 75. edit. 9. 1783.
 
 fjon of the law ought to be done by a new declarative a&. And, 
 therefore, as Bhckftoneftates, " the opinion of any one, or of 
 bo'h Houfrs, though of very Jefp-Cl^ble weight, is n .t that fo- 
 ]emn declaration relerr-d t.i by this act, as the only criterion for 
 viilyini; of future treafun.'' 
 
 To prove that forced and arbitrary conflmcti: ns have punifhcd 
 individuals for treafon which they never meditated, the tncroach- 
 ing or attempting to rxercife royal power, which the great lavr 
 commentator judfciqujly obferve, is a very uncertain charge, 
 was, in the 21 ft Edw. I If. held to be treafo.-i in a knight of Hert- 
 fordfhire. - His crime was forcibly affaulting and detaining one 
 of the King's !ubjeb until he paid him gol. although this crime 
 deferved punifhnient, it was certainly no treafon. .There could be 
 no compading or meditating the King's death intended by fuch 
 an a lib mad authority. The act was plainly directed to the fole 
 purpofe ot "obtaining payment of a debt due to the knight. And 
 as there was no ftatute formed for the detention of the body until 
 payment coulcl be obtain. d, the perfon adopted this mode of 
 violence as the dernier rcfort to which he could apply for the 
 recovery of his due. Killing the King's father or mother, or 
 even his mefTenger,"dr Kis". judges en the bench, were deemed 
 Treafons. On this, Blackftone fays, with great propriety, that 
 it WQS alrnoft as tyrannical a dodtrinp as that' by the imperial 
 conftitution of Arcadius and Honorius, which determines that 
 any attempt or defign againn: the miniders of the Prince (hall be 
 Treafon. To prevent fuch abufes the ftatute of 25 Edward 
 III. as before ftated, was made. This ftatute muft therefore be 
 our text and guide in order to examine into the fe-veral fpecies of 
 High Treafon. 
 
 The arbitrary ftat. 21. Rich. II. 0.3, which made the bare 
 purpofe and intent of killing or depofing the King, without any 
 overt al to demonftrate it, High Treafon, did not prefervehirn 
 from be'ng depofed and murdered within two years afterwards. 
 This evinces, that a King is never more expofed to danger, than 
 when he has adopted the molt arbitrary means forhis fecurity. 
 But fo infccure was held the life of the fubjeft by thisadt, and fo 
 inadequate it was found to preferve the King from apprehended 
 violence, that his fucceffor Henry IV., \vith equal wifdom ami 
 magnanimity, pafTecl an a<5t which effected it's repeal, and every 
 other extravagant and tyrai;nic:il imputation of treafon adopted 
 in the preceding reign. This at, in" it a s recital, contains the 
 li)!'owi-ng memorable defcription of the uncertain tenure by 
 which the fi,bjc6t could expect to preferve his life from minifte- 
 ria! vengf-ance. It ftates, <l That no man knew how he ought 
 to behave himfelf, to do, fpeak, or fay, lor doubt of fuch p^ins of 
 
 treafon.
 
 L 7 .J 
 
 treafon, and therefore it was awarded, that in no time" to come, 
 any treafon be judged otherwife than was ordained by the ftatute 
 of King Edward. III." 
 
 The following are "the newfangled treafons," which Black - 
 ftone Itates were abrogated by the ftatute, i Mar. c. i. Thefe were 
 revived and invented from the reigns of jienry IV, urn:' ihat of 
 their extinction, when the ftatute c>f Edward was again made the 
 ftandard ot the crime. The treafons he mentions that were thus 
 abrogated were clipping of money ; breaking prifon, or refcue ; 
 burning houfes to extort money ; dealing of cattle by Wellhmen ; 
 counterfeiting foreign coin; wilful poifoning ; execrations 
 againft the King ; calling him opprobious names by public wri- 
 ting; counterfeiting the fign manual or lignat ; re fu ling to ab- 
 jure the Pope; deflowering or marrying without the royal licence 
 any of the king's children, fitters, aunts, nephews, or^pieces; 
 bare felicitation of the chaitity of the queen or princefs, or ad- 
 vances made by themfelves ; marrying with the king, by a wo- 
 man not a virgin, without previoufly difcovering to him fucli 
 her unchafte life; judging or believing (maniteHed by any overt 
 act) the king to have been lawfully married to Ar.ne of Cleve ; 
 derogating from the King's royal ftile and tide ; impugning his 
 fupremacy ; and alTembling riotoufly to the number of twelve, 
 and not ciiij -';ng upon proclamation. 
 
 The acl. f alfembling, therefore, and even riotoufly, is no 
 longer a treafon. The meetings of the iorieties, to which fo 
 much criminality has been endeavoured to be attached, can::ot 
 fincethelaw of Mary be trealonable, when they are confidered 
 abftra&edly as meetings or aiibciations. To cojiftitute them 
 ats of treafon, it is furely neceifary to prove fome overt acl that 
 evinces the comparing or meditating the death oi the Kinii. 
 
 Comparing or imagining the King's death mult be p:oved to 
 be the defign, from overt ats of fiicii meetings. As the terms 
 tompaj/ing and imagining are held, in a le^al fend-, to be fyrsoni- 
 mcjus by Matthew Hale,B!ack(tune, and other judicial au:hor ; ri-.'<;, 
 and that the word compajs exprefsly figr.iBes the ptirpofe of the 
 defign of the mind, or will, and not, as c<M;ir,:>n!y faicl, the 
 carrying fuch delign into effel. For an erfect may be 
 produced in which the will, has no concern. Such was t : ie 
 cafe, as Hated by B'ackltone, of Sir William Tym-1, \vho, by 
 the command of King William Rufus,- (hooting at u hart, 
 the arrow glanced againft a tree, and killed ihe'King upon the 
 fpot. Therefore this acciciental ftroke, which proved morrjl 
 to thefoverti^n, per infortuntum, witluxit any traitorous intent, 
 cannot be treafon. Nor can this cumpafling or imagi::ation, 
 from it's being an adl ot the mind, be fubjccl to judicial cooni- 
 zance, unlefs it be demonftrated by fume opai or wert *Qt^ 
 
 Were
 
 [ * 1 
 
 Were fuch laws ever to be adopted, we might deem ourfelves 
 under fuch a fyftem of oppreflion, as marked the tyranny of 
 Dionyfms, who executed a fubjeft for merely dreaming that he 
 killed him ; this was held afumcient proof of his having thought 
 of the fame aft in his waking hours. But fuch not being the 
 temper of the Knglifh law, an open or overt a<St of a more full, 
 obvious, and explicit nature, mud he proved, to convict any per- 
 fon of treafon. This ftatute exprefsly ftates and requires, that 
 the accufed "be thereof upon fufficient proof attainted of fome 
 open al by men of his own condition." Thus the providing 
 of weapons or ammunition for the purpofe of killing the King 
 would be held, according to the law inftitutes, a palpable overt 
 act of treafon, or imagining his death. But it muft be proved, 
 by certain" open fails, that they were provided for that and no 
 other purpofe. It muft be proved that, in the moment of alarm 
 of an invading enemy, thefe arms were not provided as the means 
 of defending themfelves and their families from outrage ; but, 
 on the contrary, that they were meant for the fole purpofe of 
 killing the king. 
 
 Having thus ftatecl the few obfervations that the limits of this 
 number will admit, upon the law of treafon, we fhall conclude the 
 introduction with the following fhort remark from B!ackftone, 
 By this it will appear that his idea of comparing, or meditating 
 the King's death, is that of evidence being produced that wea- 
 pons were provided to kill the King, confpiracies formed to im- 
 prifen him, or fome other acls adopted for rendering fuch trea- 
 fonable purpofes effective. "To confpire, to imprifon the 
 king by force, and move towards it by aifembling company, is 
 an overt aft of compaffing theking's death ; for alf force ufed to 
 the perfon of the king, in it's confequence, may tend to his death, 
 and is a ftrong prefumption of fomething worfe intended than 
 the prefent force, by fuch as have fo far thrown off their bounden 
 duty to their fovereign ; it being an old obfervation that there is 
 generally but a Ihort interval betwen the prifons and graves of 
 princes. There is no queftion alfo but that taking any tneafures 
 to render fuch treafonable purpofes effectual, as alTembling and 
 confuting on means to kill the King, is a fulHcient overt a<St of 
 Treafon." 

 
 TRIALS OF THE STATE PRISONERS 
 
 FOR 
 
 HIGH TREASON. 
 
 AS feveral comments have been made upon the charge given 
 by the Lord Chief Juftice Eyre, to the Grand Jury, previous 
 to their proceeding to find the. bill of indi&ment againft the per- 
 fons committed on charges of High Treafon, we beg leave to 
 premife the following obfervations, previous to our inlertion of 
 the charge itfelf. , 
 
 There is, perhaps, no part of a Judge's duty that requires 
 njore liberality, Juftice, humanity, and knowledge, than that of 
 giving his charge to the Grand Jury, on all cafes in which the 
 life of the fubjecl is fo imminently concerned, as on bills of in- 
 ditment for High Treafon. In jheir zeal to preftrve the King, 
 or the State, trom injury, mercy to the accufed Ihouidnor bo for- 
 gotten. The law Ihould be explained with prccifion and per- 
 fpicuity ; but it fhouid not be interpreted fo as to extend it's erFecl: 
 beyond it's original meaning. When exemplary piinilhments 
 are necelTary to preferve a King, or his people, from ruin, no 
 bill of indictment mould be found for crimes that were never 
 meditated by the accufed. Whatever he has pofnirely com- 
 mitted, or whatever can be proved was his intention to commit, 
 Ihould be the only rule of fending him to be tried, for the fame, 
 by a jury of his equals. 
 
 On Thurfday, October 2, the Special Commiffion for trying 
 perrons committed to the Tower, Sec. charged with treafonable 
 practices, was opened at the Sellions Houfe, Clerkenwell Green, 
 before Lord Chief Juftice Eyre, the Lord Chief Baron, Baron 
 Hotham, Mr. Juftice Buller, Mr. Juftice Grofe, and Mr. Juf- 
 tice Lawrence, the Commiffioners therein named, 
 
 GRAND JURY. 
 Benjamin Winthrop, Foreman, 
 John Snider, George Ward, 
 
 Edward Ironfides, Thomas Bjildam, 
 
 Benjamin Kenton, Jofeph Lancaftcr, 
 
 Robert H. Boddam, Robert Wilkinfon, 
 John Aris, Thomas Cole, 
 
 W. H. Boddam, George Gal way Mills, 
 
 John Perry, Henry Wright, 
 
 John Hankey, John Hatcher, 
 
 Samuel CufF, Robert Stephenfon, 
 
 Thomas Winflowe, John Campbell, and 
 Samuel Hawkins, Tho. Everett, efqrs. 
 
 B After
 
 After they had been fworn in, Lord Chief Juftice Eyre deli 
 vered the following charge : 
 
 Gentlemen of this Grand Inqueft> 
 
 You are aflembled under the authority of the King's Com- 
 miflion, which has been iffued for the hearing and deter- 
 mining of the offences of High Treafon, and Mifprifions of 
 Treafon, againft the perfon and authority of the King. 
 
 That which hath given occafion for this Commilfion is that 
 which is declared by a late ftatute, namely, " That a traitorous 
 *' and deteftable confpiracy has been formed for fubverting the 
 " exifling laws and conftitution, and for introducing the fyftem ot 
 " anarchy and confufion which has fo lately prevailed in France ;" 
 u crime of that deep malignity which loudly calls upon the juitice 
 ot the nation to interpole, " for the better prefervation of his 
 " Majefty's facred perfon, and for fecuring the peace, and the 
 " laws and liberties of this kingdom." 
 
 The firft and effective ftep in this, as in the ordinary criminal 
 proceedings, is, that a Grand Jury of the country mould make 
 public inquifltion for the King, ihould diligently enquire, dif- 
 cover, and bring forward to the view of the criminal magiftrate 
 thofe offences which it is the obje6l of this Special Commillion t 
 hear and to determine. 
 
 You are Jurors for our Sovereign Lord the King; you are fo 
 ftyled in every indictment which is prefented; but let the true 
 nature of this fervice be underflood. The King commands you 
 to enter upon this enquiry ; but the royal authority in this, as in 
 all it's other functions, is exerted, and operates ultimately for 
 the benefit of his people. It is the King's objedt, his duty, to 
 vindicate his peace, his crown and dignity, becaufe his peace, his 
 crown and dignity, are \hefubjcfts' protection, theirfecurity, and their 
 kappincfs. 
 
 it is ultimately for them that the laws have thrown extraor- 
 dinary fences around the perfon and authority of the King, and 
 that ail attempt* againil the one or the other are confidered as the 
 highcft crimes wi.ich can be committed, and are punilhed with a 
 feventy which nothing but the Salus Populi can juftify. 
 
 The bufinefs of this day calls upon me (in order that you may 
 the better underftand the fubjedt which is to come before yon) to 
 open to you the natuie of that offence, which I have before fpoken 
 of in general. 
 
 An ancient flatutc, 25 Edward III. has declared and defined it. 
 I fhall flate to you fo much of that declaration and definition as 
 tppears to me to have any probable relation to the bufinefs of 
 this day. 
 
 By
 
 By that ftatuteit is declared to be High Treafon " to compars 
 " or imagine the death of the King," provided fuch comparing 
 and imagination be manifefted by fome aft or acts proved (by 
 two witnefles) to have been done by the party accufed in profe- 
 cution of that compalling and imagination ; that is, from the 
 moment that this wicked imagination of the heart is acted 
 upon, that any fteps are taken in any manner conducing to 
 the bringing about and effecting the defign, the intention be- 
 comes the crime, and the meafure of it is full. 
 
 Thefe acts or fteps are technically denominated overt afts; and 
 the forms of proceeding in cafes of this nature require that thefe 
 overt acts Ihould be particularly fet forth in every indictment of 
 treafon ; and, from the nature of them, they muft conftitute the 
 principal head of enquiry for the Grand Jury. 
 
 Thefe overt acts involve in them two diltinct confiderations : 
 i ft, The matter of fact of which they confift ; in the next place, 
 the relation of that fact to the defign. 
 
 With refpect to the mere matter of fa ft, it will be for the 
 Grand Jury to enquire into the true ftate of it, and I can have 
 very little to offer to your confideration refpecting it ; and with 
 refpect to the queftion, whether the fact has relation to the defign 
 fo as to conftitute an overt act of this fpecies of treafon, which 
 involves confiderations both of fact and of law, it is importable 
 that any certain rule mould be laid down for your government : 
 overt ads being, in their nature, all the pofilble means which may 
 be ufed in the profecution of the end propoled, they can be no 
 otherwife defined, and muft remain for ever infinitely various. 
 
 Thus tar I can inform you, that occafions have unhappily but 
 too frequently brought overt acts of this fpecies of treafon under 
 confideration; in confequence of which we are f urn i (bed 
 with judicial opinions upon many of them ; and we are alfo 
 furnifhed with opinions drawn from thefe fources by fome of 
 the wifeft and moft enlightened men of their time, whofe inte- 
 grity has been always conlidered as the moft prominent feature 
 of their character, and whofe doctrines do now form great land- 
 marks, by which pofterity will be enabled to trace, with a grest 
 <legree ot certainty, the boundary lines between High Treafon 
 and offences of a lower order and degree. 
 
 It is a fortunate circumjtance tlut we are thus aflifted ; for it 
 is not to be diffembled, that though the crime of High Treafon 
 is " the grcateft crime againlt faith, duty, and human fociety," 
 and though " the public is deeply interefted in every profecution 
 " of this kind well founded," there hath been, in the beft times, a 
 confiderable degree of jealouly on the fubject ol profecutions for 
 High Treafon , they are ftute profecutions, am! the confequenccs 
 to the ^arty accufed are penal in the extreme. 
 
 J3 2 Jurors
 
 Jurors and Judges ought to feel an extraordinary anxiety that 
 pp'fecutions of this nature flhould proceed upon folid grounds. I 
 can eafily conceive therefore, that it muft be a great relief to 
 Jurors placed in the refponfible fituation in which you now 
 ftand, bound to do juftice to their country and to the parties ac- 
 cufed, and anxious to dilcharge this tru(l faithfully ; fure I am 
 that it is confolation and comfort to us, who have upon us the 
 refponfibility of declaring what the law is in cafes in which the 
 public and the individual are fo deeply interested, to have fuch 
 men as the great Sir Matthew Hale, and an eminent Judge of 
 our own times, who, with the experience of a century, concurs 
 xvith him in opinion, Sir Michael Fofter, for our guides. 
 
 To proceed by fteps From thefe writers upon the law of 
 Treafon (who fpeak, as I have before obferved, upon the autho- 
 rity of adjudged cafes) we learn, that not only ats of immediate 
 and direft attempt againft the King's life are overt a6ts of com- 
 pa/ling his death, but that all the remoter fteps taken with a view 
 to aflitt to bring about the actual attempt, are equally overt acts 
 of this fpecies of treafon; even the meeting and the confulting 
 what ftep mould be taken in order to bring about the end pro- 
 pofed, has been always deemed to be an aft done in profecution 
 of the defign, and as fuch an overt a6t of this treafon This is our 
 firft ftep in the prefent enquiry. I proceed to obferve, that the 
 overt als I have been now fpeaking of have reference, nearer 
 or more remote, to a direct and immediate attempt upon the life 
 of the King; but that the fame authority informs us, that they 
 xvho aim directly at the lite of the King (fuch, for inftance, as 
 the perfons who were concerned in the aflaiTmaiion plot in the 
 reign of King William) are not the only perfons who can be faid 
 to compafs or imagine the death of the King. " The entering 
 *' into meafures which, in the nature of things, or in the com-? 
 " mon experience of mankind, do obvioufly tend to bring the life 
 " of the King into danger, is alfo comparing and imagining 
 " the death of the King ;" and the meafures which are taken will 
 be at once evidence of the compaffing, and overt acts of it. 
 
 The inftances which are put by Sir Matthew Hale and Sir 
 Michael Fofter, (and upon which there have been adjudged cafes) 
 are of confpiracies to depofe the King, to imprifsn him, to get his. 
 ferfon into the power cf the confpirators, to procure an invafio/i of the 
 kingdom. The firft of thefc, apparently the itrongeft cafe, and 
 coming the neareft to the direct attempt againft the life of the 
 King ; the la(l, the fartheft removed from that direct attempt, but 
 being a meafure tending to deftroy tiie public peace of the coun- 
 try, to introduce hoftilities, and the neccflity of refifting force by 
 force, and where it is obvious that the conflict has an ultimate 
 tendency to bring the perfon and life of the King into jeopardy ; 
 
 Jit
 
 [ '3 ] 
 
 it is taken to be a found conftru&ion of the ftatute 25 Edward 
 III. and the clear law of the land, that this alfo is comparing 
 and imagining the death of the King. 
 
 If a confpiracy to depofe or to imprifon the King, to get his 
 perfon into the power of the confpirators, or to procure an inva- 
 (ion of the kingdom, involves in it the compaffing and imagining 
 of his death, and if fteps taken in profecution of fuch a con- 
 fpiracy are rightly deemed overt a<5ls of the treafon of imagining 
 and compaffing the King's death ; need I add, that if it Ihould 
 appear that it has entered into the heart of any man, who is afubjett 
 of this country, to dejign to overthrow the whole government of the 
 country, to pull down and to fitbvert from it's very foundations the 
 Britijh monarchy, that glorious fabric which it has been the work of 
 ages to ereft, maintain, and fupport, which has been cemented with 
 the left blood of our ancejlon ; to deftgn fuch a horrible ruin and de- 
 vajlation, which" no King could furvive, a crime of fuch a magnitude 
 that no lawgiver in this country hath ever ventured to contemplate in it's 
 whole extent; need I add, I fay, that the complication and the 
 enormous extent of fuch a defign will not prevent it's being dif- 
 tin&ly feen, that " the compafllng and imagining the death of 
 * f the King is involved in it, is in truth of it's very eflence." 
 
 This is too plain a cafe to require further illuftration from 
 me. If any man of plain fenfe, but not converfant with fubjels 
 of this nature, fhould feel hiinfeU difpofed to afk whether a con- 
 fpiracy of this nature is to be reached by this medium only; 
 whether it is afpecijic treafon to compafs and imagine the death 
 of the King, and not afpecijic treafon to confpire to fubvert the 
 monarchy itfelf ; I anfwcr, that the ftatute of Edward III. by 
 which we are governed, hath not declared this (which in all jult 
 theory of treafon is the greatefl of all treafuns) to be High 
 Trealbn. 
 
 I faid no lawgiver had ever ventured to contemplate it in it's 
 whole extent. The Seditio Regni, fpoken of by fome of our 
 ancient writers, comes the neareft to it, but falls far Ihort of it. 
 Perhaps if it were now a queftion whether fuch a confpiracy 
 Jhould be made a fpecific treafon, it might be argued to be un- 
 necdfary ; that in fecuring the perfon and authority of the King 
 from all danger, the monarchy, the religion and laws of our 
 country are incidentally fecured ; that the conftitution of our 
 government is fo framed, that the imperial crown of the realm 
 is the common center of the whole; that all traitorous attempts 
 upon any part of it are inftantly communicated to that center, and 
 felt there; and that, as upon every principle of public policy and 
 juflice, they are punifhable as traitorous attempts againft the 
 King's perfon or authority, and will, according to the particular 
 nature of the trahoroys attempt, full within one or other of the 
 
 fpecific
 
 [ '4 ] 
 
 fpecihc treafons againft the King, declared by the ftatute of 25 
 Edward III. this greateft of ail treafons is fufficiently provided 
 againft by the law. 
 
 Gentlemen, I prefume, I hardly need give you this caution, 
 that though it'has been exprelsly declared, by the higheft autho- 
 rity, that theie do exift in this country men capable of meditating 
 the deiirudlion of the conftitution under which we live ; that de- 
 claration, beiny extrajudicial, is not a ground uport which you 
 ought to proceed. 
 
 In confequence of that declaration, it became a public and m- 
 difpenfable duty of His Majufty to inftitute this folcmn proceed- 
 ing, and to impofe upon you ihe painful tafk of examining the 
 acculations, which fhall be brought before you ; but it will be 
 your duty to examine them in a regular judicial courfe, that is, 
 by hearing the evidence, and forming your own judgment upon 
 it. 
 
 And here, as I do not think it necefTary to trouble you with 
 obfervations upon the other branches of the ftatute 25 Edw. III. 
 the charge to the Grand Inqueft might conclude, had not the 
 particular nature of the confpiracy, alledgecl to have been formed 
 againft the ftate, been difclofed, and made matter of public no- 
 toriety by the Reports of the two Houfes of Parliament, now in 
 every one's hands : but, that being the cafe, I am apprehenfive 
 that I fhall not be thought to have fulfilled the duty, which the 
 Judge owes to the Grand Jury, when queftions in the criminal 
 law arife on new and extraordinary cafes of fa6l ; if I did not 
 plainly and diftindtly ftate what I conceive the law to be, or 
 what doubts I conceive may arife in law, upon the fa&s which 
 are likely to be laid before you, according to the different points 
 of view in which thofe facts may appear to you. 
 
 It is matter of public notoriety that there have been Aftbcia- 
 tions formed in this country, and in other parts of the kingdom, 
 the profefled purpofe of which has been a change in the Confti- 
 tution of the Commons Houfe of Parliament, and the obtaining 
 of Annual Parliaments ; and that to fome of thefe Aflbciations 
 other purpofes, hidden under this veil, purpofesthe moft traitor- 
 ous, have been imputed ; and that fome of thefe Ailbciations 
 have been fuppofed to have actually adopted meafures of fuch a 
 nature, and to have gone into fuch excefles, as will amount to 
 the crime of High Treafon. 
 
 If there be ground to confider the profefled purpofe of any of 
 thefe AUfuciations, " a Reform in Parliament," as mere colour, 
 and as a pretext held out in order to cover deeper deligns de- 
 figns againft the whole Constitution, and Government of the 
 country ; the cafe of thofe embarked in fuch dcligns is that, 
 which I have already confidered. Whether this be fo, or nor.
 
 L '5 1 
 
 is mere matter of fact ; as to which I (hall only remind you, that 
 an inquiry into a charge of this nature, which undertakes to 
 make out that the oftenlible purpofc is a mere veil, under which 
 is concealed a traitorous conijpiracy, requires cool and deliberate 
 examination, and the moft attentive coniideration ; and that the 
 refult fliould be perfectly clear and fatisfaclory. In the affairs of 
 common life, no man is jufttfied in imputing to another a mean- 
 ing contrary to what he himfelf exprelfes, but upon the fulled 
 evidence. On the other hand, where the charge can be made 
 out, it is adding to the crime meditated the deepeft diflimulation 
 and treachery, with refpecl to thofe individuals, who may be 
 drawn in to embark in the oftendble purpole, as well as to the 
 public, againit which this dark myitery of wickednefs is fabri- 
 cated. 
 
 But if we fuppofe thefe AlTbciations to adhere to the profefTed 
 purpofe, and to have no Other primary objecl ; it may be afked, 
 js it poflible, and (if it be pollible) by what procefs is it, *' that 
 an Affodatim for tix Reform of Parliament can work iff elf up to the 
 i rime of High Treason? All men may, nay, all men muft, if they 
 poffcfs the faculty of thinking, reafon upon every thing which, 
 fulriciently interelh them to become objects of their attention; 
 and among the objects of the attention of free men, the princi- 
 ples of Government, the conftitmion of particular Governments, 
 and, above all, the Conltitution of the Government under 
 which they live, will naturally engage attention, and provoke 
 fpeculation. The power of communication of thoughts and opi- 
 nions is the gift of God, and the freedom of it is the fource of all 
 fcience, the h'rft fruits and the ultimate happinefs of fociety ; and 
 therefore it feems to follow, that human laws ought not to inter- 
 pofe, nay, cannot interpofe, to prevent the communication ot" 
 ientiments and opinions in voluntary atfemhlies of men ; all 
 which is true, with this lingle refervation, that thofe AJJeinblics 
 tire to be Jo ctmp'ifcd, and Jo cuiduflcd, as nut to endanger the public 
 peace and good order of the Government under which they live ; and I 
 fhall not Itate to you that a liberations and'aUembHes of men, for 
 the purpofe of obtaining a Reform in the interiorConftiturion of 
 the Britiih Parliament, are limply unlawful ; but, on the other 
 hand, I mult ftate to you, that they may but too eafily degenerate, 
 and become unlawful, in the highcft degree, even to the enor- 
 mous extent oi the crime ot High T reafon. 
 
 The procefs is very fimple : Let us imagine to ourfelves this 
 cafe : A few well-meaning men conceive that they and their fel- 
 low fubje&s labour under fome grievance ; they affemble peace- 
 ably to deliberate on the means of obtaining rcdrefs \ the num- 
 bers increafe ; the difcuflion grows animated, eager, and violent ; 
 a rafti meafurc is propofed, adopted, and aded upon ; who can 
 
 fay
 
 [ 16 ] 
 
 fay where this (hall flop, and that thefe men, who originally a 
 fembled peaceably, lhall not finally, and fuddenly too, involve 
 themfelves in the crime of High Treafon ? It is apparent how 
 eafily an impetuous man may precipitate fuch Aflemblies into 
 crimes of unforefeen magnitude, and danger to the ftate: but, let 
 it be conlidered, that bad men may alfo tind their way into fuch 
 Allemblies, and ufe the innocent purpofes of their affociation as 
 the, {talking horfe to their purpofes of a very different complexion. 
 How eafy for fuch men to pradife upon the credulity and the 
 enthufiafm of honeft men, lovers of their country, loyal to tneir 
 prince, but eagerly bent upon fome fpeculative improvements in 
 the frame, and internal mechanifm of the Government ? If we 
 fuppofe bad men to have once gained an afcendancy in an Affem- 
 bly of thisdefcription, popular in it's conftitution, and having 
 popular objeds ; how eafy is it tor fuch men to plunge fuch an 
 aflembly into the mod criminal excelTes ? Thus far 1 am fpeak- 
 ing in general, merely to illustrate the propofition, that men who 
 affemble in order to procure a Reform of Parliament may involve 
 themfelves in the guilt of High Treafon. 
 
 The notoriety to which I have alluded leads me to fuppofe, 
 that the " project of a Convention" of the people, to be ailem- 
 bled under the advice and direction of fome of thefe focieties, or 
 of delegations from them, will be the leading fad, which will 
 be laid before you in evidence, refpeding the condudl and mea- 
 fures of thefe AITbciations ; a project, which perhaps, in better 
 times, would have been hardly thought worthy of grave confide- 
 ration ; but, in thefe our days, having been attempted to be put 
 in execution in adiitant part of the united kingdoms, and, with 
 the example of a neighbouring country before our eyes, is de- 
 fervedly become an objed of the jealoufy of our laws : It will be 
 your duty to examine the evidence on this head very carefully, and 
 to fift ittothe bottom ; to confider every part of it in itfelf, and 
 as it {lands connected with other parts of it, and to draw the 
 conclufion of fad, as to the existence, the nature, and the object 
 of this projed of a Convention, from the whole. 
 
 In the courfe of the evidence you will probably hear of " bodies 
 " of men having been collected together, of violent refolutions 
 " voted at thefe and at other meetings, of fome preparation of 
 ' offenfive weapons, and of the adoption of the language, and 
 * manner of proceeding of thofe Conventions in France, which 
 4 have poffefled themfelves of the Government of that country :" 
 I dwell not on thefe particulars, becaufe I confider them, not as 
 fubframiveTreafons, but as circumftances of evidence, tending 
 to afcertain the true nature of the objed, which thefe perfonshad 
 in view, and alfo the true nature of this projed of a Convention, 
 and to be confidercd by you in the mafs of that evidence; which 
 
 evidence
 
 [ '7 ] 
 
 evidence it does not fall within the province of the charge to con- 
 fider in detail; my prefent duty is, to inform y>u what the law is 
 upon the matter of tact, which in your judgment ihall be the re- 
 fult of the evidence. 
 
 I prefume that I have fufficiently explained to you, that a pro- 
 jeft to bring the people together in convention in imitation of thyfe 
 National Conventions ivhich we have heard of in France in '^der to 
 ttfurp the government of ihe country and any cne Jtep taken towards 
 bringing it about, fui h a> tor inftance, '* Confult uns, :<'nn.,>g 
 " of committees to confider ol the means, acting in thole com- 
 ", mittees." would be a cafe of no difficulty t'hat it would be the 
 tleareji High Treajon ; it would be compiling and imagining the 
 King's death, and not only his death, but the death ami deftruc- 
 tion of all order, feligion, laws, all property, all fecunty for 
 the lives and liberties of the king's fnbjects. 
 
 That which remains to be considered is, " the project of a 
 ** convention, having for it's fole object the effecting a change in 
 " the mode of reprefentarion of the people in Parliament, and 
 '* the obtaining that Parliaments (hould be held annually ;" and 
 here there is room to diltinguifli. Such a project of a Con- 
 vantion, taking it to be criminal, may be criminal in -hiferent 
 degrees, according to the cafe in evidence, fiom whence you are 
 to collect the true nature and extent of the plan, and the manner 
 in wTuch it is intended to operate ; and it will become a queltion. 
 of great importance, under what clufs of crimes it ought to be 
 ranked. 
 
 In determing upon the complexion and quality of this project 
 of a Convention, you will lay down to you; Hives one principle 
 which is never to be departed from ; That alterations in the re- 
 prefenttition of the people in Parliament, or in the law for holding 
 parliaments, can only be effected by the authority of t,be King, Lords, 
 and Commons, in Parliament ajjembled. This being taken as a 
 foundation,, it feems to follow as a neceffary confequence, that 
 " a project ot a Convention, which (hould have for it's object 
 41 the obtaining a Parliamentary Reform without the authority 
 " of Parliament, and fteps taken upon it, would be High Treajon 
 " in all the actors in it ;" for this is a confpiracy to overturn 
 the G vrmment. The Government cannot be faid to exifr, if 
 the Junctions of Legiflation are ufbrped for a moment ; and it 
 then becomes of little confequence indeed, that the original con- 
 fpirators, perhaps, had only meditated a plan of moderate reform: 
 it is, in the nature ot things, that the power (hould go out of 
 their hands, and be beyond the reach of their controul. A con- 
 fpiracy of this nature is therefore, at belt, aco.ifpiracy to over- 
 turn tbe Government, in order to new model it, which is, in 
 ffcct, to introduce anarchy, and that which anarchy may chance 
 
 G to
 
 to fettle down into; after the King may have been brought to 
 the fcaffoM, and after the country may have fuffered all the mi- 
 ferie? which clifcord, and uvil war, mall have produced. 
 
 Whether " the pnjecl of a Convention, having for it's object 
 " the collecting together a power, which fhould overawe the 
 " Legiflative Body, and extort a Parliamentary Reform from 
 ' it," it aled upon, will alfo amount to High Treat/on, and to 
 the fpecific treaibn of comparting and imagining the K'ng's 
 death, is a m ire doubtful queltion. Thus far is clear; a lorce 
 upon the Parliament muft be immediately directed againft the 
 King, who is an integral part of it ; it muft reach the King, or 
 it can have no effect at all. Laws are enacted in Parliament by 
 the King's Majefty, by and with the advice of the Lords and 
 Commons, in Parliament aflembled. A force meditated againft 
 the Parliament, is therefore a force meditated againft the King, 
 and feems to fall within the cafe of a force meditated againit the 
 King, to compel him to a'ter the meafures of his Government : 
 but, in that cafe, it does hot appear to me that I am warranted 
 by the authorities to (late to you, as clear law, that the mere 
 confpiracy to raife fuch a force, and the entering into confutations 
 refpe&ing it, will alone, and without actually railing the force, 
 conftitute the crime of High Treafon. What the law is in that 
 cafe, and what wiil be the effect of the circumftance of th* 
 force being meditated againft the King in Parliament, againft 
 the King in theexercife of the royal function in a point, which 
 is of the very eifence of his monarchy, will be fit to be folemnly 
 confidered, and determined when the cafe (hall arife. 
 
 It may be ftated to you as clear, That " the project of a 
 " "Convention, having for it's fole object a dutiful and peaceable 
 < application to the wifdoai of Parliament on the fubjedt of a 
 " wifhed-for Reform, which application fhould be entitled to 
 " weight and credit from the univerfality of it, but Ihould ftill 
 " leave to the Parliament the freeft exercife of it's difcretion to 
 ** grant or to refufe the prayer of the petition," (great as the 
 refponfibility will be on the perfons concerned in it, in refpect 
 of the many probable, and all trie poflible, bad confequences of 
 collecting a great number of people together; with no fpecific 
 legal powers to be exercifed, and under no government but that 
 of their own difcretion,) " cannot in itfelf merit to be ranked 
 " among that clafs of offences" which you are now afTembled 
 to hear and determine. 
 
 Upon this laft (tatement of the faft of the cafe, I am not 
 calied upon, and therefore it would not be proper for me to fay 
 more. 
 
 Gentlemen, You will now proceed upon the feveral articles 
 f enquiry which have been given you nj charge: Jf you find 
 
 that
 
 [ '9 J 
 
 that the parties, who fhall be accufed before you, have been pur- 
 Fuing lawful ends by lawful means, or. have been only indifcrect, 
 or, at the wprft, if criminal, that they iiave not been criminal 
 to tiie extent of thofe treafons to which our enquiries are con- 
 fined, 'hen fay, ti at the bills which fhall be prefented to you 
 are not true Bilh ; But, if any of the accufed perfons fhail appear 
 to you 10 have been engaged in that traitorous and detuftable con- 
 fpiracy defcribed in the preamble of th" late ffatute ; or, if with- 
 out any formed defign logo the whole length of that confpiracy, 
 they have yet adled upon the defperate imagination of bringing 
 about alterations in the Conftitution of the Commons Houfe of 
 Pail lament, or in the manner of holding Parliaments without 
 the authority of Parliament, and, in defiance of it, by an ufurped 
 power, which ihould, in that inlT.an.ce, fufpend ihe lawful au- 
 thority of the King, Lords, a- d Commons, in Parliament af- 
 fembled, and take upon itfelf the function of Legiflation; (which 
 imagination amounts to a conf|>iracy to fubvert the exiftiug laws 
 and Conftitution, differing from the former only in the extent of 
 it's object,] you will then do that which belongs to your office to do. 
 
 In the third view of the cale of tne accufed perfons ; that is, 
 if you finci them involved in, and proceed! g upon, a deiign to 
 coiltcl the people together agunlt the leuifLt ive authority of the 
 country, for t e purpofe, not ot ui'urpiii the functio;;' of the 
 Legiflature, but of overawing the Pa, ii^;ner.t, and fo compelling 
 the King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament afiembieti, to 
 cnadt a law tor new modelling tt:e Commons Houfe of Par- 
 liament, or for h-iKHng annual Parliaments; and that charges 
 of Higii 1 reafon are < 11" red to b- maintained againil them upon 
 this ground only ; perhaps it may b/ fitting that, in rejpefi of the 
 (xtraQt'diniiry nature and dan^erius extent, and very criminal com- 
 ftlexi.n of juch a conj piracy, th.a cafe, which I (tale to you as a 
 ne*v and a doubtful calc, ihouid be put into a judicial courfe of 
 enquiry, triat u tnay receive " a folemn adju iication, whether 
 " it \\id, r wi I not, amount to High T't'cajon," in order to 
 whicii the hiils muft be found tw be true bills. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have not ojv n-/d to you the law of MiJ'prificn o 
 Twijon, becaufe I a;ii no* aware that there are any commit- 
 ments for that oifence ; au;i therefore I have no reafon to fup- 
 pofe that there will be any profeaition for that offence. It confiits 
 of the concealment of trcajon committed by others, (which undoubt- 
 edly it is cvtsy man's duty to di'clofe,) and the puuiQimeut is 
 extremely fevere; but the humanity of modern times hath ufuaily 
 interpoled, and I trull, that tiie neceilities of the prefent hour 
 \vili not demand, that the law of Mifprifion of Trealbn Ihould 
 liow be curried into execution. 
 
 Gentlemen, I diftnifs you with confident expectation tha,tyour 
 
 C'2 judg:
 
 [ 20 ] 
 
 judgment will be dire&ed to thofe conclufions, which may deaf 
 innocent men from all fufpicion of gut'.ti bnng the guilty to condign 
 punijhment, preferve the life of our Gracious Sovereign, fecttrf the 
 JJability of our government '. and maintain the imb.'ic pence, in which 
 comprehenjlve term is included the welfare ami happinefs of the people 
 under the protection of the laws and liberties of the kingdom. 
 
 After this charge was delivered, the witnefles, who were to 
 give evidence befor the Grand Juiy, were fworn in. No 
 fe \erthan 36 witnefles were fworn to give evidence on one 
 bill. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till next day, at ten o'clock. 
 
 COPY cf the INDICTMENT againft the PRISONERS 
 accujed of HIGH TREASON. 
 
 MIDDLESEX to wit, be it remembered that at a fpecial 
 fefllon of Oyer and Terminer of our Sovereign Lord the King, 
 of and for the county of Middlefex, holden at the Seffion-HouTc 
 on Clerkenwell Green in the fa id county, on Thurfday the fe- 
 cond day of October, in the thirty-fourth year of the reign of 
 our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the grace of God, 
 of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the 
 Faith, and fo forth ; before the Right Honourable Sir James 
 Eyre. Knight, Chief Jultice of our faid Lord the King, of his 
 Cour*- of Common Picas ; the Right Honourable Sir Archibald 
 Macdonald, Knight, Chief Baron of our faid Lord the King, 
 of his Court of Exchequer ; the Honourable Sir Beaumont 
 Hotham, Knight, one of the Barons of our faid Lord the King, 
 of 1 is faid Court of Exchequer ; the Honourable Sir Francis 
 Bullet, Baronet, one of the Juftices of our faid Lord the King, 
 of his faid Court of Common Pleas j the Honourable Sir Na(h 
 Grofe, Knight, one of the Juftices of our faid Lord the King, 
 afTigned to hold Pleas before the King himfelf ; the Honourable 
 Sir Soulden Lawrence, Knight, one other of the Juftices of our 
 faid Lord the King, afligned to hold Pleas before the King him- 
 felf, and others thHr fellows, Juftices and Commiflloners of 
 our faid Lord the King, alligned by Letter?. Patent of our faid 
 Lord the King under his Great Seal of Great Britain, made to 
 them and others, and any three or more of them 'of whom one 
 of them the aforefaid Sir James Eyre, Sir Archibald Ivlacdonald, 
 Sir Beaumont Hotham, Sir Francis Buller, Sir Nafh Grofe, 
 and Sir Soulden Lawrence, our faid Lord the King willed fhould 
 be one) to inquire by the oath of good and lawful men of the
 
 [ 11 1 
 
 County of Middlefex, of all high treafons, in compaffing or 
 imagining the death of -our Lord the Kin^', levying war againft 
 our Lord the King in his realm, or in adhering to the enemies 
 of our faid Lord the King in his realm, giving to them aid and 
 comfort in his realm or elfewhere, and of all misprifions of fuch 
 high treafons as atbrefaid, or of any of them within the county 
 aforefaid, (as well within liberties as .witnout,) by whomfoever, 
 and in what manner foever done, committed, or perpetrated, 
 when, how, and after what manner, and of all other articles and 
 circumitances concerning the prcmifes, and every, or any of 
 them, in any manner whatfoever, and the faid treafons and mif- 
 prifions of treafons according to the laws and cuftoms of Eng- 
 land for this time, to hear and determine by the oath of Benjamin 
 Winthrop. Efqmre, John Henry Schneider, Efquire, Edward 
 Ironfide, Efquire, Benjamin K^nton, Elquire, Rawfon Hart 
 . Bo.liam, Efquire, John Aris, Efquire, William Pardoe Allet, 
 Eiquire, John Perry, Efquire, Henry Perer KufF, Efquire, 
 Thomas Winflowe, Efquire, Thome Cole, Efquire, Samuel 
 Hawkins, Efquire, George Ward, Enquire, Thomas Boddam, 
 Efquire, Jileyii Lancafter, Efquire, Robert Wilkinfon, Efquire, 
 George Gjiway Mills, Efquire, Henry Wright, Efquire, John 
 Hatchett, Efquire, Rowland Stephenfon, Efquire, and John 
 Campbell, Elquire, good and lawful men of the County atore- 
 faid, now here fworn, and charged to inquire for our laid Lord 
 the King for the body of the faid County touching and con- 
 cerning the premiiles in the faid Letters Patent mentioned. It 
 is prefented in manner and form as followed), (that is to fay) 
 
 MIDDLESEX to Wit, THE JURORS for our Sovereign 
 Lord the King, upon their oath prefent, T^at Thomas Hardy, 
 late of Weftminfter, in the County of Middlefex, fhoemaker, 
 John HorneTooke, late of Wimbleton, in the County of Surrey r 
 clerk, John Auguflus Bonney, late of the parilh of Saint Giles 
 in the FicHs, in the County of Middlefex. atbrefaid, gentleman, 
 Stewart Kyd, late of London, Efquire, Jeremiah Joyce, late of 
 the parim of Saint Maiy-lc-Bone, otherwife Mary bone, in the 
 County of Middlefex aforelaid, gentleman, Thomas Wardle, 
 late of London, gentleman, Thomas Holcroft, late of the parifh 
 of Saint Mary-le-Bpne, otherwife Marybone aforefaid, in the 
 County of Middlefex aforefai.i, gentleman, John Richter, lale 
 of Weftmintter. in the faid County of Middiefex, gentleman, 
 Matthew Moore, late of Weftminiter, in the County of Mid- 
 dlefex aforelaid, gentleman, John 'i'helwall, late of Weltmin- 
 fter, in the County of Middlefex aforefaid, gentleman, Richard 
 Hodgfon, late of Weftmi niter, in the County of Middlefex 
 aforelaid, hatter, and John Baxter, late of the parifh of Saint 
 Leonard, Shoreditch, in the County of Middlefex aforefaid, 
 
 labourer,
 
 labourer, being fnbjech. of our faid Lord the King, not having 
 the fear of God in their hearts, nor weighing the duty of their 
 allegiance, but being moved ,ind feduoed by the inftigation ot. 
 the devil, as falfu Traitors again ft our faid Lord the King, their 
 iiipremc, true, lawful, and undoubted Lord, and wholly with- 
 drawing the cordial love and true qnd due obedience which every) 
 true and faithful fubjeft of our fajd Lord' the King f^ouM, and. 
 of right ought to bear towards our faid Lord the King, and con- 
 triving, and with all nheir ftrengtb intending, traitoroufly to 
 break and difturbthe peace and comwion tranquil it y of this king- 
 dom ot Gteat Britain, and to ftir, move, and excite infurreclion, 
 rebellion, and war, againft our faid Lord the King within this, 
 kingdom, and to fubvert and alter the legislature, rule, and go- 
 vernment, now duly and happiiv dtablilhtd in this kingdom, 
 and to depofe our faid Lord the Kinjj from the royal ftate, title, 
 power, and government of this kingdom, ^nd to brin^ and put 
 our faid Lord the King to death, on the fir ft day of March, in 
 the thirty-third year oi the reign of our Sovereign Lord the now 
 King, and on d:,vers ether days and times, as well before as 
 after, at the panfli of Sr. Giles aforefaid, m the County of Mid- 
 dle fex aforefaid, malicioufly and traitorouily, with force and 
 arms, &c. did amongft themfelves and together, \\ith divers 
 other falfe traitors, w.^ofe names are to the fdid Jurors unknown, 
 eonfpire, eompafs, imagine, and intend to ftir up, move, and 
 excite infurrcclinn, rebellion, and war, agami! our laid Lord 
 the King, within the kingdom of Gnat Britain, and to fubvert 
 and al'W the Lc^iflature, Rule, and Government, now duly and 
 happily eftabl'dvd v r' 1 n is kingdom oi Gr?at Briuiin, and to 
 depolc oir fai-; Loid the Krg from the r v i iL-u. title, power, 
 and G v- rniruiu t'-;- kingdom, and t; b ing and put our faid 
 Lord the King to deat' 1 . 
 
 AND TO r<ULi ; IL, perfccl, ^ to crT.d their moft 
 
 evil and wicked r j ui. ., ai payings and ima- 
 
 ginations aforeiaid, they the : ia;J Thoira- Hardy, ji' ; n H rne 
 Tooke, J"ihn Augnfii.-s Bonney, Sfe^^rr Kyd, J.-remiab J >yce, 
 Thomas Wardie, Thmr.as HoUrolt, J-ii-n !< .::', M.it'hevT 
 TVlo(-re, John Thelwali, Ri.cfurd Hcdguui, and J >hn B.\ti.r. as 
 fuch failt trait' rs as af. rclaicl, with force and arms, on the fnid 
 firftday of Match, in the thirty- third year atoKfaid, anci on d'vers 
 other days anci times, as well before as after, at the panlh of 
 Saint Giles aforefaid, in the county of Midd!eft-x aforefaid, 
 maiiciouily and traitoraudy did meet, eonfpire, conlult, and :.g. :e 
 among thi-'mielves, and together with divers other iatte trui.",rs, 
 whole names-are to the faid Jurors unknown, to caufe and pro- 
 cure a Convention and Meeting f divers fubjeds of our laid 
 Loid the King, to be aikiubled and held within this kingdom, 
 
 with
 
 t 23 J 
 
 with intent and in order that the perfons to be aflembled at fucli 
 Convention and Meeting fliould and might wickedly and traitor- 
 oufly, without and in defiance of the authority and againft the 
 will of the Parliament of this kingdom, fubvert and alter, and 
 catife to be fubverted and altered, the legiflature, rule, and go- 
 vernment, now duly and happily eftablifhed in this kingdom, and 
 depofe, and caufe to be depofed, our faid Lord the King, from 
 the royal date, title, power, a:ul government thereaf. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFIL, perfeft, and bring to 
 effedl their molt evil and wicked treafon and treafonable cotn- 
 pallitigs and imaginations aforefaid, and in order the more readily 
 and effectually to aifemble fuch Convention and Meeting as 
 aforefaid, for the traitorous purpofes aforefaid, and thereby to 
 accompliih the fame ptirpofes, they, the faid Thomas Hardy, 
 John Home Tooke, John Anguftus B;>nney, Stewart Kyd, Jere- 
 miah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thorna* Holcroft, John Richter, 
 Matthew Moore, John Thelwail, Richard Hodgfon, and John 
 Baxter, as fuch falfe traitors as aforefaid, together with diver's 
 other falfe traitors whofe names are to the Jurors aforefaid un- 
 known, on the faid firft day ot" March, in the thirty-third year 
 aforefaid, and on divers ottie. ays and times, as well before as 
 after, with firce and arms, at the parifh of Saint Giles aforefaid, 
 in the county of MidJiefex aforefaid, malicioufly and traitoroufly 
 did com pole and write, and did then and there malicioully and 
 traitoroiilly caufe to be compofed and written divers books, pam- 
 phlets', letters, inftruftions, resolutions, orders, declarations, ad- 
 dreffcs, and writings, an.i did then and there malicioufly and trai- 
 toroully publilh, and did then and there malicioufly and traitor- 
 oufly caufe to be publiAed divers other books, pamphlets, letters, 
 initnicVions, refoiutions, or.lers, declarations, addreffes and 
 wri'ings fo refpecliively compofed, written, publilhed, and 
 caufed to be compofed, written and publilhed, purporting and 
 containing therein, among other things, incitements, encourage- 
 ments, and exhortations, to move, induce, and perfuade the fub- 
 jefts of our faid Lord the King to choofe, depute, and fend, and 
 canfe to be chofen, deputed, and fent, perfons as delegates to 
 compofe and conftitute fuch Convention and Meeting as afore- 
 faid, to be fo holden as aforefaid, for the traitorous purpofes 
 aforefaid. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFIL, perfeft, and bring to 
 effe6t their mofl evil and wicked treafon and treafonable com- 
 pafliugs and imagirutions aforefaid, and in order the more readily 
 and effe&ually to aifembie fuch Convention and Meeting 'as 
 aforefaid, tor the traitorous purpofes aforefaid, and thereby to 
 accomplifli the fame purpofes, they the faid Thomas Hardy, 
 John Home Tooke, John AuguRus Bunney, Stewart K.yd, Jere- 
 
 miak
 
 [ 24 J 
 
 miah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thomas Holcrofr, John Richtef/ 
 Mattiiew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, and John 
 Baxter, as fuch falfe traitors as aforefaid, on the faid firft 
 day of March, in the thirty-third year aforefaid, and on divers 
 other days and times, as well before as after, with force and arms, 
 at the parilh of Saint Giles aforefaid, in the county of Middlefex 
 aforefaid, did meet, confult, and deliberate among themfelves, 
 and together with divers other falfe traitors whofe names are to 
 the faid Jurors unknown, of and concerning the calling and 
 affembling fuch Convention and Meeting as aforefaid, for the 
 traitorous purpofes aforefaid, and how, when, and where fuch 
 Convention and Meeting fhould be afTembled and held, and by 
 what means the fubje&s of our faid Lord the King mould and 
 might be induced and moved to fend perfonsas delegates to com- 
 pofe and conftitute the fame. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFIL, perfed, and bring to 
 effect their moft evil and wicked treafon and treafonable com- 
 paffings and imaginations aforefaid, and in order the more readily 
 and efftdlualiy to aifemble fuch Convention and Meeting as 
 aforefaid, tor the traitorous purpofes aforefaid, and thereby to ac- 
 complifh the fame purpofes, they, the faid Thomas Hardy, John 
 Home Tooke, Jolm Auguftus Bonney, Stewart Kyd, Jeremiah 
 Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thcma^ Holcroft, John Richter, Mat- 
 thew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, and John 
 Baxter, as fuch f<tlfe traitors as atorefaid, together with divers 
 other falfe traitors whofe names are to the Jurors aforefaid un- 
 known, on the firft day ot March, in the thirty-third year afore- 
 faid, and on divers other days and times, as well before as after, 
 with force and arms, at the parifh of Saint Giles aforefaid, in 
 the county of Middlefex aiorefaid, malicioufly and traitoioufljr 
 did confent and agree that the faid Jeremiah Joyce, John Au- 
 guftus Bonney, John Home Tooke, Thomas Wardle, Matthew 
 Moore, John Thelwall, John Baxter, Richard Hodgfon, one 
 John Lovett, one William Sharp, and one John Pearfon, fhould 
 meet, confer, and co-operate among themfelves, and together with 
 divers other i'alfe traitors whofe names are to the faid Jurors 
 unknown, for and towards the calling and aflTembling fuch Con- 
 vention and Meeting as aforefaid, tor the traitorous purposes 
 aforefaid. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFIL, perfeft, and bring to 
 effet their moft evil and wicked treafon and treafonable com- 
 paflings and imaginations aforefaid, they, the faid Thomas 
 Hardy, John Home Tooke, John Auguihis Bonney, Stewart 
 Kyd, Jeremiah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thomas Holcroft, 
 John Richter, Matthew Moore, John Thelwall, Rk hard Hodg- 
 lon, and John Baxter, as fuch talle traitors as aforefaid, together 
 
 with
 
 [ *5 J 
 
 tvith divers other falfe traitors whofe names are to the Jurors afore- 
 faid unknown, on the faid firlt day of March, in the thirty-third 
 year aforefaid, and on divers other days and times as well before 
 as after, with force and arms, at the parifh of Saint Giles aforefaid, 
 in the county of Middlefex aforefaid, malicioufly and traitorouily 
 did caufe and procure to be made and provided, and did then and 
 there malicioufly and traitoroufly confent and agree to the making 
 and providing of divers arms and offenfive weapons, to wit, guns, 
 mufquets, pikes, and axes, for the purpofe of arming divers fub- 
 jefts of our faid Lord the King, in order and to the intent that 
 the fame fubjccls ihould and might unlawfully, forcibly, and 
 traitoroufly oppofe and withftand our (aid Lord the King in the 
 due and lawful exercife of his royal power arid authority in the 
 execution of the laws and ftatutes of this realm, and Ihould and 
 might unlawfully, forcibly, and traitoroufly fubvert and alter, and 
 aid and allift in fubverting and altering, without and in defiance of 
 the authority and againft the will of the Parliament of this king- 
 dom, the Legiflature, Rule, and Government now duly and hap- 
 pily eftablifhed in this kingdom, and depofe, and aid and aflift in 
 depofing our faid Lord the King from the royal ftate, title, power, 
 and government of this kingdom. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFILL, perfea, and bring to 
 effect their moft evil and wicked treafon and treafonable conir 
 paflings and imaginations aforefaid, they, the faid Thomas Har- 
 dy, John Home Tooke, John Auguftus Bonney, Stewart Kyd, 
 Jeremiah Joyce, Thomas Warcile, Thomas Holcroft, John 
 Richter, Matthew Mopre, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, 
 and John Baxter, as fuch falfe traitors as aforefaid, with force 
 and arms, on the faid firft day of March, in the thirty-third year 
 aforefaid, and on divers other days and times, as well before as 
 after, at the parifh of Saint Giles aforefaid, in the county of 
 Middlefex aforefajd, malicioufly and traitoroufly did meet, con- 
 fpire, confult, and agree among themfelves, and with divers 
 other falfe traitors, whofe names are to the faid Jurors unknown, 
 to raife, levy, and make InfurrecYion, Rebellion, and War 
 within this kingdom of Great Britain, againtt our faid Lord the 
 King. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFILL, perfea, and bring to 
 effecl: their molt evil and wicked treafon and treafonable com- 
 paflings and imaginations aforefaid, they, the faid Thomas Har- 
 dy, John Home Tooke, John Auguftus Bonney, Stewart Kyd> 
 Jeremiah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thomas Hulcroft, John 
 Richter, Matthew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, 
 and John Baxter, as fuch falfe traitors as aforefaid, on the faid 
 firft day of March, in the thirty-third year aforefaid, and on di- 
 vers othar days and times, as well before as after, at thepariih of 
 
 D Saint
 
 C 26 ] 
 
 Saint Giles aforefaid, in the county of Midillefex aforefaid, with' 
 force and arms, malieioufly and traitorcufly did meet, confpire, 
 confult, and agree amongft themfelves, and together with divers 
 other falfe traitors, whofe names are to the faid Jurors unknown, 
 unlawfully, wicked'y, and traitoroufly to (V. overt and alter, and 
 caufe to be fubverted and altered, the Lcgiflature, Rule, and Go- 
 vernment now duly and happily tfhbiilhed in this kingdom, 
 and todepofe, and caufe to be depofed, ofbr faid Lord the King 
 from the royal Hate, title, power, and government of this king- 
 dom. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFILL, perfeft, and bring to 
 effect their moftevil and wicked treafon, and treafonable com- 
 paflings and imaginations aforefeid, *mi in order the more rea- 
 dily and effc&nally to bring about !> :h iubverfion, alteration, and 
 depofition as lalt afoittaid, they, the faid Thnmas Hardy, John 
 Home Tooke, John Auguftus Bonney, Stewart Kyd, Jeremiah- 
 Joyce, Thomas Wardte, Thomas Hokrcft, John !\ 
 Matthew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, :\ 
 Baxter, as fuch falle traitors as aforefaid, together win in. s. 
 other falfe traitors, whofe namesare to the Jurors a oref id un- 
 known, on the faid firft day of March, in the thirty-tbi'd \var- 
 aforefaid, and on divers other days and times, as well b^oie as 
 after, at the parifh of Saint Giles afoidaid, in the county of Mid-' 
 dlefex aforefaid, with force and arrn maiicioufly a.;d traitoroufly 
 did prepare and compofe, and did then and there malicioufly 
 and traitoroufly caufe and procure to be prepared and compofed,, 
 divers books, pamphlets-, le ters, declarations, initnxiVions, refo- 
 lutions, orders, addrelfts, and writings, and did then and there 
 malicioudy and traitoroufly publifh a>. d difperfe, an.l did then 
 and there malicioufly and traitoroufly caufe and procure to be 
 piiblifhe-d and difperfed divers other books, pamphlets, letters, 
 declaration, inttruclions, refolutions, orders, addreifes, and wri- 
 tings, the faid feveral books, pamphlets, letters, declarations in- 
 flruclions, refolutions, orders, addreffes, and writings, fo refpec- 
 tively prepared, compofed, publifhed, difperfed, andcaufed to be 
 prepared, ccmpofed, publilhed, and difperfed as lalt afi>rtfaid, 
 purporting and coi;taining therein (amongft other things) incite- 
 ments, encouragements, and exhortations, to move, induce, and 
 perftiade the fubjeds rf our faid Lord the K'ng, to aid and 
 aiTilt in carrying into effect fuch traito ous fubverfion, alteration, 
 and ckpofition as laft aforefaid, and alfo containing therein, 
 amongft other things, information, inrtruc+ions, and directions to 
 the fubjets of our laid Lord the King, how, when, and upon 
 what occafions the traitorous purpofes laft aforefaid ihould and 
 might be carried into efFccl. 
 
 AND FURTHER TO FULFILL, perfect, and bring to
 
 c * 7 J 
 
 their moft evil and wicked ireafon, and freafonable com- 
 paflings and imaginations aforefaid, they, the faid Thomas Har- 
 dy, J 'hn Home Took e, John Auguflus Bonney, Stewart Kyd, 
 Jeiemiah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thomas Holcrofr, John 
 Richter, Matthew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard Hodgfon, 
 and John Baxter, as fuch talfe traitors as aforefaid, together 
 with divers other falfe traitors, whole names are to the Jurors 
 aforefaid unknown, on, the faid firft day of March, in the thirty- 
 third year aforefaid, and on divers other days and times, as well 
 before as after, at the pariih of St. Giles aforeiaid, in the county 
 of Middlefex aforefaid, with force and arms malicioufly and 
 traitoroully did procure and provide, and did then and there ma- 
 licioufly and traitorouHy caufe and procure to be provided, and did 
 then and there malicioufly and traitoroufly cohfent and agree to 
 the procuring and providing arms and offenfive weapons (to wit) 
 guns, mufquets, pikes, and axes, therewith to levy and wage war, 
 infurreciion, a;id rebellion againft our faid Lord the King within 
 this kingdom, againft the duty of the allegiance of them the faid 
 Thomas H.mly, John Home Tookc, John Augultus Bonney, 
 Stewart Kyd, Jeremiah Joyce, Thomas Wardle, Thomas Hol- 
 crofr, John Richter, Matthew Moore, John Thelwall, Richard 
 Hodgfon, and John Baxter, againft the peace of our faid Lord 
 the now King, his crown and dignity, and againft the form of 
 the ttatute in that calc made and provided. 
 
 Scffions-kcufe, Clerkemvell, Monday^ Ofiolcr 6. 
 The court fat, purfnant to adjournment. At two o'clock, 
 the gentlemen of the Grand Jury made their iirft prefentment. 
 Names of the Perfons againjl whom true Bills are found far High 
 
 Tre/ifon. 
 
 Thomas Hardy, Thomas Holcroft, 
 
 John HorneTooke, John Richter, 
 
 John Auguftus Bonney, Matthew Moore, 
 
 Stewart Kyd, John Thelwall, 
 
 j-icmiah Joyce, Richa-.d Hodgfon, and 
 
 Yhornas Wardle, John Baxter. 
 
 Not found n;;ainlt John Lovat. 
 
 All thefe perf-ns are includtd in one Bill, which was prefented 
 to the Grand Jury. Three of them, viz. Thomas Wardle, 
 .Matthew Moore, and R. Hodgfon, are ftill at large. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir James Eyre obfcrved, that the gentle- 
 men of the Grand Jury had been engaged in a very arduous duty ; 
 that being the fourth dav of their attendance. His Lordfhip 
 
 D 2 afted
 
 L *8 ] 
 
 aflced them, if they meant to proceed any further in their enqui- 
 ries that day ? 
 
 The Foreman replied, that they did, as there was one Bill 
 before them. 
 
 His Lorfhip afked them, about what time they thought they 
 would be ready with it ? 
 
 The Foreman hoped they mould hear all the evidence on it 
 next day, at ten o'clock. 
 
 His Lordlhip informed them, he mould certainly be there 
 to-morrow at that hour. 
 
 The Foreman faid, he had been defired by all the other gcn- 
 tlemen of the Grand Jury,torequeftofhis Lordftiip, that he would 
 order the very excellent charge he had delivered to them to be 
 printed. 
 
 His Lordlhip faid, the gentlemen of the Grand Jury did him 
 great honour ; and as he had not delivered that charge entirely 
 without notes, he hoped to be able to comply with their requeft. 
 The Itarned Judge then afked the Attorney General, when, 
 the Bills would be ready, as they muft be delivered to the pri- 
 foners ten days before the trials commenced. 
 
 The Attorney General faid, he did not know, but hoped tp be 
 able to give his Lordfhip an anfwer to-morrow. 
 
 By 7 ann. c. 21. All perfons indicted for High Treafon, and 
 Mifprifion of Treafon, mall have not only a copy of the indidr.- 
 ment, but a lift of all the witneffes to be produced, and of 
 the Jurors empanneiled, with their profeffions, and places of 
 abode, delivered to them ten days before the trial, and in the 
 prefer.ce of two witnefles, the better to enable them to make 
 theii; challenges and their defence. v 
 
 His Lordlhip faid, he did not know whether there were any 
 gentlemen prefent, who were concerned as Attornies dr Agents 
 for the perfons againft whom bills had been found. If there were, 
 hisLordlhip wiflied it to beunderftood, that upon any application 
 that is made, either to that court, or to the court at the Old 
 Bailey, or to either of the Juftices of either of thofe courts, by 
 the Attornies or Agents of any of the perfons indicted, that coun- 
 fel would be afligned to them ; and that they, their Attornies, 
 and Agents, wouKl have proper accefs to them. This his Lordlhip 
 wi(bed to be underftood once for all, without calling for the 
 perfonal attendance of thofe who were now in cuftody, until 
 arraignment. His Lordfhip faid, hisreafon for faying this was, 
 that it might be harrafling to the perfons, now in confinement, 
 to be brought there, to be told that indictments had been found 
 againft them, and that they would have a copy of them, &c, 
 ii.s Lordihip, therefore, begged that intimation might fomo 
 how or other be given to thofe now in cuftody. . 
 The court then ajourned, until next day, at ten o'clock. 
 
 LIST
 
 1 *9 1 
 LIST of the PETTY JURORS fummmud. 
 
 Aclon. Thomas Buck, efq. 
 
 Back-lane. John Warner, gent. 
 
 Baker-flreet, Portman-fquare. Thomas Skipp Dyott Bucknell, efq. 
 
 Barnet. Benjamin Bradbury, Fryer's-lane, Fryer's-barnet, gent.' 
 
 Bedford-fquare. Jofeph Shrimpton, Efq. 
 
 Beihnal-green. Jofiah Boydell, gent. 
 
 Bow. Thomas Saycr, efq. and diftiller ; Edward Gordon, efq. 
 ftnd brewer; Mark Hudfon, efq. and brewer. 
 
 Brentford. Hugh Ronalds, efq. and nurfery-man ; David Roberts, 
 diftiiler. 
 
 Broad-JIreet, St. George's in the Eajl. Jofeph Ainflie, coal-mcrhant. 
 
 Bromley. Nathaniel Stonard, brewer; Charles Smith, diftiller; 
 Chriftopher Met alf, efq. and diftiller. 
 
 Brompton. Thomas Hammerfly, efq. and banker; Hanbury Potter, 
 Old Brompton, efq. 
 
 JSuckingham-Jlreet. Archibald Paxton, wine-merchant. 
 
 Bur-Jtreet, Eajl-fmithfidd. Thomas Allen, brewer; Rice Davies, 
 fq. 
 
 Chancery-lane. Richard Mafters, efq. and banker ; Thomas Druce, 
 ftationer. 
 
 Charing-crojs. Charles Fourdrinier, ftationer; James Shepnell, 
 filverfmith. 
 
 Charlolte-ftreet, Rrthbone-place. Edward Campion, efq. and wine- 
 merchant; Ifaac Mark, gent. 
 
 Charterhoufe-fquare. Lacy Primatt, efq. and chemift. 
 
 Cheny-Jlreet, Bedjord-fquare. John Peavey, cooper. 
 
 Chijwick. Thomas Laurence, Strand on the Green, efq. John 
 Thompfon, brewer; Thomas Beach, Strand on the Green, efq. 
 
 Clerkenwell. Apfley Pellatt, St. John's-ftreet, ironmonger; John 
 Gueft, ditto, efq. and potter ; George Fillingham, ditto, hoplaftor; 
 David Dean, ditto, cheefemonger ; John Wright, Red Lion-Ibeet, 
 watch cafe-maker. 
 
 Cockfpur-ftred. James Oliphant^ hatter ; James Crompton, paper 
 hanging-maker. 
 
 Colnbrook. Henry Bullock, this fide of Colnbrook, efq. 
 
 Dalton. Cecil Pitt, efq. 
 
 Downing-ftreet, Wejlminjier. Thomas Maude, efq. and army agent. 
 
 Dukn-jlrcct, Wtftminjler. Calvert Clapham, gent. 
 
 Eating. Thomas Wood, Hanging-hill, efq. and coal-merchant ; 
 Richard Meux, efq. Hnd brewer ; Robert Winn, Lower-fide, etq. 
 Richard Hunt, Windmill-lane, efq. Sampfon Bowles, efq. and ha- 
 berdaflher ; John Baker, efq. James Smith, efq. and perfumer ; Ro- 
 bert Vincent, efq. Thomas Smith, Upper-fide, efq. and difliller ; 
 Edward Roberts, efq. Thomas Cheap, efq. 
 
 Edgware. Thomas Cockington, gent. 
 
 Edmonton. Daniel Goffer., efq. and broker ; John Blackburn, efq. 
 and merchant; Thomas Lewis, South-flrect, efq. and Irifh-faftor. 
 
 * Mree.
 
 I 30 ] 
 
 El/lree. Samuel Rudge, efq John Rudge, efq. 
 Enfietd; Matthias Dupont, of the Chace-fide. gent, wine and 
 brandy-merchant; George Capes, efq. and warehoufeman ; Rich- 
 ard Gough, Forty-hill, e(q. William Emerfon, Bufh-hill, efq. John 
 Horfley, Bull's-crofs, efq. Henry Punier, Chace-fide, efq. George 
 Ellward, ditto, efq. and upholder; Chriftopher Strothoff, Bull's- 
 crois, efq. and merchant. 
 
 FinchUy. Thomas Allen, Eaft-end, efq. William Hamerton, efq. 
 Thomas Gildart, Nether-ftreet. efq. and merchant. 
 
 Frith- fir eet, Soho. Alexander Trotter, efq. and upholder. 
 
 Fulham. Robert Lewis, North-end, efq. John James, efq. 
 
 Goodman's-jields. Major Rhode, Lemon-ftreet, efq. and fuaar- 
 baker. 
 
 Gefiocll-Jlreet. Robert Hawkins, coal-merchant. 
 
 Gray's-um-lane. Thomas Harrifon, Cowkeeper. 
 
 Great George-Jlreet, Wejlminjler. Francis Jenks, gent. 
 
 Gretk-JIreet. Jofiah Wedgwood, potter. 
 
 Green-Jlrcet, Grvfvenor-fquare. George Brooks, efq. and banker ; 
 James Fifher, the elder, elq. 
 
 Hackney. Thomas Boddingt'on, efq. Charles Digby, Mare-flreef, 
 efq. 
 
 Hammerfmith. James Dorville, efq. Simon Lefage, efq. Bryan 
 Marfhall. gent. Benjamin Goodifon, efq. James Keene, grocer ; 
 Henry O'fba'.difton, efq. 
 
 Hampjiead. Philip Godfall, gent, and coachmaker; John Peter 
 Blaquire, efq. and merchant; Thomas Rhodes, Hamp (lead-road, 
 cowkeeper. 
 
 Hampton. Thomas Chadwick, efq. John Hillman, efq. 
 
 HanwM. William Harwood, efq. 
 
 ffartifdozun-hill, near Harrow, William Nichol, farmer. 
 
 Hatton-garden. Nathaniel Wright, furveyor. 
 
 Hayes. John Blencovve, efq. 
 
 Hendon. Michael Collinfon, efq. Edward Hill, gent- 
 
 Highgate. Edward Hale, gent. Samuel Provey, efq. and weavtr. 
 
 High-Jlreet, Mary-le-bone. James Sheridine, efq. 
 
 Hiltington. Samuel Marfh. efq. William Perry, efq. and doclor 
 ofphyfic; James Cook, efq. 
 
 Holborn. Robert Mairis, near G,reat Turn ftile, gent. 
 
 Horn/ey. David Duveluz, efq. and merchant, John Mayhew, efq. 
 and upholder. 
 
 IJlington. Samuel Pullen, gent. 
 
 Kcnjington. James Wheble, gentleman and tallow-chandler ; Joha 
 \V'alker, Square, efq.Thomas Ayliffe,efq. Samuel Palmer, efq. Law. 
 Helme, Parfon's-yard, efq. Jefiery Holmes, Young-ftreet, efq. - 
 Alexander Baxter, efq. Edward Green, Square, efq. Edmund Jcn- 
 ning$,Young-ftreet, efq. Stephen Aifley, efq. Robt. Willfon, Square, 
 efq, Thomas Sanders, Filiimore-place, efq. John Mafon, efq. John 
 Battye, efq. Thomas Burnett, Parfon's-yard, efq. John Robinkm, 
 efq. Ifaac Lucas, efq. and oilman; Jhn Jenkinfon, efq. Thomas 
 
 Robin-
 
 [ s< r 
 
 Robinfon, Church-lane, efq. and gardener; John Butts, efq. and 
 ironmonger. 
 , Km^hljbndge. Sir Jofeph Andrews, bart. 
 
 Limehoufc. Robert Batlon, (hip-builder; Robert Mellifh, fhip- 
 builder ; James Mitchel, rope-maker ; Adam Steinmetz, biftuit- 
 baker ; Jeremiah Blakeman, timber-merchant; Thomas Bird, difliL 
 ler ; Charles Turner, fail-nuker ; Thomas Draine, brewer; Emanuel 
 Goodheart, fu gar-refiner ; ChriftopherRichardfon, timber-merchant, 
 Norrifon Coverdale, rope-maker ; Anthony Calvert, merchant. 
 
 L.ijfon-gret.n. James Stephens, efq. 
 
 JLondon-Jlrttl, Tvttenham-courl-road. George Sewell, gent. 
 
 Marlborciugh-Jtrcd; (Great). John Harrop, gent. 
 
 MiU-end. John Charrington, efq. and brewer; John Liptratfc 
 efq. and difliiler ; Ralph Keddey, efq. and merchant. 
 
 Mimms ( 'South j. Francis Baroneau,efq. 
 
 Moorfields. Samuel Mills, weaver. 
 
 Newmgton (Stoke J. George Rigby, efq. and Irifh-faftor ; Jona- 
 than Eade,efq. and fhip-chandler. 
 
 New-road, Tottenham-court-road. Jofhua Brooks, dqalcr in birde ; 
 John White, efq. and builder; Cam Farmer, gent. 
 
 Northumberland-Jlteet. Henry Capel, gent. 
 
 Oid-Jireet. Richard Child, diftillcr. 
 
 Ormond-flrect) (New}. Thomas Nixon, efq. and merchant ; Wil- 
 liam Cooke, efq. 
 
 Paddmgton-/treit,St. Mary -It-bone. Richard Carter, efq. 
 
 Pall-mall. Richard Cioft, efq. and Banker. 
 
 Pcrcy-Jtreet, Rathl 'one-place. Thomas Elmfley, efq. 
 
 Pimlico, George Shakelpear, elq. and ouilder. 
 
 Poplar. John Fowfey, carpenter and furveyor. 
 
 Ponman-fquare. William Atwick, efq. 
 
 Potter's-bar, near Northam. Francis Hammond, efq. 
 Prince t-Jtrcet, . Rtd-lion-Jquare. John Lovett, g.ent. 
 
 Qja.ecn-Jqu.are, Bloomjbury. William Frafer, efq. William Moffatt^ 
 efq. and merchant ; William Ainoid. elq. 
 
 Queen-Jtreet, (GreatJ, Lincoln' s-mn-Jields. Robert Kilby Cox, efq^ 
 and brewer. 
 
 Ratdiff. Charles Bowles, Glafs-houfe-yard, Sun-tavern-fields, 
 gldfi-manufafturer ; Jofeph Bird, Cock-hill, efq. and fail-maker ^ 
 John Thompfon, Sun-tavern-fic!ds, rope-maker. 
 
 Rathlionf-plaf. Hugh French, efq. and apothecary. 
 
 Ru/el-place. Sir John Crofts, bart. Charles iiilhop, efq. and 
 pioftor. 
 
 St. Catherine's. William Maihiter, wharfinger; Henry Goodwyn, 
 efq. and brewer. 
 
 St. jFamcs's-Jireet, Piccadilly. James Crane, efq. 
 
 Seymour-ftr(et (Upper j> Mary-lc-bone. William Phillirnore, efq. 
 
 ShadwtU. Newell Connop, dilhller ; Arlhur Shakefpear, Stcpney- 
 caufeway, efq. and rone-maker; Matthew Whiting, ditto, lu-^ ; - 
 rcfiner. 
 
 Shore-
 
 [ 3* 1 
 
 Shoreditch. Thomas Proftor, Holly well-ftreer, efq* and brewer ; 
 John Marfhall, ditto, efq. 
 
 Smithficld, (EaftJ. William Down, wharfinger; Rawfon Aifla* 
 bie, wine- merchant and foap- boiler. 
 
 Somer's-town. John Harrifon, Duke's-row, gent. 
 
 Southampton-place, New-road. James Haygarth, efq. and builder ; 
 John Mandell, gent. Thomas Matthews, gent. 
 
 Southampton-row, Bloom/bury. George Wade, Stockbroker. 
 
 South Motton-jlrcet. John Pratt, gent. 
 
 Spring-gardens. Edmund Antrobus, New-ftreet, efq. and banker. 
 
 Stanmort. Samuel Dickenfon, efq. Charles Wiggin, efq. 
 
 Strand. George Jefferys, jeweller and filverfmith. 
 
 bunbury. Roger Boehm, efq. and merchant; Dicker Saunders, 
 efq. James Shergold, efq. William Parker, efq. 
 
 Teddington. William Sandby, efq. and banker. 
 
 Tottenham. Thomas Powell, High-ciols, efq. and merchant, 
 William Row, ditto, efq. and broker; Charles Pratt, miller. 
 
 Tottenhnm-Jtreet. John Leader, gent. Jofeph Mawley, gent. 
 
 Turnham-yrttn. James Payne, efq. 
 
 Turnmiil-jtrtet, Cotu-crofs. Philip Booth, diftiller. 
 
 Twickenham. John Davenport, efq. and woollen-draper ; George 
 Gofling, efq. and banker; Benjamin Green, efq. and regifier in 
 Chancery ; Edmund Hill. Whilton, efq. and gunpowder merchant. 
 
 Uxbridge. John Mercer, mealman ; Daniel Cock, diftiller. 
 
 Wappin^. Thomas Martin, King Edward-ftairs, oilman ; John 
 Rixon, Hermitage-ftreet, cooper; Daniel Martin, Red Lion-ft; eet. 
 efq. Andrew Burt, Charlotte-ftreet, efq. Michael Henley, co^l- 
 merchant ; Nathaniel Allen, Wappir.g-wall, (hip-chandler. 
 
 WeUcioJe-fquart. Iheophilus Pritzier, fugar-ieimei ; Caflcu Rohde, 
 efq. and lugar-refiner. 
 
 ll'hitcchapel. Henry Bullock, High-ftreet, brewer. 
 
 H'tlfden. Jofeph Nicoll, Ncafdown, genileman-farmer } Edward 
 Franklin, farmer. 
 
 -green. Richard Page, efq. 
 
 A LIST of the WITNESSES SUBPOENAED, 
 MIDDLESEX. 
 
 The King againft Thomas Hardy, John Home TookeJ)hn 
 Augultus Eonncy, Stuart Kyd, Jeremiah Joyce, Thomas War- 
 die, Thomas Holcroft, John Richter, Matthew Moore, John 
 Thelwall, Richard Hodgibri, and John Baxter. 
 
 Upon an lndi,:trncnt for High '1 reafon. 
 
 Alexander Aitchybn, Uudent of medicine, reiiding in Cannongate, 
 of Edinburgh, in ihepanfh of Cannongate, in the county of Edin-r 
 kur^h, a pnlonerin the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. 
 
 Henry
 
 L 33 1 
 
 Hairy Alexander, abiding at the Rofe-tavern, Fleet-market, in 
 the City of London, Linen-draper. 
 
 Daniel Adams, of Took's-court, Curlitor-ftreet, in the county of 
 Middldex, gentleman. 
 
 George Allen, of Turner's-court, Bedford-Bury, in the county of 
 Middlei'ex, one of the conftables attending the Public-office in 
 Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 John. Arm/lrong, of Kingfland-road, in the parifh of St. Leo- 
 nard, Shoreditch. in the county of Middlefex, one of the conftables 
 attending the Police-office, in Worfhip-ftreet, in the faid county. 
 
 James Agar, of Hare-court, in the Temple, barrifter at law. 
 
 Jofeph Butterworth, of Fleet-ftreet, London, bookfeller. 
 
 John Bullock, of Church-yard-court, in the Inner-temple, Lon- 
 don, ftationer to the Board of Ordnance. 
 
 William Broomhead, of Watfon's-walk, Sheffield, in the county 
 of York, cutler and fciffar finifher, now in cuftody, at thehoufe of 
 Mrs. Mary Parkinfon, in Little Charles-ftreet, Wcftminfter, in 
 the county of Middlefex. 
 
 Grant Brou^hton, one of his Majefty's meffengers in ordinary, 
 abiding at the houfe of the Right Honourable ihc Marquis of 
 Salifbury, in Arlington-ftreet, in the county of Middlefex. 
 
 Bernard Baylty, of Union-crefcent, Kent-road, in the county of 
 Surry, gentleman, one of the clerks of the Police-office, in Lam- 
 beth-fired, Whitechapel, in the county of Middlefex. 
 
 Joftph Burchdl, of the Sheriff 's-office, in Took's-court, and re- 
 fiding in great James-ftreet, Bedford-row, in the county of Mid- 
 dlefex, attorney at law. 
 
 George Cheek Barnes, of Noble-ftreet, Gofwel-ftreet, in the 
 county of Middlefex, printer. 
 
 John Boult, of Red-lion-court, Charier-houfe-lane, London, 
 Jiewfman and ticket porter. 
 
 Thomas Blackburne, of Craven-ftreet, City-road, in the county of 
 Middlefex, paper hanger and undertaker. 
 
 William Black, of York-ftreet, Wefttninfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex, green grocer, and one of the conftables attending the 
 Public-office in Bow-flreet, Covent-garden, in the laid county. 
 
 Robert Btrtsford, refiding at the corner of Bennet's-court, Drury- 
 lane, in the county of Middlefex, taylor and green grocer, and 
 one of the conftables attending the Public- office in Bow-ftrect, 
 Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Arthur Blake, of Devonfhire-ftreet, Portland-place, in the 
 county of Middlefex, efq. 
 
 Richard Bennct, of Redman 's-row, Bcthnal-green, in the county 
 of Middlefex, warehoufernan. 
 
 William Barclay, of Duke's-court, St. Martin's-lane, in the 
 county of Middlefex, fhocmaker. 
 
 Nathaniel Birch, of Vine-ftreet, in the parifh of St. John, Weft- 
 mini fter, in the county of Middlefex, labourer, one of the patroles 
 attending the Public-office in Bow-ftrset, Covent-garden, in the 
 faid county. 
 
 E Anthony
 
 Anthony Beck, of Oxford-ftreer, in the county of Middlefcx, 
 fadler. 
 
 John Burfey, of Blackman-ftreet, in the Borough of Southwark, 
 in the county of Surrey, one of the clerks in the Auditor's-ofEcc, 
 Somerfet-place. 
 
 John Bone, of Wefton-ftrert, Snow's-fields, Southwark, in the 
 county of Surrey, muflin clearer. 
 
 IViUixm Carnage, of Fargate-flreet, Sheffield, in the county of 
 York, mkbottlc ;;iuker, now in cuftody at the houfe of Mrs. Mary 
 Parkinfon, in Little Charles- Hi eet, Weftrninfter, in the county 
 of Middlefex. 
 
 John Child, of Crown-ftreet, Weftminfher, in the county of 
 Middlefex, one of his Majefty's melTcngers in ordinary. 
 
 John Cost's, a foldier, in the Birmingham Volunteers, late of 
 China-walk, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, apprentice to 
 John Philip Francklow, taylor, and now refiding with his father, 
 Chriftopher Coates, of Little College-ftreet, Weftminfler, in the 
 county of Middlefex. 
 
 Stephen Cottrell, of Grofvenor-place, in the county of Middlefex, 
 efq. one o! the cleiks of his Majelty's mod Hon. Privy Co ncil. 
 
 U'dliam Carter, of Angel-alley, Long-acre, in the county of 
 Middlefex, Dill flicker. 
 
 Patrick Colquhoun,' of Charles-fquare, Hoxton, in the county of 
 Middlefex, efq. one of the Juftices of the Police-office, in Wor- 
 fhip-ftreet, Shoreditch, in the faid county. 
 
 Thomas Chapman, of Fleet-ilreet, London, bookfeller. 
 
 John Combes, of Oakham, in the county of Rutland, attorney 
 at law. 
 
 Chriftopher C"idLand t of Kemp's-court, Berwick-ftreet, Soho, 
 in the county of Middlefex, fhoernaker, and one of the conftables 
 attending the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the 
 {aid county. 
 
 Thomas Carpmeal, of Bow-ftreet, .Covent-garden, in the county of 
 Middlefex, victualler, and one of the conftables attending {he Pub- 
 lic-office it) liow-ftrcet, aforefaid. 
 
 Henry Croker, of Tottenharn-court-road, in the county of Mid- 
 dlefex, broker, and one of the conftables attending the Public- 
 office in Bow-ftreel, Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Jtihn Chapman, of Dean-ftreet, Fetter-lane. London, labourer. 
 
 Alexander Cornty, of Red-lion-court, Watling ftrcet, in the city 
 of London, fhoe-fiicior. 
 
 James Clark, efq. (he riff deputy, of the county of Edinburgh, refi- 
 ding in George-fquare^ in the parifh of St, Cuthbert's, in the faid 
 county* 
 
 John Chatfield, of Back-hill, HaUon-garden, in the county of 
 Middieley. timber merchant. ' 
 
 Bernard Cobbe, of Walnut-tree-walk, I-ambeth, in the county of 
 Surry. one of the clerks in the Auditor's office, Somcrfet-place. 
 
 If it' i am Clarke, of Mount-row, Lambeth, in the county of Surry, 
 meflenger to the folicitor for the affairs of his Majefty's treafury. 
 
 Htnry
 
 [ 35 J 
 
 Henry Dtaltry, of Effex-ftreet, in the county of Middlefex, clerk 
 of the rules, on the crown lide of his Majefty's court of King's- 
 bench. 
 
 Richard Davifon, of Sheffield, in the county of York, printer. 
 
 James David/on, of Ruffel-ptace, Ruffel-ftreet, Covent-garden, in 
 the county of Middlefex, printer. 
 
 William Dakin, of Downing-ftreet, Weftminfler, door porter at 
 the office of Lord Grenville., one of his Majefty's principal fecre- 
 taries of ftate, fituate in Downing-ftreet aforefaid. 
 
 jfofeph Dcboffe, of Gerard-ftreet, Soho, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, . bookfeller. 
 
 jfoffph Edwards, the younger, of Jewin-ftreet, London, filver- 
 fmith, now in cuftody at the houfe of William Needham, in Cork- 
 flrect, Hanover-fquare, in the counly of Middlefex, one of his 
 Majefty's meffengers in ordinary. 
 
 Daniel Ifaac Eaton, of Newgate-ftreet, London, bookfeller. 
 
 Henry Eaton, of Newgate-ftreet, London, the fon of Daniel 
 Ifaac Eaton, of the fame place, bookiellcr. 
 
 Evan Evans, late a prifoner in the cuftody of the Marfhal of the 
 Marfh -Tea. of the Court of King's-bench, grocer) now refiding at 
 the houle of Samuel Giles, at Ncwington-caufeway, in the county 
 of Surry. 
 
 Ann, the wife of the above-named Evan Evans, now refiding at 
 the hou-fe of Samuel Giles, at Nevvington-caufeway, in the county 
 of Surry. 
 
 Samuel Edwards, of Beaufort-buildings, in the Strand, in the 
 county of Middlcfex, wine merchant. 
 
 John Fro/I, late of Spring-garden, Weftminfter, but now of 
 Pinner, in the county of Middlefex, gentleman, late an attorney 
 of the court of King's-bench. 
 
 Richard Ford, of Sloan-ftreet, in the county of Middlefex, efq 
 one of the Juftices at the Public-office in Bow-flreet, Covent- 
 garden, in the faid county. 
 
 William Fazukener, of South-ftreet, Park-lane, in the parifh of St. 
 George, Hanover fquare, in the county of Middlefex, efq. one of 
 the clerks of his Majefiy's moft Hon. Privy-council. 
 
 Edward Fugion , of the Pleafant-retreat, Palmer's-village, Tothill- 
 fields, in the county of Middlefex, fhoemaker, and one of the 
 officers of the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the 
 faid county. 
 
 William H(nry Fallofield, of Inner-Scotland yard, in the county 
 of Middlefex, attorney at law. 
 
 William Fitzgerald, of the Middle-temple, London, barrifter at 
 law. 
 
 John Fair/ev, of Broughton, in the parifh of St. Cuthbert's, in 
 the county of Edinburgh, wright, u prifoner in the Caftle of Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 Ifaac Fawcett, the younger, of Camomile-ftreet, Bifhopfgate- 
 reet, in the city of Loudon. attorney at law. 
 Thomas Funnage, of Windmill-ftrcet, Tottenham-court-road, 
 
 E 2 i:\
 
 [ 36 3 
 
 in the county of> Middlefex, collector of the rate for paving, &c. 
 within the parifh of Saint Pancras, in the faid county. 
 
 Ffittutm Fletcher, of Lincoln's-Inn, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, barrifterat law. 
 
 Duncan Grant, of Strutton-ground, Weftminfter, in the county 
 of Middlefex, one of the conftables attending the Public-office in 
 Bow-ftreef, Co vent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Edward Co/ling, late of Hoxton, in the parifh of Saint Leonard, 
 Shoreditcb, in the county of Middlefex, but now refiding at the 
 houle of James Biflet, Upper-broker-row, Moorfields, in the faid 
 county, and clerk to William Wickham, efq. one of the Juf- 
 tices at the Police-office in Lambeth-ftreet, Whitechapel, in the 
 faid county. 
 
 John Gurncll, of King-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the county of Mid- 
 dlefex, one of his Majefty's meflengers in ordinary. 
 
 Richard Gay, of Hopkins-ftreet, Saint James's, in the county of 
 Middlefex, drug and perfume grinder, a prifoner in thccuftody of 
 the Marfhal of the Marfhalfea, of the court of King's-bench, in the 
 King's-bench-prifon, in Saint George's-Fields, in the county of 
 Siury. 
 
 Thomas Green, of Orange-ftreet, Leicefter-fields, in the county of 
 Middlefex, perfumer. 
 
 John Gurnty, of Effex-court, in the Middle-temple, barrifter at 
 law. 
 
 Alexander Grant, of Wardour-ftreef, Soho, in the county of 
 Middlefex, printer. 
 
 William Goiobcd, of Hofier-lane, Weft-fmithfield, London, 
 newfman. 
 
 Roger Gajlrtll, of Hemlock-court, Cary-flreet, in the county of 
 Middlefex, taylor, and green-grocer, and one of the conflables 
 attending the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covcnt-garden, in the 
 faid county. 
 
 Arthur Gliddon, of Great Ormond-ftreet, Queen's-fquare, in the 
 county of Middlefex, attorney at law. 
 
 John Griffiths, of Plumber's-row, Mile-end-old-town, in the coun- 
 ty of Middlefex. carpenter and joiner, and one of the conftables 
 attending the Police-office in Lambeth-ftreet, Whitechapel, in th 
 laid county. 
 
 Thomas Griffiths, of Fafhion-ftreet, Spital fields, fawyer, and affift- 
 ant conftable at the Police-office in Lambeth-ftreet, Whitechapel, 
 in the county of Middlefex. 
 
 Thomas Qltgg, No. 60, Charing-crofs, Weftminfter, in the coun- 
 ty of Middlefex, gentleman, clerk to Mr. White, of No. 6, Lin- 
 col n's-inn. 
 
 John Groves, of Crown-court, Ruffel-ftreet, Covent-garden, in 
 the county of Middlefex, gentleman. 
 
 Richard llaywa^d. of Friendly-place, Shoreditch, in the county 
 of Middlefex, wax-chandler, now a.priloner in his Majefty's gaol 
 ol \'ewgat<*. 
 
 Higgins, of outh-ftreet, in the parilh of Saint G/eorge, 
 
 Han-
 
 [ 37 3 
 
 Hanover-fquare, in the county of Middlefex, one of his Majefty'i 
 ffitilengers in ordinary. 
 
 Chrijtophtr Hull, of Chancery-lane, attorney at law. 
 
 Edward Hod fan, of Bell-yard, near Temple-bar, printer. 
 
 Henry Hill, of Fargate-ftreet, in Sheffield, in the county of York, 
 Cutler, now in cuftody at the houfe of Mrs. Mary Paikinfon, in 
 Litile Char!es-(treet, Weftminfter, in the county of Middlefex. 
 
 John Hancock, of Chichefter-rents, in Chancery-lane, in tho 
 county of Middlefex, gentleman, clerk to Mr. White, of No. 6, 
 Lincoln's-Inn. 
 
 ll'illiam Hujkiffbn, of Pall-mall, in the county 6f Middlefex, efq. 
 chief clerk in the office of the Rt. Hon. Henry Dundas, one of his 
 Majefty's principal fecretaries of ftate. 
 
 Edward Harvey, of Lamb-ftreet, Spital-fquare, in the county 
 of Middlefex, warehoufeman. 
 
 John Hollingworth, of Threadneedle-ftreet, London, banker. 
 
 John Hillier, of Bifhopfgate-ftreet, London, bookleller, now a 
 priloner in his Majefty's gaol of Newgate. 
 
 Jeremiah Samuel Jordan, of Fleet-Itreet, in the city of London, 
 bookfeller. 
 
 Jofeph Johnfon, of St. Paul's Church-yard, in the city of Lon- 
 don, bookfeller. 
 
 Jofeph Clayton Jennings, of Hart-flreet, Bloomlbury, in the 
 county of Middlefex, barnfter at law. 
 
 Charles Jealous, of Brownlow-flreet, Drury-lane, in the county 
 of Middlefex, fadler, and one of the conftables attending the, 
 Public-office in Bow-ftreer, Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Jojhua Joyce, of Effex-Itreet, in the Strand, in the county of. 
 Middlefex, tallow-chandler. 
 
 Thomas Jones, of Milford-Iane, in the Strand, in the county of 
 Middlefex, labourer and one of the conftables attending the 
 Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-gardeu, in the faid county. 
 
 William Jones, efq. of St. George's-fields, iiv the county of 
 Surrey, marlhal of the Marfhalfca, of the court of King's-bench. 
 
 David George Jacmar, of Frith-ftreet, Soho, in the county of 
 Middlclex, one of the clerks in the Auditor's-office, in Somerfet- 
 place. 
 
 H'illiam Johnfon, of the Inner-temple, London, attorney at law. 
 
 John King, of Queen-ftreet, Queen's-fquare, Weftminfter, iri 
 the county of Middlefex, efq. one of his Majefty's under fecre- 
 tarjes of ftaie. 
 
 John Kir by, keeper of his Majefty's gaol of Newgate, refiding 
 there. 
 
 Chrijlopher Kennedy, of Crofs-court, Broad-court, Long-acre, in 
 the county of Middlefex, carpenter, and one of the conftables 
 attending the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the 
 faid county. 
 
 William Xm^htjOf Windmill -llret, Piccadilly, in the county of 
 Middlefex, fhocmaker.
 
 Kinghorn, gentleman, gaoler of his Majefty's Tower of 
 London, abiding there. 
 
 William Lownd&s, of the Middle-temple, London, barrifter at 
 law. 
 
 Edward Lauzun, of Little George-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the 
 county of Middlefex, one of his Majcfty's meffengers extraor- 
 dinary. 
 
 James Lyon, meffenger at arms, refiding at the houfe of James 
 Cooper, in Advocate's-clofe, in the city of Edinburgh. 
 
 George Lynam, of Walbrook, London, ironmonger. 
 
 Edward Lavender, of Drury-lane, in the county of Middlefex, 
 attorney at law, and chief clerk of the Public-office in Bow- 
 ftreet, Co vent-garden, in the fod county. 
 
 Arnold Langky, of Gloucelter-ftreet, Queen's-fquare, in the 
 county of Middlefex, gentleman, clerk to Mr. White, No. .6 t 
 Lincoln's-inn. 
 
 William Lockhart, fheriff clerk depute of the county of Edin- 
 burgh, refiding at Newhaven, in the parifh of St. Cuthbert's, in the 
 county of Edinburgh aforefaid. 
 
 David Lloyd, of York-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex, footman to Mrs. Campbell, of Bury-ftreet, St. James's, 
 in the fame county. 
 
 Robert Moody, of China-fquare, Sheffield, in the county of York, 
 carpenter and joiner, now in cuftody at the houfe of Mrs. Mary 
 Parkinfon, in Little-Charies-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex. 
 
 Thomas Maclean, of Whitehall, in the county of Middlefex, one 
 of his Majefty's meffengers in ordinary. 
 
 John Moore, of Gray's-inn, in the county of Middlefex, attorney 
 at law. 
 
 Merry, of Ramfgate, in the county of Kent, doftor of phyfic. 
 
 William Maintoaring, of Hanover-fquare, in the county of Mid- 
 dlefex, elq.one of the prothonotaries of the court of common pleas. 
 
 George Munro, of George-ftreet, Manchcfter-fquare, in the coun- 
 ty of Middlefex, efq. a captain in the army. 
 
 William Mctcalfe, of Dowgate-hill, in the city of London, z\- 
 - torney at law. 
 
 Patrick Macmanus, of Stanhope-ftreet, Clare-market, in the 
 county of Middleicx, hatter, and one of the conftables attending 
 the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Andrew Milne, of Great Ruffel-ftreet, Bloomfbury, in the county 
 of Middleicx, fhopman to Mr. Jordan, bookfeller, in Fleet-ftreet, 
 London. 
 
 Jofepk Mack, clerk in the Sheriff-clerk's office in Edinburgh, re- 
 fiding in Cattle Wynd, in the city of Edinburgh. 
 
 William M'Cubbin, writer, refiding in the honfe of John Donald- 
 fon, fmith and room-fetter, in Todderick's Wynd, in the city of 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 Alexander Mitchell, linen manufacturer, refiding at Strathaven, 
 in the parifh of Strathaven, in the county of Lanark. 
 
 Arthur
 
 [ 39 3 
 
 Arthur M'Ezoan, of the Water of Leith, in the parifh of Saint 
 Cuthbert's, in the county of Edinburgh, weaver, a prifoner in the 
 Tolbooth of Cannongate, of Edinburgh. 
 
 Walter Miller, wright and merchant, of the Iligh-ftreet of Perth, 
 in the pdrifh c,f Perth, in the county of Perth, a prifoner in the 
 Tolbooth of Edinburgh. 
 
 John Miller, of Duke's-court, Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the 
 county of Middlefcx, one of the conftables attending the Public- 
 office in Bow-ftreet aforefaid. 
 
 Stephen Henry Murrell, of Ray-ftreet, Cold-bath-fields, in the 
 county of Middiefex, auctioneer. 
 
 William MiddUton, one of the Sheriff's officers of the county of 
 Edinburgh, refiding in Warrifton's-clofe, in the city of Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 Jofeph Milner, of Aldermanbury, London, warehoufeman. 
 
 William Needham, of Cork-ftreet, in the panfh of St. George, 
 Hanover-fquare, in the county of Middiefex, one of his Majefty's 
 jneflengets in ordinary. 
 
 Frederick Polydore Nodder, of Brewer-ftreet, Golden-fquare, in 
 the county of Middiefex, botanic painter. 
 
 John No/I, refiding at the Lord Chamberlain's-office, in St. 
 James's-palace, in the county of Middlefcx, one of his Majefty's 
 meilengers extraordinary. 
 
 Evan Nepean, of Scotland-yard, Whitehall, in the county of 
 Middiefex, efquire, one of his Majefty's under fecretayes of State. 
 
 Randk Norris, of Hare-court, in the Temple, clerk to Mr. 
 Spinks, unuer treafurer of the fociety of the Inner-temple. 
 
 Arthur Onflow, of Craven-ftreet, in the Strand, in the county of 
 Middiefex, banifter at law. 
 
 Robert Orrock, of Dean, in the parifh of St. Cuthbert's in tha 
 county of Edinburgh, blackfmith, a prifoner in the caftlc of Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 George Orr, of Camberwell, in the county of Surry, taylor. 
 
 Jane Partridge, of ^Nottingham, fpinfter, the daughter Mr. Par- 
 tridge, of Nottingham aforefaid, apothecary. 
 
 William Pope, of Little Mary-le-hone-ftreet, in the county of 
 Middiefex, blacking ball maker, and one of the patroles attending 
 the Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the. faid county. 
 
 John Pearfon, of Lincoln's-inn, in the county of Middiefex, 
 ftudent at law. 
 
 James Parkinfon, of Hoxton-fquare, in the county of Middiefex, 
 furgeon and apothecary. 
 
 John Pearfon, of Fig-tree-court, in the Temple, gentleman. 
 
 William Rofs, of Crown-ftreet, Weftminller, in the county of 
 Middiefex, one of his Majefty's mciTengers in ordinary. 
 
 John Reeves, of Cecil-ftreet, in the Strand, in the county of 
 Middiefex, barrifter at law. 
 
 George Rofs, clerk, or late clerk in the Gazetteer-office at Edin- 
 burgh, of South-bndge, of Edinburgh, a prifoner in the Tolbooth 
 cTEdinbugh, 
 
 Archi-
 
 t 40 ] 
 
 Arthibald Ruthven> of Rodney-row, Newington-butts, in the 
 county of Surry, baker, one of the patroles attending the Public-, 
 office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the county of Middlefex. 
 
 James RiJgiaay, of York-ftreet, St. James's-fquare, in the coun- 
 ty of Middleiex, bookfeller, now a prifoner in his Majefty's gaol 
 of Newgate. 
 
 Thomas Clio Rickman, of Upper Mary-le-bone-ftreet, in the coun- 
 ty of Middlefex, bookfller, and Jane his wife, of the fame place. 
 
 Samud Reece, of Carthufian-ftreet, Charter-houfe-fquare, in the 
 county of Middlefex, ftationer. 
 
 Ifaac Saint, of the city of Norwich, victualler, now in cuftody at 
 the houfe of Thomas Wagftaffe, in South-ftreet, in the pariih of 
 St. George, Hanover-fquare, in the county of Middlefex, one of 
 his Majefty's meffengers in ordinary. 
 
 John Thomas Slack, of Buckle-ftreet, Goodman's- fields, Whitc- 
 ehapel, in the county of Middlcfex, ftaymaker. 
 
 Henry Ddahay Symonds, of Paternofter-row, London, bookfsller, 
 row a prifbner in his Majefty's gaol of Newgate. 
 
 William Sharp, of Charles-ftreet, Middlefex-hofpital, in the 
 county of Middlefex, engraver. 
 
 John Sckaw, of Eaton-Tireet, Pimlico, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, one of his Majefty's mefTengers in ordinary. 
 
 Thomas Symonds, of Crown-office-row, Inner-temple, London, 
 fludent at law. 
 
 Matthew Swift, of Gould's-buildings, near the New Church in 
 the Strand, in the county of Middlefex, fhoemaker, and onaof-the 
 conftables attending the Police-office in Great Marlborough- 
 ftreet, in the faid county. 
 
 George SanJerfon, of the bunch of grapes, in Butcher-row, Tem- 
 ple-bar, in the county of Middlefex, victualler. 
 
 Ifaac Clayton Smith, of Artichoke-yard, Lambeth-marfh, in the 
 county of Surrey, meffenger in the office of the Rl. Hon. Henry 
 DundaSj one of his Majefty's principal fecretaries of ftate. 
 
 Thomas Shdton, of the feffion-houfe in the Old-bailey, in the 
 Suburbs of the City of London, attorney at law. 
 
 William Scot, folicitor at law, refiding in Merchant-ftreet, in the 
 city of Edinburgh. 
 
 Damd Stuart, of Frith-flrect, Soho, in the county of Middlefex, 
 gentleman. 
 
 Thomas Stijf, of Paternofler-row, in the city of London, hair- 
 drefler. 
 
 Jjhn Shallard, of Charlion-ftreet, Somers-town, in the county 
 of Middlefex, pallry-cook, and one of the patroles attending the 
 Public-office in Bow-ftreet, Covent-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 John Shdrntrdint, of the Grove, South wark, in the county of 
 Sui ry, hatter. 
 
 Jam's Savage, of Maiden-lane, Wood-ftreet, London, ware- 
 houfeman. 
 
 William Sturck, of Stanhope-ftreef, Clare-market, m the county 
 of Middlefex, ironmonger.
 
 C 41 ] 
 
 Taylor, of Fleet-ftreet, London, gent, now a prifoner in his 
 MajeRy's gaol of Newgate. 
 
 William Tims, of Crovvn^flreet, Weftminfter, in the county of 
 Middlcfex, one of his Majefty's meflengers in ordinary. 
 
 James Thornton^ of Weymouth-ftreet, Cavend.fh-fquare, in the 
 county of Middlesex, clerk at the Police-office in Great Marlbo- 
 rough-ftreet, in the faid county. 
 
 Thomas Thomfon, of Shrub's-hill, near Bagfhot, in the county of 
 Berks, efq. 
 
 Thomas Toitrle, late a prifoner in the cuftody of the Marfhal of 
 the Marfhalfea, of the court of King's-bench, dealer in timber and 
 coals, now refiding at the houfe of Samuel Giles, at Newington- 
 caufeway, in the county of Surry. 
 
 Jofeph Towers, of St. John's-fquare, Clerkenwell, in the county 
 of Middlefex, diflenting minifter. 
 
 James Templeton, meffenger at arms, refiding in Prefident's-ftairs, 
 in Parliament-clofe, in the city of Edinburgh. 
 
 John Thompfon, of Oakhatn, in the county of Rutland, gardener, 
 Mary Thompfon, the wife of John Thompfon,of Oakham, in the 
 county of Rutland, gardener* 
 
 Mary Tliompfon, the wife of George Thompfon, of Oakhanij in 
 the county of Rutland, gardener. 
 
 JohnTownfend, cf Duke's-row, Pimlico, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, labourer, and one of the conftables attending the Public-office 
 in Bow-ftreet, Coven t-garden, in the faid county. 
 
 Thomas Ting, of King's-road, Chelfea, in the county of Middle* 
 fex, ftage-coachman, and one of the patroles attending the Public- 
 office in Bow-flreet, Covent-garden, in the faid county, 
 John Taylor, of St. George's, Norwich, furgeon. 
 John Thompfon, near the turnpike, in the New-road, St. Gertrge's 
 in the Eaft, in the county of Middlefex^ afliflant clerk at the Pub- 
 lic-office in Lambeth-ftreel. Whitechapel, in the faid county. 
 
 John Taplin, of Mulberry-ftreet, Mile-end Old-town, in ;the 
 county of Middlefex, gardener, one of the conftables attending fhc 
 Police-office in Lambeth-dreet, Whitechapel, in the faid county. 
 
 William Taylor, of Bridge-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex, efq. one of the clerks in the office of the Rt. Hon. 
 Lord Grenville, one of his Majefty's principal fecrctaries of ftate. 
 
 Felix Vaughan, of Crown-office-row, Inner-temple, London, 
 barrifter at law. 
 
 John Vdlam, of Oakham, in the county of Rutland, butchersand 
 grazier. 
 
 Thomas John Upton, of Bell-yard, near Temple-bar, watch-maker, 
 and machinift, now a prifoner in the New Prifon, Clerkenwell, in 
 the county of Middlefex. 
 
 Alexander Willis, of Harley-ftreet, in the county of Middlefex, 
 dancing-matter. 
 
 Samuel Williams, now in cuftody at tlie houfe of Mr. Fordham, 
 in Lambeth-ftreet, Whitechapel, in the county of Middlefex, 
 
 F oach
 
 t 42 3 
 
 coach-mafter, apprentice to and late abiding with Jofeph Whit- 
 ton, at Tower-Itairs, Tower-dock, London, gun engraver. 
 
 John Williams, of Leiccfter-fields, in the county of Middlefex, 
 wine-merchant. 
 
 Ge.org: Williams, of Weft-fmithfield, London, leather-feller. 
 
 Thumas Wagjlajfe, of South-ftreet, in the parifh of St. George, 
 Hanover-fquare, m the county of Middlefex, one of his Majelty's 
 tnefiengers in ordinary. 
 
 Wi'liam Utckkam, of St.. James's-place, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, efq. one of the juftices of the Police-office in Lambeth- ftreet, 
 \Vhitechapel, in the faid county. 
 
 John Wharton. of Skelton-caflle, in the county of York, efq. 
 
 Jojeph White, of Effex-court, Middle-temple, and of Lincoln's- 
 jr.n, in the county of Middlefex, attorney at law, and folicitor for th 
 affairs of his Majefty's treafury. 
 
 William Walker, of Buckingham-ftreer, in the Strand, m the county 
 of Middlefex, attorney at law. 
 
 James Waljh, late of the Strand, in the county of Middlefex, but 
 now abiding at Hatfield, in the county of Hertford, gent. 
 
 William Woodfall, of Salifbury-fquare, Fleet-flreet, London, printer. 
 
 Henry Sampfon Wood/ all, late of No. i, the corner of Ivey-lane, 
 Paternofter-row, printer, but now of Chelfea, in the county of Mid- 
 dlcfex, gent. 
 
 George Williamfon, meffenger at arras, refiding in Prefident-ftairs, 
 in Parliament-clofe, in the city of Edinburgh. 
 
 John Watts, of Rofemary-lane, Whitechapel, in the county of 
 Middlefex. dyer. 
 
 Thomas Whitehom, abiding at the houfe of Mr. John King, in 
 Cumberland-ftreet, Tottenham-court-road, in the county of Middle- 
 fex, and fhopman to Mr. Baxter, near Cecil-ftreet, in the Strand, in 
 the laid county, bookfeller. 
 
 George Widdifon, of Fargate-ftreet, Sheffield, in the county of 
 York, hair-drefler, now in cuflody at the houfe of Mrs. Mary 
 Parkinfon, in Little Charles-ftreet, VVefttninfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex. 
 
 Thomas Wijin, of Fludyer-ftreet, Weftminfter, in the county of 
 Middlefex. one of his Majefty's meffengers in ordinary. 
 
 Thomas Wood, of Red-lion-ftreet. liolborn, in the parifh of St> 
 George the Martyr, in the county of Middlefex, lottery-infpeftor. 
 
 William Worjlnp, of Ball-alley, Lombard-ftreet, London, engraver. 
 
 Richard Williams. ofOakham, in the county of Rutland, clerk. 
 
 Richard White, of Piccadillf, in the parifh of St. James, Weft- 
 minder, in the county of Middlefex, oilman. 
 
 George Willinrton, of the Inner-temple, London, attorney at law. 
 
 John Wijigtejworth., of Somerlet-place, in the county of Middlefex, 
 efq. one of the infpeftors general of accounts in the Auditor's office 
 there. 
 
 John Yor*, of 'his Majefty's Tower qf London, and deputy lieute- 
 "nar.t thereof. 
 
 Matthew Yatman, of Percy-flreet, Rathbone-place, in the county 
 ^ Middlefex, apothecary. 
 
 , The
 
 C 43 ] 
 
 The following pdrfons have been fumtnoned as evidences on be- 
 half of the Mate piifoners. 
 
 Mr. Pitt, 
 
 Duke of Richmond, 
 
 Duke of Portland, 
 
 Mr. Dundas, Secretary for the 
 
 home department, 
 Mr. Nepean, under Secretary of i 
 
 Mr.'Rofe, Secretary of State, 
 
 Mr. W. Fawkencr, 
 
 Mr. Reeves, 
 
 Mr. Cottreli; &c. 
 
 Mr. Johnfon, Bookfeller, St. 
 
 I 7 / I %/ * 
 
 State, Paul's Church Yard. 
 
 The fummonfes ferved on feveral of the miniftry, to attend the 
 cnfuing trials for High Treifon, have given them, it is faid, no little 
 uneafincls. Neither Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dundas, or the Duke of Rich- 
 mond, ever imagined they fliould bt brought to the Old Baiky. 
 
 When Mr. Pitt was ferved with his fubpoena, he faid that 
 he fhould attend with the greateft pleafure. 
 
 Stffton-Houfe, Clerkemvell. Tuefday, Oftober 7. 
 
 The Court, compofed of the Right Hon. Sir James Eyre, Lord 
 Prefident of the Special Commillion, and of William Maimua- 
 ring, Efq. fa: at ten o'clock. 
 
 The gentlemen of the Grand Jury attended at the fame timr, 
 when their Foreman returned a true Bill againft John Martin, 
 Attorney, for HighTreafon. 
 
 The Prefident then afkcd, if there was any thing more ready 
 for the Grand Jury? 
 
 The Foreman faid, the Jury would be glad to adjourn to 
 fome day when there would be bufinefs fulficient to engage them 
 the whole day. 
 
 Mr. White faid, if it was convenient for the gentlemen of the 
 Grand Jury, he mould be glad they would adj >urn to Thurfday, 
 as he hoped againft that day to have all the Bills that were to 
 be returned. 
 
 The Foreman replied, that the gentlemen of the Jury had no 
 obje&ion to Thurfday. 
 
 The Prefident faid, that being the cafe, after the bufiuefs of 
 the day was over, he ihould adjourn the Court until Thurfday at 
 ten o'clock. 
 
 At this moment, appeared in Court Mr. Holcroft, who ad- 
 dretfed the Court to the following effecl : 
 " My Lord, 
 
 " Being informed that a Bill for High Treafon has been pre 
 ferred againft me, Thomas Holcroft, by his Majefty's Attorney 
 General, and returned a true bill by a Grand Jury of thele 
 realms, I come to furrender myfelf to this Court, and my coun- 
 try, to be put upon my trial ; that, if I am a guilty man, the 
 
 F 2 who!*
 
 [ 44 ] 
 
 whole extent of my guilt may become notorious ; and, if inno- 
 'cent, that the re&itude of my principles and conduct may be no 
 lefs public. And I hope, my Lord, there is no appearance of 
 vaunting in alluring your Lordlhip, this Court, and my coun- 
 try, that, after the misfortune of having been fufpe&ed as an 
 enemy to the peace and happinefs of mankind, there is nothing 
 on earth, after which, as an individual, I more ardently afpirc 
 than a full, fair, and public examination. 
 
 " I have further to requeft that your lorHfliip will inform me, 
 if it be not the pra&ice, in thefe cafes, to aflign counfel, and to 
 fuffer the ace u fed to fpcak in his own defence? Likewife, whe- 
 ther free egrefs and regrefs be not allowed for fuch perfons, 
 books, and papei-s as the accufed, or his counfel, (hall deem 
 necefiary for justification r" 
 
 Cbl'f Juftlc*. " With regard to the firft, Sir, it will be the 
 duty of tke G>urt to affign you Counfel, and alfo to order that 
 fuch Connfel fhall have free accefs to you at all proper hours 
 with refpe&, Sir, to the liberty of fpeaking for yourfeif, the ac- 
 cufcd will be fully heard by himfelf, as well as by his Counfel; 
 but v, ith regard to papers, books, and oth?r things of that kind, 
 it is itnpoffible for me to fay any thing precifely, with regard to 
 them, until the thing required be afked. However, Sir, you 
 may depend upon it, every thing will be granted to the party 
 accufed, fo as to enable him to make his defence. If I under- 
 ftand yor rightly, you now admit that you are the perfon (land- 
 ing indicted by the name of Thomas Holcroft ?" 
 
 Mr. H-.-lcroft. " Yes, my Lord." 
 
 Chief Jujlice. " You come here to fur render yourfeif, and I 
 can only accept of that furrender on the fuppofition that you are 
 the perfon fo indicled. You know the conlequence, Sir, of be- 
 ing indicted for High Treafon. I lhall be under the neceflity of 
 ordering you into cuftody. I would not wifh to take any ad- 
 vantage of your coming forward in perfon, indifcreetly, in this 
 manner, without being called upon by the ordinary procefs of 
 the law. You fhoukl have a moment to confider whether you 
 furrender yourfeif as that perfon." 
 
 Mr. Hdcroft. " It is certainly not my vifh, either to infli& 
 upon myfelf unneceffary punifhment, or to appear to put myfelf 
 forward on this occafion. I come only as Thomas Holcroft, of 
 Newman-ftreet, in the county of Middlefex, and I certainly do 
 not wi(h to ftand more forward, than any other man ought to 
 ftand." 
 
 Chief Juflict. " I cannot enter 'into this point. If. you 
 admit yourlelf K> be the perfon indicled, the confequence'muft 
 be, that I muft order you to be taken into cuftody to anfwer this 
 charge. I do not kno*v whether you are, or are not, Thomas 
 
 Hoi-
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
 Holcroff. I do not know you, and therefore it is impoflible for 
 me to know whether you are the perfon dated in the indicV 
 ment." 
 
 Mr. Hokroft. " It is equally impoffible for me, my Lord." 
 
 Chief Juftice. Why then, Sir, I think you had better fit 
 
 dill. Is there any thing moved on the part of the Crown with 
 
 refpecl: to this gentleman r" 
 
 Solicitor General. " My Lord, as I confider him to be the 
 perfon againft whom a true bill is found, 1 move that he be 
 committed." 
 
 Chief Juftice. " I do not know how many perfons there may 
 be of the name of Thomas Holcroft : it would be rather extra- 
 ordinary to commit a perfon on this charge, if we do not know 
 him." 
 
 Mr. Knapp t one of the Counfel for the Crown, contended, 
 that from what the prifoner had faid at firft in Court, he ad- 
 mitted himfelf to be the perfon." 
 
 Chief Jujlice. " That does not fignify. Does the Counfel 
 for the Crown think fit that this gentleman Ihould be com- 
 mitted ?" 
 
 Solicitor General. " I move that he now be taken into cuf- 
 tody." 
 
 Chief Juftice. " Sir, you muft now dand committed." 
 
 A (henrF's officer now took Mr. Holcroft into cuftody. 
 
 Chief Juftice to the prifoner. " Are you prepared to name 
 your Counfel r" 
 
 His Solicitor immediately named Mr. Erfkine and Mr. Gibbs, 
 whom the Court afligned in the ufual form. 
 
 The fame learned advocates were named for Mr. Thelwall 
 and M(. Baxter. 
 
 John Pearce dated to the Court, that he was an articled clerk 
 to Mr. Martin, againll whom the Grand Jury had found a bill. 
 He requefted that he might be permitted to attend Mr. Martin, 
 as, without his affiftance, he did not think Mr. Martin would 
 be able to proceed to his trial. 
 
 The Solicitor General objected to this application, becaufe 
 there might be a charge againd Mr. Pearce himfelf. 
 
 The Judge obferved, that until fome charge was preferred, he 
 could not refiife this application. 
 
 Mr. White, the Solicitor, tfefired that the order might be 
 podponed until Friday, which the Judge confented to, on con- 
 dition that a copy of the indictment was not preferred till that 
 time. The Chief Judice then ordered the officer to adjourn the 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. Hokroft begged that his fcrvant i|Bight be permitted to 
 have accefs to him. 
 
 The
 
 [ 46- ] 
 
 The Chief Juftiee faid, that was a fort of thing that was quite 
 pew, and he did not know that he could grant it, unlefs fume- 
 thing was ftated by Mr. Holcroft, with refpect to his health, to 
 make it requifite. 
 
 Mr. Hslcroft faid, there was nothing of that fort ; that he did 
 pot know it to be unufual, or he mould not hayeafked it. The 
 reafon for his aflcing it, \v.i$, that his fervant was his amanuenfis ; 
 it had been his habit to didate to this man, and therefore it 
 would be extremely convenient for him to b,e indulged in this, 
 particular, if that was not contrary to cuftom. 
 
 The Ckiff Jujlice faid, he was afraid it was, and he thought 
 it wouid be proper for Mr. Holcroft to apply to another quarter, 
 which could better grant indulgence than he could, fitting in that 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. Hokroft faid, he wifhed to have no indulgence ; he only 
 vvifhed-for juliice. 
 
 The Chief Jujlice faid, " Then, Sir, I cannot make the 
 Order." 
 
 The Court then immediately adjourned to Tfcurfday, at ten 
 o'clock in the morning. 
 
 Stffion-Houfe, Ckrkenwelly Thursday Off. gib. 
 At ten o'clock, the Court met again, when the Grand Jury 
 prefented a true bill for High Treafon againit 'John Hillicr. 
 After which the Court adjourned to Thurfday the fixteenth 
 of Odober. 
 
 Scjfion-Hciife, Clerhcwoett, Thurjday, OJ?. l6fh. 
 
 The Grand Jury returned a true bill againft John Philip 
 Frankloe for High Treafon. And the Court adjourntd to Tuei- 
 day, the 21 (I of Odlober. 
 
 Ttiefday, Oftober 2 1 ft, 
 
 THE Court met, when the Grand Jury found a true bill 
 againft Thcmas Spence for High Treafon. 
 
 A bill 2i,-;<inft John Ajhley, lor the fame crime, was not found. 
 Adjourned to Saturday the 25th of O&ober. 
 
 Remcj~cal of the State Prifoners. 
 
 Friday, at eight in the morning, the fhcrirFs, in their caria* 
 ges, attended by the under fherirrs, the city marfiials on horfe- 
 back, and the marfb^k men, together with a ftrong party of 
 fiierifTs officer:: and COTlfobles, proceeded from Guildhall to the 
 
 Towv,
 
 [ 47 ] 
 
 Tower, and having flopped at the outer gate, fherifF Earner 
 fent a meflage to the commander of the guard, defiring his at- 
 tendance; to whom he produced an order of the privy-council to 
 deliver into the fheriff's charge the following ftate prifoners: 
 Thomas Hardy, John Home Tooke, John Auguftus Bonney, 
 Stewart Kyd, Rev. Jeremiah Joyce, John Richter, and Joha 
 Thelwal!. 
 
 In about half an hour, the prifoners were brought out, under 
 the efcort of a captain's guard ; and upon their delivery, the 
 fheriffs gave a formal receipt to the Lieutenant of the Tower, or 
 his Deputy, for their bodies. 
 
 They were placed in three coaches, one of the fberiff's car- 
 riages leading the procefilon, the prifoners following, and the 
 other IherifF and his train clofing. The IheruT's officers were 
 .on horfeback, and had their hangers drawn. 
 
 About ten, they arrived at Newgate, where the prifoners were 
 fafely lodgtd under the care of Mr. Kirby, the keeper, who 
 conducted them to the ftate fide of the prifon, and placed them 
 'in feven different rooms, which had been previoufly prepared for 
 their reception. 
 
 The lord-mayor and (heriffs have ordered the different avenues 
 to the Sefiions-no,!ife to be incircled with ftrong barricadoes, and 
 a bar to each, with a fuperfcription, containing the names of 
 perfons who are to be admitted at that particular avenue. 
 
 The officers have a peremptory order, that no others are to 
 be admitted under any .pretext whatever. 
 
 The feats for the Jury will contain one hundred and eighry-fe- 
 ven. The cushions for them were fent in on PViday night by Mr. 
 Phillips, and every precaution is taken topreferve a due folem- 
 nity upon this awful occafion. 
 
 The voluntary furrender of Mr. Holcroft, to the decifion of 
 the laws of his country, refpe&ing the Bill of Indictment 
 found againft him for High Treafon, having conliderably pre- 
 poHefTed the public with opinions of his innocence, we cannot 
 re lift this opportunity of fubmitiing a few obfervations upon the 
 fubjedt. His anxiety to avow hunfelfin court, is a great indi- 
 cation of confcious innocence. Inftead of agreeing with Mr. 
 Knapp, counfel for the crown, who faid that his acknowledging 
 himielf in court was an admiflion of his being the perib'n again It 
 whom the indictment was found, the reverfe feems to as the 
 moll rational conclulion. Had he been fe'nfible of his having 
 committed any a&s that could afford the leaft prrtcnce for a bill 
 of "indictment of fuch an atrocious nature being found againft' 
 him, he would furely have had more fenfe than to have braved 
 the awful jultice of his country with fuch a premature avowal of 
 
 his
 
 Ms guilt. He would not have condemned himfelf before the 
 laws had fubftantiated his criminality. Such a conduct would 
 have been equally cenfurable for it's indecency and rafhnefs. 
 But from what we have heard of Mr. Holcroft, and read of his 
 writings, we have fuch an opinion of his underftanding as to be 
 convinced, it would have retrained him from an obtrufive and 
 premature offering of himfelf as a victim to unavoidable infamy 
 and the moft terrible of punifhments. To be daring, without 
 deflgn or object to attain, is the weakeft act of temerity that can 
 poflibly be committed. Were he guilty, he would furely have 
 known that his, thus, impatiently refigning himfelf to juftice, 
 could afford him no reftoration of impeached character, nor pro- 
 tection from impending punifliment. He could have, therefore, 
 nothing to expect but a name configned to difgrace, and an 
 exiftence ended by the moft horrid executions. It is, therefore, 
 contrary to every principle of reafon or reflection to imagine he 
 has committed any act that he knew would fubject him to the 
 charge of High Treafon. Surely the Solicitor General ought 
 to have recognized his perfon before he had moved for his being 
 taken into cuftody. And when he confefled that he did not 
 know Mr. Holcroft, perfonally, it was the ftrongeftof all pofllble 
 pleas to have fecured him from being fent to prifon, until every 
 evidence had been produced of his being the identical individual 
 againft whom the bill had been found. Suppofing him innocent, 
 ivhat reparation can be made for his being imprifoned, and ar- 
 raigned for fuch a crime, againft the fecurity of his fellow- 
 citizens? For, in this fenfe, the enormity ot High Treafon is 
 chiefly to be confidered. The prefervation of the Sovereign's lifa 
 is .rendered facred by his being the bond in which all the ties of 
 iocial fafety unite. Every perfon, who meditates a defign ini- 
 mical to the life of a lawful, reigning King, commits the greateft 
 of violences againft the community, of which he is a member. 
 Whether he be impelled by perfonal refentment, inordinate am- 
 bition, factious turbulence, or erroneous prejudices, he equally 
 hazards the welfare and organization of his country. To be 
 wnjuftly committed, and tried for fuch a dreadful act of incivifm, 
 is an injury that no conceflion can repair, or gratuity recom- 
 pence; for fuch are the illiberal prejudices of mankind, that in- 
 nocence, once arraigned, is never reftored to it's ancient purity. 
 
 But what is ftill more lamentable and dreadful, with regard to 
 the trial of innocence for capital offences, is their fafety or danger 
 too frequently depending on the balance of the pleaders' powers 
 being for or againft him. However the laws may be founded in 
 juftice, the proceedings impartially conducted, or the jury difm- 
 tercfted, yet fuch is the irrefiitible force of fuperior eloquence, 
 that it confounds reafon, perverts truth, and temporizes juftice, 
 while the innocent falls beneath the general wreck of equity and 
 
 pro-
 
 [ 49 ] 
 
 propriety. Every man, therefore, who goes into a court of juf- 
 tice, however right or innocent, ought to enter it with awe, and 
 not with an unqualified confidence. No laws, as a general 
 code, were ever founded with more wifdom, equity, or humanity, 
 than thofe of England ; but, with all their perfections, the in- 
 nocent are fometimes facrificed, while the guilty triumph. And 
 as this is one of thofe irremediable evils attending every human 
 inftitution, the greateft caution fhould be exerted by Grand Ju- 
 ries, left they fubject the lives, properties, and characters, of 
 their fellow-citizens, to a danger againft which innocence itfelf 
 cannot always find protection. 
 
 Seffions-Haufe, Clerkenwell, Saturday, Off. 25. 
 
 After the Court had adjourned at the Old Bailey, it fat at 
 Clerkenwell, at one o'clock, when Lord Chief Juftice Eyre afked 
 who attended on the part of the Crown. 
 
 Mr. White immediately came into Court, and on being afked 
 whether there were any more bills ready to be preferred to the 
 Grand Jury, anfwered in the negative, and that he did not know 
 when any more would be ready. 
 
 Lord Chief Jurtice Eyre. "Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I 
 find on enquiry that there are no more bills at prefent ready to 
 be prefented, .and that there is an uncertainty whether there are 
 any more to be preferred to you. Under thefe circumftances, I 
 am fure the Court are bound to take the earlieft opportunity of 
 giving you all the relief they can, with refpect to any further at- 
 tendance on this very arduous fervice. 
 
 " Before I difmifs you for the prefent under this uncertainty 
 of meeting you again, it is my duty to exprefs my own fenfe, 
 and the fenfe of the whole Court, with refpecl to the obligations 
 which the country owes you for the punctual attendance you 
 have given, for the great facrifice you have made of your time, 
 and perfonal convenience, to a laborious inveftigation of the 
 many complicated facts that have been laid before you. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I fhall now difmifs you for this time, formally 
 enjoining you to give your attendance if you receive new notice 
 to attend on a particular day. At the farr\e time, I am not with- 
 out hopes, that this is the laft time I fhall have the honour of 
 addreffing you in the character of Grand Jurymen." 
 
 Foreman. " My Lord, I am delired by the Gentlemen of the 
 Grand Jury, to exprefs their thanks to your Lordfhip, tor your 
 obliging condefcenfion, in publifhing your charge at their re- 
 queit. I am alfo defired by them to thank the Sheriffs for their 
 kind indulgence, and attention to our accommodation.** 
 
 The Court then adjourned to Monday fe'nnight. 
 
 G OU
 
 C 5 ] 
 
 Old- Bailey, Saturday, Oft. 1$. 
 
 For the trials of the prifoners, the Cormnifliun confided of 
 the following 
 
 JUDGES: 
 
 Sir JAMES EYRE, Lord Prefident, 
 Chief Baron Macdonald, I Judge Buller, 
 Baron Hotham, j Judge Grofe, &c. c. 
 
 At ten o'clock the Lord Prefident, accompanied by the other 
 Judges, the Lord-mayor, the Recorder, and fix Aldermen, took 
 their feats on the Bench. 
 
 After the ufual proclamation, Mr. Kirby, the keeper of New- 
 gate, was ordered to bring to the bar the following prifoners in 
 his cuftody, againft whom the Grand Jury had found their 
 
 FIRST BILL OF INDICTMENT. 
 
 Thomas Hardy, late of Weftminfter, in the County of Mid- 
 dlefex, fhoemaker. 
 
 John Hdrne Tooke, late of Wimbledon-, in the County of Sur- 
 /"Vey, clerk. 
 
 John Augujlus Bsnney, late of the Parifti of St. Giles in the 
 .Fields, in the County o f MidtJlefex aforefaid, gentleman. 
 
 Stewart Kyd, late of London, Efq. 
 
 Jeremiah Joyce, of the Parifh of St. Mary-le-bone, otherwife 
 Marybone, in the County of Middlefex aforefaid, gentleman. 
 
 Thomas Hdcroft, late of the Parilh of St. Mary-le-bone, 
 othrwife Marybone, in the County of Middlefex aforefaid, 
 gentleman. 
 
 John Rickfer, late of Weftminfter, in the faid County of 
 Middlefex, gentleman. 
 
 John Thehvall, late of Weftminfter, in the County of Mid- 
 dlefex aforefaid, gentleman. 
 
 John Baxter, late of the parifh of St. Leonard, Shoreditch^ 
 in the County of Middlefex aforefaid, labourer. 
 
 The Court, immediately on their appearance, wifhed to know, 
 whether the prifoners' Counfel attended in purfuance to their 
 nomination and appointment ? 
 
 Mr. Gurney replied, that in addition to his learned friends 
 prefent, who had been retained, he expected Mr. Erjkine, Mr. 
 Gil'bs, and Mr. F. I'augkun, who had been nominated by the 
 Court. 
 
 The Court condefcended to wait a few minutes. 
 
 The windows which are behind the bar, where the prifoners 
 were, having been previously let down by the Lord Prefident' s 
 orders, fo as to admit a ftrong current of air, the following ob-*" 
 fervations were made by 
 
 Mr. Home Tooke. " My Lord, I bg leave to reprefent to 
 ', that we have jult come out of a very confined and 
 
 clofe
 
 t 5' ] , 
 
 dofe hole, and the windows now opened at our backs expofa 
 us to fo much cold air, that our hedl'V:, particularly my own, 
 will be confiderably endangered, and moft probably we (haH lofe 
 our voices before we leave the place. I (hall, therefore, requeft 
 of the Court to be difmifled as foon as their convenience will 
 permit." 
 
 The Lord Prefident of the Commifllon. " If you are pre- 
 pared to plead, Sir, you may be difmifled almoft immediately. 
 We were waiting for your Counfel, that you might have the 
 benefit of their affiftance." 
 
 Mr. H. Tooke. " My Lord, in a great meafure am I pre- 
 vented from being now able to fay any thing on the fubjecl: of 
 the indi&ment, from the circumftance of our not having ha>l the 
 ten clear days allowed by A& of Parliament, to perfons in our 
 fituation. By the change of ctiftody a whole day has been com- 
 pletely loft to us ; in confequence, we have not had an opportunity 
 of converfi-ng with our Counfel. Mr. Erjkitie and Mr. Gibbs 
 had engaged themfelves to dine with me on Friday, for the pur- 
 pofe of conferring together on the bufmefs of this day. Notice 
 was given me as late as nine or ten on Thurfday night only, of 
 my intended removal ; I was removed by eight o'clock the next 
 morning: it was perfectly irapofiible for me, therefore, to take the 
 advantage of my Counfel's advice, as our arrangements were 
 thus completely deftroyed, and all my papers, which I had col- 
 leled and arranged in the Tower, thrown into diforder anfd 
 confufion. Your Lordfhip who nevrr was a prifoner can 
 have but a very imperfedl idea of the change of ctiftody.'' 
 
 The Lord Prefident.- " The Court is inclined to make every 
 allowance that can be expected, and is willing to w?it the arri- 
 val of your Counfel." 
 
 Mr. Tooke. " Rather than catch cold, I fhould rhufc to plead 
 at prefent. I afk no indulgence, but defire fuhftantial juftice. 
 When I mentioned the circumftance of the day's lofs, I did not, 
 by any means, wifh to caufe delay. It is undoubtedly clear, 
 that the A6t, which fays, that not lefs than ten days fhouhl be 
 allowed, by no means meant to preclude the acculed from hav- 
 ing the advantage of more than ten days, if neceflary for the pre- 
 paration of materials requilite for their defence. I hope that no 
 inconvenience will arife to us from the fluffing of cuftody : but 
 we certainly have not had the indulgence which that law intended 
 us. I am, however, ready to plead, though deprived of the 
 advantage of my paper?, and the benefit of advice. We have 
 been fix months in clofe confinement, without being able yet to 
 imagine what was the nature of the charges to be brought agaihlt 
 us, nor have we been able to difcover it from the lodifttnent 
 found againft us." 
 
 G ^ Mr.
 
 [ 5* J 
 
 Mr. Thelwall.*" My Lord, I think it my duty, and an 
 adl of juftke to myfelf and my country, to mention, in this pub- 
 lic manner, the hardships which we have fuffered. Not to men- 
 tion the lofs of a day, I myfelf have to complain of a circurn- 
 ftance very detrimental indeed to me. I have been deprived of 
 the benefit of my books and papers, which I had collected toge- 
 ther, and arranged in the Tower. When we were removed 
 from the Tower, the fheriffs thought proper not to allow me 
 time fufficient to take them with me; I do not mean to attach 
 any blame to them, when I mention this, for with great polite- 
 nefs they promifed I fhould have them fent me. Afterwards, 
 xvhen I had an opportunity of fending for them through the 
 medium of a friend who was fending to the Tower for fome 
 things he wanted, I was refufcd, and received an evafive anfwer. 
 I was informed, that they could not fend what I wanted, as I 
 had a number of other things there, and they muft be fent for 
 together, as it would be neceffary to have a feparate coach for 
 them. This morning I received a fecond evafive anfwer. I 
 mention this circumftance not with any view of delay, for 1 am 
 as anxious, as any man can be for any thing, to meet the juftice 
 of my country." 
 
 The Indictment was then read by the Clerk of the Arraigns, 
 It charged the Prifoners, that they being fubje&s of the King, 
 not having the fear of God in their hearts, nor weighing the duty 
 of their allegiance, but being moved and feduced by the inftiga- 
 tion of the Devil, withdrawing their affection and allegiance from 
 the King, did, on the firfl of March laft, contrive, in concert 
 with other perfons, to difturb the peace of the Kingdom, to fub- 
 vert the Government, to depofe the King, and to put him to 
 death. 
 
 The Indictment then proceeded to fpecify, and fet forth in 
 pine different counts, the overt ads of the above compaffings and 
 imaginations. 
 
 The Prifoners were then feverally afked the ufual queftions, 
 *' Guilty or not guilty ?" " How ivili you be tried ?" 
 
 Mr. Hardy. " Not guilty." " By God and my country." 
 
 Mr. Tooke. "Not guilty." On being afked how he would be 
 tried, he eyed the Court for fome feconds with an air of fignifi- 
 cancy, which few men are fo well able to aifume, and, ftiaking 
 his head, emphatically anfwertd " /WOULD be tried by Gad and 
 my country. But" 
 
 The others anfwered in the ufual manner " Not guilty." 
 " By God and my country." 
 
 Mr. Bounty was about to make fome remarks, when he was 
 interrupted by 
 
 The
 
 C 53 ] 
 
 The LordPreJident. "Tooke having complained of the cold, 
 nefs of the air, may withdraw." 
 
 Mr. Tooke then w thdrew. 
 
 John Augujlus Bonney. " My Lord, there is an error in this 
 indictment, which intitles me to plead in abatement. I am de- 
 fcribed late of the parifh of St. Giles in the Fields, whereas I 
 ought to have been defcribed of the parifh of St. Pane ras. I ne- 
 ver did reficie in the parilh of St. Giles. But, my Lord, I am 
 alfo charged by this indictment with having committed treafon in 
 the panih ot St. Giles ; and as my defcription is juft as true and 
 correct as this aflertion, I am content to take my trial upon the 
 indictment in it's prefent form ; for I look forward with earned 
 and anxious expectation for the day when a Jury of my country 
 fhall juftify me from the afperfions thrown on my character by 
 this indictment : I therefore wave my objection, and plead ge- 
 nerally, that lam not guilty " 
 
 Mr. ThetwalL "There is a circumftance, my Lord, which 
 my Counfel have informed me would entirely qoalh this indict- 
 ment as tar as regards me, if I were inclined to take advantage of 
 it. My defcription is not right : I am defcribed as an inhabitant 
 of Wefiminjter, whereas I refide in the Liberties of the Dutcby of 
 Lancajhr. Anxious as I am to have my conduct examined into 
 by my country, I defpife the idea of availing myfelt of any paltry 
 fubtertuge. J feel perfectly convinced, that when the long ex- 
 
 Sected day (hall come, no honeji Jury can fay otherwife than 
 do now, Not guilly" 
 
 Mr. Banney then faid, " I beg that your Lord mips will allow 
 me a few words before we quit the bar. i allure you, if I had 
 been arraigned for any known and certain treafon, for murder, or 
 for felony, I would afk no favour of your Lordfhips ; birt when 
 J ftand before you upon a cafe, in which (and 1 believe I have 
 your Lordfhips' opinion in my favour on thefubject) if the facts 
 charged againft us fhmild be proved, there would itill be very 
 great doubt upon the law, I truft I do not make an improper 
 requeft when 1 folicit your Lordlhips, that we may be allowed 
 as many ot the little comforts and conveniences of life (to which 
 we have been accuftomed) as may be confident with the fecurity 
 of our perfons. Your Lordfhips, I am fure, will agree with me, 
 that a fituation in which a man can neither fleep by night, nor 
 caft his eye on a ray of comfort by day, is not much adapted to 
 prepare his mind for fo important a trial as mine and yet, my 
 Lords, fuch is my fituation. 
 
 " 1 beg to be understood not to intend the fmalleft infinuation 
 againft the Sheriffs; their language and their countenances, when 
 they vifited me yefterday in my cell, fufKciently convinced me of 
 the concern they felt at not being able to afford me better accom- 
 modation.
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
 modation. My requeft, therefore, to your Lordfhips is, that 
 \ve may be remanded to the cuftody of the Governor of the 
 Tower, where we have been treated, for two and twenty weeks, 
 with the greateft humanity and attention." 
 
 Mr. Richter and Mr. Baxter alfo complained of the want of 
 accommodation in the places where they were confined. 
 
 The Lord Prejident. " I mull repeat, that the Court can only 
 refer you to the difcretion and humanity of the Sheriffs, who 
 have already undertaken to p.iy attention to your complaints." 
 
 Mr. Attorney General. " My Lord, as the Prifoners have fig- 
 nified their deiire te be tried feparately, I mave that Mr. Hardy 
 be tried firit ; and that the warrants, made neceffary by a hte Act 
 of Parliament, for conftirtiting the commitlion, be recorded." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine, who, together with Mr. Gibbs and Mr. 
 Vaughan, Connfel for the Prifoners had come into Court du- 
 ring the reading of the Indictment by the Clerk of the Crown, 
 apologized to the Court for their momentary abfence, as not ex- 
 pecting the bufinefsof the Court to begin fo early. He under- 
 wood that Mr. HorneTooke had dated, and truly, to the Court, 
 the total want .of communication between him and his Counfel, 
 owing to his unexpected removal. He therefore confided in the 
 difcretion and humanity of the Court, that they would, in fome 
 degree, remedy this evil, by not proceeding to trial till Tuefday 
 next at trie fooneft, in order to afford an interval for fuch com- 
 munication between the Prifunersand CouniU as was neceiTary 
 for their faf'ety. 
 
 'The Attorney General Paid, the Prifoners were -inly apprized 
 of their being to be arraigned as on this -lay. Ti^ir removal 
 from the Tower to Newgate was arra; gud to take place a> 1 te as 
 poir.'ole, in order to prevent their being enabarrafiea by interrup- 
 tion in their communication with their Friends and Counfei. Of 
 the prefent objection he had heard nothing till the preient mo- 
 ment, which he was convinced was unpremeditated, die he was 
 Satisfied that the Counfel would not have concealed it from him. 
 As the great object, however, tie hud in view was, that a Jury 
 of the Country ihi.uld ultimately decide whether or not thole 
 charges were well or ill founded, which a Grand Jury had alrea- 
 dy declared were not totally ddlitute of foundation, he was ready 
 to alfent to the de-lay propofed, and therefore had no objection, if 
 the Court fo willed it, that the trial of Mr. Hardy ihould ftand 
 over till Tuefiay. 
 
 The Court accordingly decided to pofipone the commence- 
 ment of the trials till Tuefday next. The Attorney General 
 fiiggefttd to the Court, either that they mult meet on Monday 
 next, for which day the Petit Jury were fummoned, orelie they 
 mutt be fummoned afrefli lor Tuefday. 
 
 The
 
 C 55 ] 
 
 The Court dire&cd that the Sheriff fhould give notice to the 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, that their prefence would not beneccffary 
 till Tuefday ; and that the Court wonl.l meet on Monday morn- 
 ing pro forma, and fo adjourn over to the following day, then to 
 proceed to bufinefs. 
 
 The Court wa<. then adjourned till Monday next at eight 
 o'clock in the morning. 
 
 The above Prifoners Indifted for High Treafon, having 
 appeared to their Arraignments, with fuch firm and decent man-, 
 linefs, excite the greateft aflurance of their innocence. Thofc 
 who, under fuch fevere charges, meet the laws of their country 
 with fortitude, excite refpe6t for their behaviour, and hopes 
 of their being reftored to the confidence of their fellow citi- 
 zens, by their honourable acquitment ; it i? therefore to be 
 prefumed, our anxious expectations will be fulfilled by the re- 
 fult of thefe trials, proving that the King and Conftitution hav 
 no fuch caufes for alarm, as have been lately entertained,
 
 STATE TRIALS 
 
 FOR 
 
 HIGH TREASON. 
 
 THE FIRST PART, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 THE TRIAL OF THOMAS HARDY, 
 
 COMMENCED 
 
 TUESDAY, Oft. 28, 1794. 
 
 THE Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, the Lord Chief Juftice 
 Eyre, Lord Chief Baron M'Donald, Mr. Baron Hotham, 
 Mr. Juftice Buller, and Mr. Juftice Grofe, met purfuant to 
 their adjournment, precifely at eight o'clock in the morning. 
 
 The arrival of their Lordftiips was anticipated a few minutes 
 by the Counfel for the crown, who confifted of the Attorney and 
 Solicitor General, Meffrs. Serjeant Adair, Bearcroft, Plomer, 
 Garrow, Law, Anftruther, Wood, and Fielding. The Coun- 
 fel for the prifoner confifted of Meffrs. Erfkine, Gibbs, and 
 Vaughan. 
 
 Their Lordfhips having taken their places on the Bench, Mr. 
 Hardy was ordered to the Bar. He was decently drefled in 
 mourning for his lately deceafed wife. Confidering his fitua- 
 tion, with regard to the lofs of his deareft relation, his deport- 
 ment feemed to be that which could only be founded upon the 
 moft firm refignation to the fevere viciflitudes, to which human 
 life is liable. 
 
 The peremptory challenge was made by Mr. Erfkine to the 
 legal number of five and thirty Jurors. The Crown alfo ex- 
 cepted to a few, and concurred in the exception againft oneper- 
 fon, whom therefore we do not name. 
 
 At length by Ten o'clock, the nomination had been gone 
 through, and the following Twelve Gentlemen were impan- 
 neled to try the caufe at iffue, between our Sovereign Lord the 
 King, and the prifoner Thomas Hardy. 
 
 Thomas
 
 Thomas Buck, Efq. Back-lane, Afton. 
 
 Thomas Wood, Efq. Coal Merchant, Baling. 
 
 William Frazer, Efq. >ueens-jquare, Bloom/bury* 
 
 Adam Stainmitz, Efq. Bifcuit Baker, Lime-houfe. 
 
 Newall Connop, Efq. Diftiller, Shadwell. 
 
 John Mercer, Efq. Mealman. 
 
 Thomas Sayer, Efq. Diitiller, Bow. 
 
 Richard Carter, Efq. Paddlngton-ftrett. 
 
 Nathaniel Stonard, Efq. Brewer, Bromley. 
 
 Jofeph Nicol, Efq. Gentleman farmer, wilttbtt? 
 
 John Charrington, Efq. Brewer, Mile end. 
 
 Jofeph Ainfley, Efq. Coal Merchant, St. George's in the Eafl. 
 
 The Cryer then pronounced the accuftomed Oyes, and the 
 Clerkread the indictment. Mr. Wood, Solicitor for the Treafury, 
 briefly recapitulated the counts of the indictment; after which the 
 Attorney General rofe to open the profecution on behalf of the 
 Crown. Sir J. Scott, delivered himfelf in fubftance as follows : 
 
 Heobferved, amongft many things, that in thecourfe of dating 
 to the court and Jury what he (hould have the honour to fubmit 
 to their moft ferious attention in this great, important and 
 weighty inftance, affecting the deareft interests of theaccufed, and 
 affecting alfo the deareft intereiis of the public, affecting indeed 
 every thing that could be valuable to the prifoner, and 
 to the ftate, he (hould have occalionto call the anxious attention 
 pf the Jury to the different parts of the indictments which had 
 juft been opened to them; many of thefe parts he forbore now 
 to mention, becaufe it was fit that they ihoul'd be given in another 
 part of what he had to ttate upon this fubject. The Prifonec 
 itood indicted generally, with others, for that they had been 
 guilty of the oftcnce of encompafiing the King's death. That 
 in confequence of charges that were made againit him, and ma- 
 ny circmnftances of fufpicionof his guilt, the Pnfoner was com- 
 mitted by his Majefty's moit Honourable Privy Council, at the 
 fame time that charges were laid againft others whofe names did, 
 not occur upon this indictment; this, however, was a proceeding 
 of fome notoriety, and the general imprelSon which it made, 
 occaiioned the paffing of an act of Parliament to enable his Ma- 
 jefty to fecure and detain fuch perfons as he fufpected to be con- 
 fpiring agailt his perfon and government; by this act, it was 
 cxprelfcd to be the opinion ot the two branches of the legiflature, 
 that there did exift in this country a traitorous confpi racy for the 
 purpofe of introducing into this country a lyftem of anarchy, 
 which had fo fatally prevailed in France. This act was an act 
 of emergency, to authorize his Majefty to detain fuch perfons 
 as he might fufpect to be confpiringagainlt his perfon and govern- 
 
 H ment-
 
 [ 58 ]^ 
 
 mcnt. This meafure did not fufpend the Habeas Corpus aft, as 
 had been commonly faid ; it was only an aft to enable the King 
 to fecure for a time certain fufpefted perfons. It was a meafure 
 never adopted but m cafes in which the emergency of affairs call- 
 ed for it ; a meafure which encroached on the Rights of the Sub- 
 ject., ;uid never adopted but in cafes ofneeefTity; and infuchcafes 
 it had been repeatedly tried and put in force, for it had always 
 been thought by the nation at large in thefe cafes, that it was 
 wife to give up a little of our liberty for a while, that it might 
 not lofe the whole of it's liberty for ever. In appearing before 
 the Jury this day, he did only a duty which he was com- 
 manded to execute, and the Jury would colleft from the fafts 
 that would be la\d before them, that he was called upon to exe- 
 cute this duty; and he was ready to fay, that if the crime did not 
 appear to the extent dated in the indiftment, the Prifoner would 
 be entitled to his acquittal. He had brought it forward, and 
 his Majefty was called upon to caufe this inquiry to be made as 
 the great confervator of the public peace; in confequence of 
 that character with which his Majefty was clothed, he was 
 pleafed to order the prefent commiflion, under the authority of 
 which the court was now proceeding, and the queftion now to 
 be decided was, whether the confpiracy had exifted as a Grand Jury 
 of this country had declared. In all, however, they had done, 
 nothing more was faid, than that there was ground of charge 
 againft the perfon now finding at the Bar of the Court; they 
 had only faid that enough had appeared before them to put the 
 Prifoner upon his trial far High Treafon, that of eucompafling 
 or imagining the death of his Majefty. 
 
 He had flated thefe circumftances to the Jury, in order that he 
 might the better convey to them this ob f ervauon, tffat as the pro- 
 ceedings of the aft of Parliament he had already alluded to, ought 
 not, fo he was perfuaded it had not, the lealt influence on the 
 judicial proceedings of the Grand Inqueft, nor ought that pro- 
 ceeding to induce the prefent Jury to determine on their mode 
 of judging, in any other way than from their own conviftion. 
 If no circumftance of the proceedings of Parliament ought to in- 
 fluence the Grand Inqueil, it was to be obferved, that the ge- 
 nuine principles of the conftitution of this countryforbad another 
 Jury from fuffering themfelves to be biaifed by the decifionof a 
 Gran I Jury, who had had the cafe in part before them. They 
 \foiikl, therefore, conlider the prifoner as (landing before them 
 in full poffefllon of an abfolute right, of a piefumption of inno- 
 cence, completely, except the fimple faft, that he flood accufed 
 by a Grand Jury of his country : but before he concluded on this 
 they would permit him to fay, that if there had been any aft or 
 tiling done, or any thing publifhed improperly with a view to 
 
 pre-
 
 C 59^3 
 
 pre-occupy the opinion of the Jin y, however well or ill exe- 
 cuted that might be, if any thing had been done to work in 
 their minds either againft theprifoner or on his be-half, he was 
 perfectly fure they would not regard it, they would procei-d with 
 due regard to the fecurity of the public; and on the other hand 
 he was equally fure, he need not afk an Englifh Jury whether 
 they would permit any thing to operate again ft a Prifoner that 
 might be fuppofed to follow from an ill-executed attempt to fervc 
 him. 
 
 In order for the Jury to underftand the law of treafon, he 
 fhould take the liberty of ftating to them, that the law of treafon 
 was made for the protection of his Mjjefty's pei fon. The con- 
 ilitution of this country faid, that the power of making law re- 
 fided in his Majefty, by and with the advice of his lords and 
 commons in Parliament aflembled. The enforci g the execu- 
 tion of fuch laws when made, devolved to his Maj- ftv himfelf. 
 The laws, the conftitution declared, were enacted by the King 
 and the Lords and Commons in Parliament alT mbl^d,' according 
 to the cuftom of England. To execuie the 'aw thus made, was 
 the duty of his Majefty as the conferva*' i of the public peace, 
 and it was one condition on which ; s Majdty receive 1 the 
 fovereignty of thefe realms; any law therefore, or any attempt at 
 making one independent of his authority and of this form, his 
 Majefty was bound to refift ; he pledged himfdf to refill it by 
 his coronation oath. He would therfiore now fay, that an at- 
 tempt to create fuch a power as that which hi* Majefty was 
 called upon to refift, was treafon according to the ftatuic -f the 
 2^th of Edward III. In the King wi- veiled the executive 
 power of the State, this power was to be executed according to 
 the laws and the cuftom of this realm. To him we owed. alle- 
 giance on condition of the protection which we derived from 
 him by his thus executing thefe laws, and thole who confpired 
 againft his perfon, his crown, or his dignity, were guilt v of trea- 
 fon ; according to the ftatute, a breach of this allegiance was 
 High Treafon, and the executing of the laws as enacted by the 
 King's Majefty, by and with the advice of Lords and Commons 
 in Parliament alTem bled, -was one of the rights, and t\- lecurity 
 of the fubjedt, on the due obfervance of which b\ his Majefty 
 was founded thejuft claim he had upon us for our allegiance. AH 
 thefe were fecured to us as rights. The crown whi'h his Ma- 
 jefly wore by hereditary authority, the limitation of which was 
 one of the rights of the fubject, all were fecured to us by the 
 ftatute on which the law ot treafon was formed, tor it protected 
 both. The law that fettled the hereditary right of the crown 
 alfo afcertained his duty, which it was incumbent on him to 
 execute: in confideration of this, his character was clothed with 
 
 H 2 dignity.
 
 C 60 ] 
 
 dignity. The duty of the King to execute the law made by the 
 King's Majefty, by and with the advice of the Lords, temporal 
 and fpiritual, in Parliament aflembled, and according to the cuf- 
 tom of this Realm, was as well known and underftood as the 
 allegiance of the fubjecl ; in the oath which the King took at 
 his coronation, he fwore to excute the law as thus defcribed ; for 
 it was exprefsly declared by that oath, that he (hall caufe juftice 
 to be done, and that he fhall maintain the law and the eftablilhed 
 religion. The leaaned Counfel then proceeded to quote the 
 opinions of Mr. Juftice Fofter on the law of treafon, which he 
 took to be, he faid, a folemn recognition, not only of the duty 
 of the King, but alfo of the rights of the People : it impofes on 
 him the duty of governing according to the laws and cuftoms of 
 this Kingdom, and no other. In a fituation, therefore, of this 
 Icind, we could not fuppofe it to be pofllble for the King, con- 
 fidently with his own oath, either to aft of his own will, or 
 permit others to act, contrary to fuch laws. Now, no laws 
 could be made but by the King's Majefty, with the advice of his 
 Lords and Commons in Parliament aflembled: it feemed, there- 
 fore, as a neceflary conclufion, that thofe who confpire to drive 
 the King out of that mode of governing, muft drive him out of 
 the government altogether ; for they could not divide him from 
 the Parliament. In endeavouring to alter any of the laws fo 
 made, perfons fo endeavouring muft neceflarily be refifted by the 
 King : he muft he is bound to refift fuch an attempt ; that re- 
 fiftance, if he does not fucceed, muft neceflarily lead to his 
 depofition. The law and the conftitution had afligned to his Ma- 
 jefty very grave council, and refponfible perfons, as his a'dvifers, 
 and it was to the fupport of civil liberty; and alfo, by a fiction 
 of law, we fay, that he never ceafes to exift. In form he was 
 the author of law. He was the fountain of honour, the con- 
 fervator of the public peace, the diftributor of juftice, and the 
 protector of our religion. All thefe were the rights of his fub- 
 jects, and they were due to his people. He was alfo the governor 
 of domeftic peace, and our protector in public danger; thefe 
 were the duties of the King, and it was the intereft we had in 
 thefe things that formed the duty of our allegiance; and it was 
 on account of thefe things that fuch extraordinary fences were 
 caft around his perfon ; it was on this account that the encom- 
 pafling or imagining his death was attended with fuch fevere 
 penalties. 
 
 Mr. Juftice Hale faid on treafon, that it was againft the per- 
 fon and Government of the King, and he could not ftate a better 
 authority : the language alfo of the Counfel of Lord George 
 Gordon admitted on that trial, that any attempt againft the Go- 
 rernmentof the King was the fame thing as an attempt againft 
 
 the
 
 L 61 J 
 
 the King himfelf ; that the Government of the King and the life 
 of the King were fo interwoven together, that an attempt upon 
 the one, was an attempt againft the other. And Mr. Juftice 
 Fofter faid that the utmoft rigour of the law was thought necef- 
 fary in the cafe of treafon, becaufe when the King's life was in 
 danger, it could not happen without involving the whole nation 
 intumultand confufion ; a level at him was againft public tran- 
 quillity; but he muft put the Jury in mind alfo on the other 
 hand, that the fame learned Judge faid, that High Treafon 
 fhould not be determined according to conftrulion of law, not 
 warranted by the law itfelf. It had been long ago faid, that 
 profecutions for treafon were fo common, that a man knew not 
 how to al or to fpeak for fear of the penalties of treafon. He 
 admitted that might have been the cafe before the ftatute of Ed- 
 ward I II. was made ; the fecurity of the fubjecl was not then 
 fufficiently defined ; he therefore admitted that the prifoner was 
 entitled to his acquittal, if nothing could be brought forward as 
 law againft him, but a conftru&ion on the ftatute which the fta- 
 tute itfdfdid not intend; butunlefs an offence of this kind was 
 to be puniflied when clearly made out, n>> Government could 
 fubfift. No Government could laft an hour unlefs there was an 
 eftablifhed power fomewhere, and the fovereignty of that power 
 was the fovereignty of fociety itfelf. A breach of fo.me points of 
 law did not neceflarily involve the deftru&ion of all law, be- 
 caufe, in ordinary cafes, the law was iuffieient to fupport itfelf, 
 fuch as the protection of perfonal rights; but not fo with treafon ; 
 that crime, unlefs guarded againft in an extraordinary manner, 
 would be the end of all law at once. Thus faid Judge 
 Hale upon that fubjeft. The feverity of puniftiment for this 
 crime, is for this reafon, becaufe the tranquillity of the kingdom 
 is highly concerned in it, and therefore the law of the kingdom 
 has given extraordinary fecurity to the perfon of the Sovereign. 
 When they enacted the A&, they formed the precife definition, 
 of the crime, when the common law was thought inefficient for 
 the protection of the perfon and the honour of the Sovereign, and 
 fecurity for the execution of the law. In addrefling in this 
 place, he faid, he would dare to fay, that there had not been 
 committed any offence, if that was not defcribed by the ftatute. 
 If the ftatute ihould not appear adequate for the fecurity of the 
 Sovereign, and for the due execution of the law, it was, never- 
 thclefs, all the fecurity which the law had authorifed them to go 
 upon. On the other hand, if the law had been violated, and the 
 fadls were proved by fuch evidence as the law required, in form 
 as well as in fubftance, then they were bound to go the length of 
 feverily which that law required ; and he would not hefitate to 
 fay, that men of honour and conference, a&ing under the finc- 
 
 tion
 
 [ 62 ] 
 
 tion of the oaths tbry had taken, mufl come to one conclrtfion irj 
 fuch a cafe as this, unlefs they mould difFer an the fals ; 
 for on the trial of the Author of the Rights of Man, it was ad- 
 mitted, that the crime was made out as ftated, to the minds of 
 the Jury ; no man could have the audacity to fay, they would 
 not come to the concluiion the law called for upon the t'ifls. 
 
 The ftatuteof the 25th of Edw. III. defined what was trea- 
 fon. The encompafling the King's death, or the deal i of his 
 eldeft fon levying war againft the King, giving to his enemies 
 aid and comfort, &c. and many other like cafes of trtafim, had 
 been ftated by the ableft lawyer to be included; tht-fe were called 
 fuppofed cafes of treafon, but it was declared by the a6t, that 
 they mould m>t be deemed treafon, until it fh.mld go bef >re the 
 King and his Parliament: he defired the Jury to mark thediftinc- 
 tion and the anxiety which thofe had who framed the A<5t of 
 Parliament, for it wa i ftated by the learned Judge, he had alrea- 
 dy quoted, that they mould not trufta fubjett in the haods of a 
 Court of J;i(tire ; he marked this, becaufe it went to ihew the 
 authority of the learned Judge who made it. It did not appear 
 to him that Hale and Fofter had expounded the ftatute, by any 
 unfavourable reafoning againft theaccufed; but on the contrary, 
 that they had given prorfs of the candour of their expofition, and 
 he thought he could n >t do better than by giving the ideas of Hale 
 ftill further. H: faid, though the crime <>f High Treafon was 
 agaitift good faith, and the t^reatrft breach of duty in human fo- 
 cietv and b ings with it the m ft fa a! clanger to focicty itfelf, 
 and b ings on the nvft juft penalty, yet inftjnces (hew how dan- 
 gerous -\ is to introduce conftju&ion where the law will not 
 make any; af'er having ftated what was within t'leacl, he fays, 
 the great vvifd.>m of Parliament kepi Judges within the a&, and 
 kej t them from maicing conftw&ions of their own ; this is a 
 great fecurity to Judges themfelvcs, &c. The qir-ftion, there- 
 lore, before them now was, whether the defenviant was guilty 
 of the treafon fpecified in the ftatute, and whether the evidence 
 would amount to what the c harge fpecified, in the minds of the 
 Jury, judging under the ob' gation ot an oath, and that the Pri- 
 ioner might be attainted in the manner which the a& fpecified ? 
 The indictment charged the defendant with the crime of encom- 
 patfing and imagining the King's dea r h, and with having taken 
 meafures for that purpofe. He faid he fhould not enter into dif- 
 tin&ions on the law of treafon, however clear or manifeft, that 
 did not feem to him to bear on the cafe before them. Depofing 
 the King, or entering into meafures for the purpofe of depo- 
 fmg him, and doing^an A61 to manifeft fuch a purpofe, agreeing 
 with foreigners to invade the kingdom, giving any affiftance to 
 procure an invafion, raifing infurreclion to dethrone the King, 
 
 taking
 
 L *3 ] 
 
 taking meafures to compel h ; m to alter the form of his Govern- 
 ment, or to change his Councilors, were all of them within the 
 ftatute, and clearly were trealon. The law was this : He that 
 did any thing that might endanger the life of the King, if in the 
 ordinary courfe of things that was fairly to be apprehended from 
 the act, was guilty of trealon. This was the opinion of Hale and 
 Fofter, and it would be very extraordinary it thefe two Judges 
 had mifinterpreted the Law ; he believed they would both have 
 fuffc-rcd death heiore they wuuld have faid or done any thing in- 
 jurious to the liberty of the fubject. The queftion was fimply 
 this: Whether the Jury would be in the<r confcience fatisned 
 that any of the acts of the prifoner were to be fairly deemed, ac- 
 cording to the experience of mankind in the world, overt acts y 
 for imagining orencompafling the death of the King, asfpecified 
 in the indictment ? 
 
 There were many acts that might be called conftructive trea- 
 fons levying war agai nil the King, without declaring it to be 
 a war againlt his perfon, was conftructive treafon ; to pull down, 
 prifons was confh uctive treafon too. Thefe acts being againft 
 the Royal Majefty of the King, were juft as much againft the 
 law as if they had been againft his perTon. Thefe were all con- 
 Itructivfc treafons ; they were not fpecified in the ad, but were" 
 the decifions of Judges of the higheft character, and in thefe de- 
 cifions Parliament had uniformly acqtiieic^d, and many had been 
 convicted on them; execution had followed, and no one had ever 
 doubted either the law or the jurtice of thefe>determinations. 
 Depofing the King, fays Fofter, or to confpire to imprifon him 
 without any actual attempt to put him to death, is treafon. 
 Why ? Becaufe his life may be in danger, and therefore this is ari- 
 aft of treafon ; for, fays he, experience has fhewnv to us that be- 
 tween the prifon and the grave of a King, the diflance is very 
 fmall ; and experience had lately rhewn io us that this was not a> 
 falfe idea. 
 
 He then proceeded to confider the indictment, and he faid he 
 fhould not go one iota beyond what the law warranted. The 
 defendants wifhed to be tried feparately ; this they had a right to 
 iftheychufed it, notwithftanding their being included in one 
 indictment, and he had no inclination to oppofe it. Tne indict- 
 ment (fated that a Convention was to be held, in defiance of the 
 authority of Parliament, and to depofe the King, and for ha- 
 ving formed refolutions, orders, writings, &c. If they fliould 
 not be fatisfied that the calling together the Convention, was in 
 itfelf an act toencompafs or imagine the death of the King, yet 
 they would have evidence enough of a confpiracy to depofe the 
 Kinp. Having Mated to the Jury, that a conspiracy to depofe 
 tlje, Kmg is an, overt act of trealon, what would be the crime of 
 
 fub-
 
 fubverting the whole monarchy, including in that the whole ex- 
 iftence of the ftate, in which the King was neceflarily embodied? 
 Read as they were in the hiftory of the country, they would 
 have no difficulty in faying, that a confpiracy to depofe King 
 William, to reftore King James, would without any doubt 
 be treafon. If a Convention was formed to alter the Legifla- 
 ture, otherwife than by the legally conftituted authorities of the 
 realm, that mud be in effect to depofe the King, becaufe the 
 King was bound to refill that, tor he was fworn by law to 
 govern according to law. There could not be two fovereign 
 powers in any Rate ; there might be two numbers, making and 
 constituting a fovereign power. If there had been a Con- 
 vention, as was intended, to compel the Legiflature to alter the 
 law, either one or the other muft fall ; either the King and his 
 Parliament muft be obedient to the meeting, or the meeting be 
 obedient to the King and his Parliament. He thought they would 
 find that the whole of the plan of the Convention was to alter 
 the whole form of the goverment of" this country ,and to eftablifh 
 a form of government founded on the unalterable and imperfcrip- 
 tible rights of man, together with Univerfal Suffrage, Annual 
 Parliaments, &c. The indictment dated, that this Convention 
 was meant to carry every thing by force, and the fal was, 
 that the application to Parliament was intended only as a colour- 
 able thing, and done with a view of having the application re- 
 jected ; there was a certain ufe to be made of that circumftance. 
 To compel the King in the exerciie of the higheft and moft ef- 
 fentiat adt of his function, furely was treafon, if any thing 
 could be fo ; it was encompalling his death, tor his death was 
 almoft fure to follow his rcfufal, if the party opposing him had 
 the power; but whether they had the power or not, was a mat- 
 ter of no importance in the difcuffion, for the intention c mfti- 
 tuted the guilt after an overt aci was proved to manifell that in- 
 tention. The Jury might poffibly reafon in this way: When the 
 indictment (rated that a few individuaishad formed an idea of de- 
 pofing a Monarch, reigning in the hearts of a great majority of 
 his fubjedls what was the evidence of the probability of fuccefs? 
 The queftiou was not here, whether their means were ade. 
 quate to their end, and whether they had reafon to think fo, but 
 what their intention was. If the Jury fhould be fatisfied that 
 they had that end in view, and attempted to carry it into effect, 
 then they mult be found guilty of Treafon. He then took no- 
 tice of the progrefs of the French revolution and the caufe of it, 
 in the cour.'e of which he maintained that the different focieties 
 of tiie kingdom were connected with affiliated focieties in 
 France, and that the addreifes, penned chiefly, he faid, bv Mr. 
 
 Tooke,
 
 r 6 5 ] 
 
 Tooke, w'nh whom thePiifoner, Mr. Hardy, was connected, and 
 adopted by the different focieties, had fome efFel in producing 
 the decree of Fraternization in the French Convention, ar.d by 
 which they declared war a^ainft every Hate that would not adopt 
 their principles, and called on the fubjecls to rebel againft their 
 lawful fovereigns, to depofe and murder them as the French 
 had done their Monarch. He then proceeded to read the dif- 
 ferent papers of the fociely, and maintained that they proved from 
 the vote of approbation of Mr. Pane's Rights of Man, the Fir(t 
 and Second Parr, and above all the Addrefs to the Atidreflers, 
 the publifh'mg of which he cnnfidered to be High Trcafon of it- 
 felf, but as others doubted it, the book was only treated as a 
 libel. He then went through the whole hiftory of the London 
 Correfponding Society; the Society for Condi tutional Informa- 
 tion ; the Sheffield, Manchcfter, and other Societies mentioned 
 in the Reports of both Houfes of Parliament, by the Committees 
 of Secrecy. He read almolr, all the papers of thefe fucieties, ar.d 
 maintained that from the tenor of them, the intention of the 
 members who compofed and published them was nothing lefs 
 than what the indictment imputed to them, that of altering the 
 government of the country, and to cncompafs the death of the 
 King. 
 
 The Attorney General then proceeded to the hiftory of the 
 Scotch Convention. What he hrft remarked were the inftruc- 
 tions given by their focieties to their refpeclive delegates. By 
 thcfe mftru&ions they were directed to contend for the adoption, 
 of annual Parliaments and univerfal fnffrage, and to al on the 
 fame principle of refinance to the great majority of the nation, 
 which had already discovered it felt' in their farmer proceedings. 
 That principle of rcfiftar.ce, it appeared from the fubfequent con- 
 duct of the delegates, that they had carried even farther than they 
 were warranted by their indructions. " But the refponfibility of 
 the perfons concerned in thofe focieties, refted not merely on 
 the in(tiu6lions which they had originally given, fince they had 
 afterwards, from time to time, communication with their dele- 
 gates, in which they highly approved of all the proceedings, and 
 thus made them, as it were, their own adls. This was parti- 
 cularly the cafe with refpedl to the prifoner at the b:r, who, at 
 different times, wrote to the delegates, as fecrctary of the Lon- 
 don Correfponding Society. In confirmation of thefe remark?, 
 he read feveral letters from the focieties in England, addrefled 
 to the Convention at Edinburgh. He then proceeded to notice 
 more particularly the circiimftances in which that Convention 
 met, and the manner in which they had conducted thernfelves. 
 Mr. Skirving fent a circular letter to the focieties in England, 
 inviting them to fend delegate?. After they had met, one of 
 
 I the r
 
 their firfl meafures was to ftile themfelves theBritifh Convention 
 of the Delegates of the People, for the purpofe of obtaining 
 Annual Parliaments and Univerfal Suffrage. Thus they were 
 not content with itiling themfelves the delegates of their own 
 focieties, but a {Turned to themfelves the title of the delegates of 
 the people ; thus concentering in themfelves the functions, 
 and arrogating the authority of reprefentatives of the nation. In 
 the exercife of their newly tifurped authority, they propofed an 
 at of union, not between their own refpe&ive focieties, but 
 between the two nations, England and Scotland. They imme- 
 diately, in order to' mew their temper, began with adopting- 
 French practices. They divided their focieties into fe&ions, 
 the nation into departments ; they had their patriotic gifts, their 
 committee of fecrecy, &c. They came to a refolution, that in 
 cafe of a Convention Bill, fimilar to what had paflfed in Ireland, 
 being propofed in this country, or of foreign troops being land- 
 ed, or in the event of an invafion, th'ey mould immediately re- 
 pair to the place that the Convention mould appoint ; that the 
 rittl feven members mould declare the fitting permanent, and 
 that twenty-one mould proceed to bufinefs. Thus they were 
 not to wait till a Convention bill fhould be patted, but to confi- 
 der even the circiimftance of Parliament proceeding to agitate 
 fuch a meafure as a figna! for open refinance. And when they 
 taked of atTembling in the event of an invafion coupling this 
 refolution with their former expreflions, of their defire to co- 
 operate with the French in the caufe of freedom, with hands, 
 violence, and troops ; what interpretation could the Jury put 
 upon their cor.di.l ? But there was another circumftance on this 
 head that 'required to be attended to, and which certainly ap- 
 peared of a nature extremely fufpicious. They mentioned that 
 there were fome of their refoiutions, which in the circumftances 
 of the time it might not be fafe or prudent to publim. Ac- 
 cordingly, in the letter which they fent to Mr. Hardy, giving 
 him an account of their tranfaUons, no mention was made of 
 that part of their refutation to aifemble in the event of any inva- 
 iion ; this was a circumftance which they certainly might be apt 
 to fuppofe that they could not fufcly publifh. The violent and 
 illegal proceedings of the Convention at Edinburgh, at lad called 
 tor the interference of the magiftrates ; and the members on that 
 occafion had certainly been treated with a much lefs degree of fe- 
 verity, t-han in his opinion had been fully warranted by their 
 conduct.; Their difperfion did not, however, induce the fociety 
 to lay afide their object. They were fcnfible, that if they were 
 defirous to cany their views, it was neceilary that they fhould 
 agriin undertake the fame work at the fame hazard. Accord- 
 ingly they began to concert the means of afiembling a Conven- 
 tion
 
 I 67 ] 
 
 tion in this country. But firft, in order to prt in a more ftrorvg 
 light what their views were, he would read fome of their own 
 letters. He then read two letters of Margarot to Hardy, in 
 which he Hates, that the caufe is in great forwardnefs in Scot- 
 land, that nothing but fufficient fupplies of money are wanting, 
 in order to avow their views with fuccefs, and that a very fhort 
 lime indeed will be fuffident to put things ia fuch a train as will 
 completely exclude the polfibility of a failure. In another, he 
 talks of Sinclair having gone to Perth on very urgent bufincfs. 
 The Attorney General called the attention of the Jury to ano- 
 ther circumftance, of Sinclair having come to town, from Scot- 
 land, juft at the time, when it was Hated in their letters, that 
 there were fome things which might be improper to commit to 
 paper, and who, of confequence, might be inferred to have 
 been fent for the purpofe of communicating this fecret intelli- 
 gence. He then read a letter of Hardy, in which he mentions a 
 report of fifty fail of French (hips having been feen at fea with 
 a number of tranfports; and infers from the circumftance, the 
 probability of an intended defcent : he concludes the letter, with 
 an exhortation to frefh ardour and perfeverance in the caufe of 
 freedom. How comes it, faid the Attorney General, that this 
 mention of a French defcent is fo clofely followed by an exhor- 
 tation of this nature ? Is it to be inferred that the two ideas were 
 connected in the mind of the vvritej^ and that the prbfpect of a 
 French defcent gave them additional -fpirits, and taught them to 
 look, to a more fpeedy accomplifhment of their views ? Having 
 brought forward fo many written documents, he would only 
 .{late to the Jury, that they would find in the evidence which 
 \vould be given, a fuflkient confirmation of all .that he had read, 
 and from that evidence, would be able ftiil more fully to form 
 their own judgment upon the whole of the facts. At the com- 
 mencement ot 1794, the views of thefe focieties began ftiH more 
 to develope themielves, ar.tl to alTurae an air o;" greater boklnefs. 
 He then went into a long recital uf the proceedings at the dinner 
 at the Globe Tavern, and of the meeting at Chalk Farm. lie 
 adverted to the circumftance of Margarot having written a letter 
 to Hardy, in which he tells him that fome (Irorig rcfolutions were 
 wanted. This deiideratum v. as quickly fupolied ; the dinner at 
 the Globe-Tavern produced fome ftrong itu>k|tions irideetjj Jn 
 thefe refolutiens they treat the government of the country as 
 plunderers, enemies, and oppreiTors, to who:n it vvr.u'd be in 
 vain to apply, and from whom they have no redrcfs fo expect, 
 indeed the rtafoning upon the paper is fo entire, it's expreiiions 
 of hortiiity to the Confl,ituti>>n are (b decided, that it is tiu- 
 .pollible for any ingenuity to fur mount I I's C"Uten.s. Of tins 
 
 I 2 >>*'4
 
 [ 68 ] 
 
 paper they ordered 100,000 copies to be printed and diftributecf. 
 Trie toaits which they adopted upon this occafion breathe the 
 fame fpirit with the refolutions to which rht-y are attached. 
 Among others he enumerated the fentiment of " Snccefs to the 
 Arms of Freedom, aainl't whomfoever directed." The applica- 
 tion of this phrafc was obvious with refoect to his Majefty. Their 
 previous declaration to ihe French " tiiat if ever the Elector oi 
 Hanover mould forget that he was King of England, they would 
 know what conduct to purfue," was not to be forgotten on this 
 cccafmn. At this dinner alfo they expreffed their approbation of 
 a charter who had fo far fatisfied the juftice of his country, as 
 he had already fuffered the punifhment inflicted lor his offence 
 pgainlt it he alluded to Mr. Froft, whofe health was drunk, and 
 drunk, no doubt, from an approbation of the fentiments he had 
 exprelfed, " No King, no Parliament ; Liberty, Equality." He 
 then read the letter from Martin, who was chairman, giving an ac- 
 count of what had palfcd at this dinner. It was in vain that they 
 continually affected to make ufe of the phrafes Legal and Confti- 
 tutional, while the things which they did, as well as the man- 
 ner in which they were done, were clearly illegal and unconftitu- 
 tional. In all the tranfactions of thefe focieties which he had oc- 
 iion to mention, it would afterwards appear from the evidence, 
 that the prifoner at the bar had been the mod zealous and active. 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, continued he, if 1 fucceed in proving 
 this that means have been taken by one meeting to concert 
 another, in order to fuperfcdc the functions of the Legislature, 
 even though 1 mould (top, I have proved here enough for my 
 purpofe. In fuch a cafe the King is bound to profecuie by the 
 oath which he takes at his coronation ; by the duty which he 
 owes to his fubjects ; by his regard to the (lability of his own 
 throne. In fact, the queftion is neither more nor lefs than 
 whether he ihall himfelf continue to reign, as the exigence of his 
 power is effcntially involved in a confpiracy, which, flnkes at the 
 very root of the conftitntion, and threatens equally extermination 
 to all it's branches. The meeting at Chalk Farm was evidently 
 only a flep preparatory to the alTembling the prophfed Conven- 
 tion. It was intended to found the temper of the people, and 
 afcertain how iar they were prepared to enter cordially into the 
 views of thefe focieties. It is of extreme importance to attend 
 to the meafures that preceded this meeting, and the circum- 
 itances with which it was accompanied. They carry with them 
 an air of concert and preparation, which could only be theefftcl 
 of deliberation and time. On the fame day, meetings in the open 
 aif took place at Leeds, Wakcfield, Newcsftle unonTyne, &c. 
 
 The
 
 L *9 1 
 
 The Prifoncr font a circular letter for the purpofe of calling to- 
 gether thefe Conventions. In this letter he aiiumes a tone of 
 greater boldnefs than before he had been accuilomed to employ. 
 The critical moment,' he affirms, is at lall arrived ; formerly 
 they had agreed to meet only on the eve of palling a Convention 
 Bill, but now that moment is anticipated. 
 
 He ftates that there is a central fituation in view for the pur- 
 pofe of holding the general Convention, but he lorbears to men- 
 tion the fpot till he has confulted the Societies. Was this t-ica 
 a Convention of the People, or was it a Convention in which 
 the particular object to be ftudied, was the convenience of thofc 
 Societies ? Thus it is, that while they hold themfelves out as 
 for the People, we find them always acting from themfelves. 
 He recommends to them to adopt an example of theCorrefpond- 
 ing Society, in appointing a Secret Committee to confult upon 
 all matters relating to this Convention. There remained 011)7 
 one other point, and on that he would but flightly touch, as it 
 \vould be better eftabiilhed by particular proof he meant what- 
 ever related to the fubject of adhial military preparations that 
 had been made by thefe Societies. And it was lurely rather a 
 iingular fa 61, that in different parts of the Kingdom, London, 
 Sheffield and Edinburgh, there fhould have been found arms of 
 a peculiar conftructnn, and which of late years had been heard 
 of only in France. It feeincd probable that in confequence of 
 the dilperfion of the Britifti Convention, perceiving they could 
 no longer trult to the effect of naked numbers, they deemed it 
 neceffary to have recourfe to arms. There were fome circum- 
 ibnces from which indeed the charge received a high degree of 
 probability. Could a fuppoiition of this kind be too haifh, 
 when there appeared on the fee ret records of the Correfponding 
 Society, arefolution for guillotining George's head hi a balka ? 
 thus (hewing a difpoiition to itiike at the facred perion of 
 Majefty. Mr. Thelwall, after the meeting .at Chalk-Farm, 
 took up a pot of porter, and cutting off the troth with a knife, 
 laid, " Thus would I ferve all Kings." Mr. Yorke fla'tecl, " Thar 
 he was going to Belgium in order to bring to this country the 
 true Defenders of Liberty." We find, indeed, the Society at 
 Sheffield purfuing the fame objects by the fame means as the 
 Conefponding Society, with an exactnefs which cannot but 
 appear to be the effect of concert. We find the mod aclive 
 members of both Societies direcling and ftiperintending the fa- 
 brication of Pikes. We find the Society at Lambeth practiiing 
 military exercife, and ordering a plate, reprefenting the diffe- 
 rent politions and manoeuvres, to be adually engraved for their 
 own ufe. The Prifoner at the Bar gave directions for gut.s ajid 
 jpikcsto be made for thefe Societies, and prcviouily (lipulatcd that 
 
 the
 
 [ : 3 
 
 the perfon who was employed to make them, fhould become a 
 member of the Society. I vvifiied only to give this general idea 
 of the fubjrct, becaufe it is of that nature which will be much 
 better iubftantiated by particular proof. But if you, Gentlemen, 
 find perfons of a lower order talking of feizing auguft perfon- 
 ages, if you find them talking in a ftile of the moft contemptuous 
 rudenefs of the, characters of refpectable Members of the Legi- 
 lature, and ot having the means of watching and controlling 
 their motions, you muft then draw your inferences for your- 
 fclves. With refpect to the witnefles, whom I fhall have oc- 
 eafion to call, fome of them are perfons who were Members of 
 thefe Societies; others, 1 muft con fefs, were employed by go- 
 vernment for the purpofe of mingling with Members of thofe 
 Societies, and watching over their operations. Indeed I (hould 
 Jtave confklered it as an inftance of neglect equally dangerous 
 and criminal on the part of government, if knowing that there 
 exifted fuch Societies, who were actuated with fuch defigns, 
 they had not taken fome means of precaution in order to defeat 
 their rriWchieyous intentions. It is the great province of a Bri- 
 tifli Jury to lift out the truth by every poflible means of invefti- 
 gation ; to difmifs all prejudice but at the fame time to be on 
 their guard againft impofition. In this point of view the cha- 
 racter of the witnefs is certainly oi fome importance with refpect 
 to the credit to be given to his teftimony ; you will of courfe 
 Kften with fome degree of fufpicion to the evidence of the per- 
 fons employed for the purpofe of difcovering the defigns of thefe 
 Societies ; and in proportion as you find it corroborated, by fimi- 
 lar evidence from thofe whofe character affords no fuch ground 
 for diftruft or prtpoflTefHon, you will be able to appreciate the 
 \veightwhich itoirghtto have ininfluencingyour deciiion. There 
 is orve circumftance which I forgot to mention, that previous to 
 the fteps taken to prevent the defigns of thofe Societies from 
 being productive of further mifchief, and bringing to trial their 
 inoft active Members, in order the better to promote their views, 
 they were engaged in forming for themfelves a new Conftitution. 
 Of the necelfity to preferve the refpect due to public juftice, I 
 need not remind you; miferable indeed would be the fituation of 
 the country, if that refpect were either weakened or loft. If you 
 ihall find that the facts charged againft the rjrifoner, and fubftan- 
 fiated by evidence, amount to the crime of High Treafon, you 
 will then, no doubt, by your verdict, difcharge'what you owe to 
 your country, your pofterity, and yotirielves; but if, after the 
 cafe being fully ftated, and attempted to be proved, you (hall be 
 incHned to form a contrary judgment, I have difcharged my 
 duty, and have only to joir\ in the prayer, " God fend the prifoner 
 a uood deliverance!" 
 
 After
 
 t 1* ] 
 
 After the Attorney-General had concluded his fpeech, which 
 took him up eight hours and fifty minutes in the delivery, an in- 
 termifiion of reft to. 'k place fur about twenty minutes, during 
 which period theprifoner was accommodated with fome refre&i- 
 cnent, from the humane attention of Mr. Sheriff Earner. 
 
 At half paft feven oYIock th^ Court was refumed, and the 
 evidence commenced: Thomas M'Ltan, John Cornell, and Ed- 
 ward Harpur, King's melFengers,depoftd as to the facis of appre- 
 hending the prifontr, and the feizure of his papers, which were 
 identified. 
 
 Mr. Law, for the Crown, proceeded to examine evidence. 
 Thomas M'Lean, a King's mefifenger. 
 
 Q. Did you at arty time feize any papers from the prifoneri 1 
 
 A. Yes \ on the I2th of May lail I feized feveral books arad 
 papers at the houfe of Mr. Thomas Adams, in Took 's- court. 
 
 Look at the letter. 
 
 A. It is one of the papers which I feized. 
 
 Alexander Grant. Q^ Do you know the prifoner ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q^ Have you ever feen him write? 
 
 A. I have. 
 
 Q. Look at the letter. Is it the prifoner's hand-wrifrng? 
 
 A. I cannot fwear to it. 
 
 Q^ Do you believe it is? 
 
 A. I again fay, I cannot fwear to it. 
 
 Q^ I only afk, do you believe it to be fo? 
 
 A. I think i\ is. 
 
 Mr. Shelton read the better, March 22, 1791, figncdT. Hardy, 
 Secretary, directed to Mr. Thomas Adams, Secretary to the Con- 
 fthutional Society. It conveys the ftrong refolntions entered into 
 by the Correfponding Society, and has this palfage in the letter: 
 *' The moment is ttozv arrived whether we ihall abandon our-caufe, 
 or purfue our purpofe ota radical Reform, byitfuncflliately afiom- 
 bling a Convention/' 
 
 J(/hn Gurnell, a King^s mefienger, proved, that he went to the 
 tioufe of theprifoner on the i2th/ot May, 1794, >" confcqnc:;cc 
 of a warrant which he received at the Secretary of State's Office, 
 and feized feveral papers which he found there in a back room. 
 The wilnefa marked all the papers. Papers read. 
 
 "A Meeting of the Delegates from the two Societies being 
 held, they came to the following Refolutions, 
 
 Refolved, 
 
 ' Firft, That it appears to this Committee very definable, 
 aConvention or General Meeting of the Friends of Libesty 
 
 be
 
 [ 72 3 
 
 be- called, for the pnrpofe of taking into confideration the proper 
 methods of obtaining a full and fair Reprefentation of the 
 People. 
 
 " Second, That it be recommended to the Society for Confti- 
 tutional Information, and London Correfponding Society, to 
 inftifute a regular and preiUng correfpondence with all thofe parts 
 of the country where fuch meafures may be likely to be promoted, 
 not only to inftigate the Societies already formed, but to endeavour 
 alfo to produce iuch other ailbciations as may further the general 
 objecl. 
 
 " Third, That it appears to this Committee, that the general 
 objedl would be promoted if a (landing Committee of Co- 
 peration between the two Societies were eftablilhed, for the pur- 
 pofe of holding perfonal communication with fuch Members of 
 timilar Societies in other parts of the country, as may occafionally 
 be in London, and who may be authorized by their refpe&ive 
 Societies to act with fuch Committee." 
 
 " The above Refutations being reported to the Society for Con- 
 ftitutional Information, it was by them refolved that the fame 
 ihould be entered on their b:>oks as part of the proceedings of the 
 Society; and the Committee of Correfpondence was appointed to 
 co operate with the London Correfponding Society, in con- 
 formity with the third Refolution." 
 
 It further appears, from correfpondence of a recent date between 
 uitFerent Societies in the country, and the Secretary of the Cor- 
 refponding Society, that fome time in the courfe of a few weeks 
 pair, circular letters had actually been fen t to different parts of 
 the kingdom, on the Inbjeft of ailembling a Convention, and a 
 printed paper to this effedl has been found in the cuftody of the 
 Secretary to the Society; which is here inferted, and which your 
 Committee have good reafon to believe is a copy of the circular 
 letter referred to. 
 
 [The following is a Copy of the faid printed Paper.] 
 . " Citizens! 
 
 " The critical moment is arrived, and Britons muft either aflcrt 
 with zeal and firmnefs their claims to Liberty, or yield without 
 T> 'i'tance to the chains that miniflerial ufurpation is forging for 
 them. Will you co-operate with us in the only peaceable mea- 
 gre that now prefents itfelf with any profper. of fuccefs ? We 
 need not intimate to you, that, notwithstanding the unparalleled 
 audacity of a corrupt and overbearing faction, which at preferrt 
 tramples on the Rights and Liberties of the People, our Meetings 
 
 cannot
 
 C 73 1 
 
 cannot in England be interrupted without the previous adoption 
 of a Convention Bill ; a meafure it is our duty to anticipate, that 
 the ties of union may be more firmly drawn, and the fentiments 
 and views of the different Societies throughout the Nation be 
 compared, while it is yet in our power, f as to guide and direct 
 the future operations of the Friends of Freedom. Roufe then 
 to one exertion more ; and let us (hew our confcioufnefs of this 
 important truth " If we are beaten down with threats, profe- 
 cutions, and illegal fentences, we are unworthy we are inca- 
 pable of liberty." We mu!t, however, be expeditious. Heffians 
 and Auftrians are already among us; and, if we tamely fubmit, a 
 cloud of thefe armed Barbarians may fhortly be poured in upon 
 us. Let us form, then, another Britifh Convention. We have 
 a central fituation in our view, which we believe would be the 
 mod convenient for the whole Ifland, but which we forbear to 
 mention, (entreating your confidence in this particular) till we 
 have the anfwer of the Societies with which we are in corre- 
 fpondence. Let us have your anfwer, then, by the 2oth at 
 fartheft, (earlier if pofiible) whether you approve of the mt-afure, 
 and how many Delegates you can fend, with the number alfo, if 
 poflible, of your Societies. 
 
 " We remain yours, in Civic Affection, 
 " The London Corresponding Society. 
 
 11 T. HARDY, Secretary. 
 
 ft For the management of this bufinefs we have appointed a 
 fecret committee ; you will judge how far it is neceilary for you 
 to do the fame.*' 
 
 Mr. Grant again called. J|>. Do you believe that paper to 
 be the prifoner's writing ? 
 
 A. I cannot fwear fo, but I believe it. That will do. 
 
 The paper was then put in and read. It ran thus : 
 
 " CITIZEN, March 27, 1704. 
 
 " I am directed by the London Correfponding Society to 
 tranfmit the following Refolutions to the Society for Confti- 
 tutional Information, and to requeft the fentiments of that So- 
 ciety refpecting the important mcafures which the prefent junc- 
 ture of affairs feems to require. 
 
 " The London Correfponding Society conceives that the mo- 
 ment is arrived, when a full and explicit declaration is neceflary 
 from all the friends of Freedom whether the late illegal and 
 unheard of profecutions and fentences (hall determine us to 
 abandon our caufe, or (hall excite us to purfue a radical Reform, 
 with an ardour proportioned to the magnitude of the object, and 
 w ith a zeal as diftinguilhed on our parts, as the treachery of others, 
 
 K in
 
 C 74 ] 
 
 in the fame glorious caufe, is notorious. The Society for Con- 
 ftitutional information is therefore required to determine whe- 
 ther or no they will be ready, when called upon, to a& in con- 
 junction with this and other Societies, to obtain a fair Repre- 
 fentation of the People Whether they concur with us in 
 "feeing the neceflhy of a fpeedy Convention, for the purpofe of 
 obtaining in a Conftitutional and Legal method, a redrefs of 
 thofe grievances under which we at prelent labour, and which 
 can only be effectually removed by a full and fair reprefentation 
 of the People of Great Britain. 
 
 The London Correfporiding Society cannot but remind their 
 friends, that the prefent crifis demands all the prudence, unani- 
 mity, and vigour, that ever may or can be exerted by Men 
 and Britons; nor do they doubt that manly firmnefs and con- 
 fiftency will finally, and they believe, fhoftly terminate in the 
 full accompliihmeut of all their wifhes. 
 I am, Fellow Citizen, 
 (In my humble meafure) 
 
 A Friend to the Rights of Man, 
 
 (Signed) , Secretary, 
 
 Refolved unanimoufly, ift. That dear as JufHce and Liberty 
 are to Britons, yet the value of them is comparatively fmall with- 
 out a dependance on their permanency ; and there can be no 
 fecurity f >r the continuance of any right but in Equal Laws. 
 
 2d. That equal laws can never be expe&ed but by a full and 
 fair reprefentation of the people; to obtain which, in the way 
 pointed out by the Constitution, has been, and is, the fole ob- 
 ject of this Society. For this we are ready to hazard every thing, 
 and never* but with our lives, will we relinquifh an object which 
 involves the happinefs or even the political exiftence of ourfelves 
 and pofterity. 
 
 3d. That it is the decided opinion of this Society, that to fecure 
 ourfelves from future illegal and fcandalous profecutions, and to 
 prevent a repetition of wicked and unjutt fentences, and to 
 recall thofe wife and wholefome laws that have been wrefted 
 from us, and of which fcarcelyaveftige remains, there ought to be 
 immediate'y a Convention of the People, by Delegates deputed 
 for that purpofe from the different Societies of the Friends of 
 Freedom affembled in various parts of this nation. And we 
 pledge ourfelves to the Public to purfue every legal method 
 fpeedily to accomplHh fo defirable a purpofe. 
 . P. S. I have to inform you that a General Meeting of the 
 Society will be holdcn the I4th of April, the place to be an- 
 nounced by public advertifement. 
 
 Refolved, That it is fit and proper, and the duty of this 
 
 Society,
 
 [ 75 ] 
 
 Society, to fend an anfwer to the London Correfpondjng 
 Society. 
 
 Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the London Corre- 
 f ponding Society, that we have received their communication, 
 and heartily concur with them in the objects they have in view: 
 and that, for the purpofe of a more Ipeedy and effectual co- 
 operation, we invite them to fend to this Society next Friday 
 evening a delegation of fome of their Members." 
 
 Mr. Maclean produced another paper, dated April, 10, 1794, 
 & letter to Citizen Adams, approving of the Refolution to af- 
 femble a Convention, and appointing Citizens Thelvvall, Lo- 
 vett, and two others, to meet the Convention in behalf of the 
 Society. 
 
 Another paper was next fworn to, with apian of a Reform, 
 of Univerfal Suffrage, and Annual Election . This paper dates 
 that a great majority of the people are not reprefented. The 
 majority of the Commons are chofen by about 12,000 voters. 
 Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, and other large towns, 
 have no Members. It alfo contains the foundation of the So- 
 ciety, which was called the Correfponding Society, with the 
 forms of admifiion, &fn and that they were to pay one penny 
 per week. 
 
 William Woodfall was called, but did not anfwer. 
 
 Mr. Erfldne obferved, that it was impoffible to take all the 
 contents of the papers down as the clerk read them, and therefore 
 propofed that there might be copies, that they might have accefs 
 to them. This propolition was acceded to. 
 
 Edward Lazun, an extra meflenger. On the -I2th of May 
 laft, he feizcd fome papers; the firft (hewn to him was one of 
 them. 
 
 Grant fwore that he believed it to be Hardy's writing. It 
 was dated Auguft 20, 1792, directed to Mr. Buchanan, at Edin- 
 burgh, and contains the refolutions of the Correfponding Socie- 
 ty to effect a Parlimentary Reform. The prifoner, in that 
 letter, endeavours to promote a union between tjie focieties 
 *' A threefold cord is not ealily broken." 
 
 A fecond paper, dated September 4, 1792, is a letter to the 
 fecretary of the Manchefter fociety, containing thanks for that 
 fociety's letter, and inclofing twelve copies of an addrefs to the 
 people of England. The letter and addrefs recommended a re- 
 form in very ftrong terms. 
 
 Auguit 13, 1792. A letter to Richard Carrwright, chair- 
 man to the Conftitutional fociety, containing a copy of the ad- 
 drefs to the people, to perfuade them to a parliamentary reform* 
 This letter is figned Maurice Margarot, chairman, and Tho- 
 mas Hardy, fecretary. 
 
 K2 The
 
 The addrefs was now read, and the refolutions, all of them 
 fetting forth the inequality and corruption of the prefent ftate of 
 reprefentation ; the addrefs contains a minute description of the 
 Boroughs, which, with very" few electors, viz. fome three, four, 
 five, andjix electors, return tiv o members each, whilft large and 
 populous towns fend^no members ; ftates a long lift of evils and 
 grievances which the nation was obliged to fuffer on that account. 
 The opinions of Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Richmond, &c. &c. are 
 quoted *' That the nation would never regain it's ancient con- 
 ftitutional rights, until a fair and equal reprefentation in parli- 
 ament was effected." Alfb a very long catalogue of evils and 
 enormities, which are ftated to flow like a torrent upon the peo- 
 ple through that corrupted iource. It is dated London, Auguft 
 26, 1792. This piece took half an hour in the reading. 
 
 A fourth paper was produced, which Mr. Grant did not be- 
 lieve to be the writing of the prifoner ; but it being found in the 
 Prifoner's own porTeffion, with the others which were read, the 
 Court admitted it in evidence. This was a letter containing 
 two copies of Paine's Rights of Man, together with copies of 
 the foregoing addrefles, directed to Stockton. 
 
 The next paper was a letter of thanks from that town, di- 
 rected to the prifoner, in which they fay that they need all their 
 afliftance. Mr. Lauzun found it in the prifoner's pollefllon. 
 
 The next head of evidence was an addrefs to the French Na- 
 tien, -written by Mr. Home Tooke. 
 
 Mr. William Woodfall, examined by Mr. Wood, proved the 
 hand-writing ; and Maclean proved that he found it in Mr. 
 Hardy's cuftody. It was a letter to Mr. Adams, figned by Mr. 
 Hardy, dated October II, 1792, andinclofed in it an addrefs to 
 the French National Aflembly, which was in the hand-writing of 
 Mr. Tooke. The anfwer of Mr. Adams folio wed, acknowledging 
 the receipt of the Addrefs. This was proved to be found in the 
 Prifoner's cuftody by the Meflcnger, Lauzun. 
 
 The next document was a letter to Mr. Thomas Walker, 
 Chairman of the Manchefter Conftimtional Society, and in- 
 clofing another ccpy of the intended Addrefs to the French 
 National Aflembiy. 
 
 Another letter, dated October 1 1, 1792, acknowledging the 
 receipt of a letter from Norwich, and inclofmg in return another 
 copy of addrefs to the French. 
 
 October 1 8, 1792, a fimilar letter to the Society at Derby. 
 October 18, 1792, a (imilar letter, with an Addrefs A letter, 
 dated November II, 1792, from Mr. Baxter, Chairman to the 
 Norwich Society, to the Prifoner, and containing a define that 
 three of their members might be incorporated with the Corre- 
 fponding Society, in order to further the views of the Society ; and 
 
 defiring
 
 ir 77 i 
 
 defiring to know whether it was their defigrt. "to root up Arif- 
 tocracy by the roots, and place Democracy in it's room ? or whether 
 to follow the plan of the Duke of Richmond ?" 
 
 November 26, 1792, contains an anfwer from the Prifoner 
 to Mr. Baxter; but in which he cautioufly avoided anfvvering 
 that queftion, but ilrongly recommends a reform. &c. upon legal 
 andconrtitntional principles; and ftates to the Society the great 
 acquifition of flrength which the Society was daily acquiring. 
 
 An addrefs was then read from a Society in the country to the 
 London Correfponding Society, in which they thanked the latter 
 for their kind advice in recommending it to them to preferve order 
 and obedience to the laws. Another paper was an agreement, 
 in conjunction with other Societies, to prefent an addrefs to the 
 National Convention of France. It faid, that it was congenial 
 to the heart of a Briton to wifh fuccefs to the caufe ot Freedom, 
 and exprelTed great abhorrence to the Duke of Brunfwick's 
 Maniferto, which, it is faid, aimed not only at the liberties 
 of France, but of the whole world. Two more letters were 
 read; one written in February, 17931 from the Friends of the 
 People, in anfwer to one from the Correfponding Society; and 
 the other an anfwer to that again, fuppofed to be written by Mr. 
 Margaret. 
 
 Mr. Grant, the printer, was again called as a witnefs, to prove 
 that a certain paper, in the form of a porting bill, was printed 
 by him. He faid, he had been made a member of the London 
 Correfponding; Society in the beginning of the year 1792, the 
 firft divifion of which then met in Exeter-ftreet, at a public 
 houfe, the mailer of which was a member. He then faw Mr. 
 Margaret, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Richter, &c. He had attended the 
 divifion but feldom. In November of the fame year he was ap- 
 plied to by Mr. Richter to print the porting bill in quertion, 
 uhich he accordingly did, to the number of 500 copies, which 
 were given to one Carter, a bill- flicker, who he heard was ap- 
 prehended for (ticking them up. This paper was an addrefs 
 from the London Corresponding Society to all the other Socie- 
 ties in G.eat Britain, affoii.ued for the purpofe of obtaining a 
 reform. It denied the charges of Republicanifm and Levelling, 
 applied to it by Mr. Reeves'saffbciation: it denied that tht:y had 
 any other object in view than that of obtaining a reform in Par- 
 liament. They wanted to dt-ftroy no property but what had 
 been raifed on the ruins of their liberties. 
 
 Several other papers were read, confilling of correfpondencc 
 between the above Society and feveral others in Sheffield, Nor- 
 wich, Edinburgh, &c. fome relative to petitioning Parliament 
 for a Reform, and others complaining of grievances. 
 
 About half pail eleven o'clock, Mr. Eifkine, as counfel for 
 
 -Mr.
 
 [ 7* J 
 
 Mr. Hardy, exprefled a wi(h to know whether it was the inten- 
 tion of the Court to continue fitting or to adjourn. He did not 
 conceive it poflible for human nature to be able to hold out with- 
 out reft or intermiflion until that immenfe volume of evidence 
 fhould be gone through. For his own part, he had no objection 
 x to fit there any length of time; but he confidered the firuation 
 of their Lordfhips and the Jury, whofe duty was more arduous 
 and important than his. 
 
 The Chief Juftice faid, there was a pofitive rule in law that 
 no adjourment could take place during a trial, particularly a 
 criminal one; and from that rule he would not depart, unlefs 
 fome extreme neceflity occured which mud jultify fuch a devia- 
 tion ; that neceflity, he thought, did then exift, inafmtich as it 
 would be impoffible to keep the attention of the Jury alive, 
 fhould the trial be continued without intermiflion. For that 
 reafon, he was inclined to enter into the confideration of the 
 queftion, how far the adjournment, in the prefent inftance, might 
 be juftified. An adjournment once took place in the cafe of a 
 mifdemeanor, and the Jury feparated; but that was different 
 from the prefent, for which there was no precedent, except one 
 mentioned in the year-book fif it could be called a precedent), 
 being a cafe in which the Jury were feparated, and the Court 
 obliged to adjourn by means of a terrible ftorm. The queftion, 
 however, never was decided. Notwithstanding, if counfel then 
 made an application on the ground of it's being neceffary to the 
 prifoner, and if the profecuter confented, he fhould have no ob- 
 jection to adjourn, provided the Jury could be kept together. 
 His Lordfhip did not then fee how that could be done. Before 
 his coming into Court, he had made fome enquiry on that fub- 
 je&, forefeeing the neceffity there would be to deviate from the 
 ftrict rules of law. The Sheriffs faid, that the Jury could either 
 be accommodated in the houfe where they then fat, or in their own 
 houfes, after having given their words of honour not to have any 
 communication with any perfon. Whatever fhould be done in 
 the prefent inftance, he, with all his heart, would take his (hare 
 of the rifk. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine made fome obfervations on the delicate fituation 
 in which he ftood. He thought it would be perfectly fafe to 
 permit the gentlemen of the Jury to go to their own houfes; for 
 he entertained not the leaft doubt but that gentlemen of their 
 character would ftri&ly adhere to their word of honour ; and the 
 prifoner, he was fure, would aifent to fuch a meafure. 
 
 The Chief Juftice obferved, that it was not the confent, but 
 the requeft of the prifoner, that mould be made in fuch a cafe. 
 
 The Chief Baron thought an adjournment mult neceffarily 
 lake place, if Juftice could not be done without fuch a deviation ; 
 
 fome
 
 [ 79 ] 
 
 fome regard {hould be had to the prifoner. The Court had 
 heard the charge of the Attorney General when it was frefh to 
 receive it. His defence ought to be heard in a fimi'ar fituation. 
 Yet this deviation (hould be made as little as poffible; and he 
 thought it better that the gentlemen of the Jury fhould not go to 
 their own houfes. 
 
 One of the Jury flood up, and faid, he was an invalid, and 
 would rather go home. 
 
 The Chief Juftice told the Jury they could be accommodated 
 where they were. They faid they wiftied to go home. 
 
 Mr. Baron Hotham was againft their going to their own 
 houfes. 
 
 Mr. Juflice Buller faid there was an Alderman then on the 
 Bench, who once knew an inftance of a Jury going home. 
 
 This Alderman, whofe name we learned was Mr. Newnham 
 declared that to be the cafe. 
 
 Mr. Juftice Buller afked the Sheriff whether there were any 
 accommodations there for the Jury ? Who replied, that beds and 
 mattrafles had been provided, as well as every other poflible ac- 
 commodation. 
 
 The Chief Juftice then faid, that as it was vifible to all man- 
 kind that the ftricT: rule of law could not be adhered to, the 
 Court had onlytodefire the Sheriffs to give what accommodations 
 they could, to requeft the Jury to fubmit to thofe difficulties 
 which were unavoidable ; and as they might requird fomething 
 more than ordinary refreshments, their attendance would not be 
 requried until tight o'clock next morning. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine informed the Court, that he had not been able to 
 procure from the Privy Council copies ot the feveral papers which 
 were to be read in evidence againft Mr. Hardy. He expc&ed to 
 know what was contained in that huge mafs: and it was im- 
 poflible for that to take place during the reading of them in 
 Court. He fhould, therefore, when he came to the prifoner's 
 defence, beg a little time of the Court. He mentioned the cir- 
 cumflance then, that the Court might not be thought t* have a 
 fudden application made to it. He had not, however, any the 
 remoteft intention of trefpafling on the time of the Court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Baron thought the general rule againft fepara- 
 tion was very wifely adopted. The Ji.ry, in that cafe, gave their 
 verdil with a full and undifturbed impreflion of the evidence. 
 When however this rule fuperinduced a failure of Juftice, an ex- 
 ception became neceflary. But in his opinion, the exception (hould 
 be no greater than the neceflity. required. If, therefore, the Jury 
 could be accommodated in the houfe, that accommodation would 
 remedy the evil, and depart lead from the general rule. 
 
 Baron Hotham coincided with the Lord Chief Baron, and 
 
 conceived
 
 [ 8o ] 
 
 conceived the cafe novel, and pregnant with very ferious confe- 
 quences, unlefs the rule was departed from with the greateft 
 caution. 
 
 Judge Buller afked the Sheriff if he could accommodate all 
 the Jury. 
 
 The Sheriff an fwered, "Yes, either with beds or mattrafles." 
 
 The L'irri PiefiJent concurred with the diftinftion, and the 
 Jury had fuch accommodation prepared as the Sheriffs could 
 procure. 
 
 The Court a-ljourned at 12 o'clock, until feven o'clock, Wed-. 
 nefday morning. 
 
 Old Bailey, Wtdnefday, Oct. 29. 
 
 The Court met at eight o'clock this morning, when Mr. Wood 
 proceeded to examine the witneffes for the Ciown. 
 
 A letter was pi-oduced,figne T. Hardy, and addreffed to Mr. Skir- 
 ving,Edinburgh, which Grant proved to be the hand writing of Har- 
 dy. The purport of this letter ws to return thanks for two copies 
 of Mr. Muir's trial ; to affure Skirving that the fociety looked on 
 Muir and Palmer as Martyrs to the canfe of liberty, and to exprefs 
 their warmed hopes that the oppreffors of mankind might be 
 afhanried or afraid of carrying their revengeful malice into execution. 
 Jt is alfo declared, that Hardy had no doubt the fociety would, 
 with pkafure, accept the invitation of fending a deputation to the 
 Convention. 
 
 The next document produced, was a letter of Oft. 22, 1793, 
 figned by Skirving*Sectetary to the Scotch Convention, mentioning 
 their meeting, and their full determination to procure Annual Par- 
 liaments, and Uftiverfal Suffrage, with their resolution refpefting 
 the dv-lc-g^tcs. This paper was proved to he found among H-irdy's 
 papers, by Maclean. Mr. Grant proved that an indoifement on 
 the back of it was Hardy's writing. 
 
 The next poper was an anfwer to the former, ftgned by Hardy, 
 declaring the nomination of Margaro'.and Gerald, as delegates from 
 the Correfponding Society. This document Scott declared was 
 one, among others, figned at Sk.rving's, which he faw taken out of 
 a lealed bag, at the Sheriff's office in Edinburgh, while Skirving 
 was preient. The writing was proved by Grant, as before. 
 
 The article of inftruclion from the Conftitutional Society to Ge- 
 rald and Margarot. as their delegates to the Convention, were 
 next identified. They were as follow ; i (I, That they fhould on no 
 account depart from the original objeft and principles of the fociety, 
 viz. Annual Pailiaments. and Univerfal Suffrage, by peaceable and 
 l-iwful methods, zd. That they fhould fupport the opinion, that 
 reprelentat'ves of the people {hould be paid. 3 1. That the eleftion 
 of fheriffs fhould be by the people. 4th. That Jurors fhould be 
 chofen by lot. 5th. And that Jurors fhould be inftructed. 6th. They 
 were to maintain the lib-rrty of the prefs. 7th. And the right of 
 refi fiance againft any aft of parliament contrary to the liberty of 
 
 tho
 
 the People. 8th. That the fociety confider all parly names as 
 contrary to the general happinefs. 
 
 Another letter was produced, figncd by Hodgfon and Hardy, 
 dated Nov. i, 1793, addrefled to Margarot and Gerald, exprciling 
 their approbation of the number and zeal of the friends of liberty 
 in the north. 
 
 Three other letters were read from Hardy to Margarot and Ge- 
 rald, bearing date Nov. 15, 22, and 29, 1793, of fimilur import 
 with the former. 
 
 Gurnell, one of the King's meflengers, was brought forward as an 
 evidence of the feizurc of fome papers at Hardy's; the firft of 
 which was a letter from Gerald and Margarot. in Edinburgh, dated 
 Dec. 2, 1793, ftating the line of conduct the Convention meant to 
 purfue, in oppofition to adminiftration, if the Habeas Corpus aft 
 were fufpended, foreign troops ! nded, a Convention bill patted, 
 &c. 
 
 Then followed the correfpondence between Mr. Hardy, as fe- 
 cretary to the Correfponding Society, and Mr. Gerald and Mr. Mar- 
 garot, two of the delegates at the Convention in Edinburgh; moftof 
 thefe papers were printed alfo in the appendix to the report of the 
 committee of fecrecy; they were produced by a witnefsof the name of 
 Gurnell. Thefe papers being all read by the officer of the Court, 
 Mr. Bower (aid, " My Lords, we now propofe, on the part of the 
 Croivir, to read the proceedings of the Convention itfelf." 
 
 Mr. Eifkine. " I am not very anxious, I confefs, to fhut out any 
 of the evidence which the learned gentlemen for the Crown have 
 yet offered for the confideration of the Jury. As the cafe ftands at 
 prefent, I am entitled to fay, that although this Society has been 
 formed, the objeft of it's formation has not yet been heard of by 
 evidence, fo as to entitle the Crown to call upon the Jury to put 
 upon it any conftruftion that would make it our duty to explain. 
 They appoint two delegates for the Convention, and the character 
 of that Convention is not the thing complained of on this record. 
 This record did not complain of that Convention, it only imputed 
 guilt to the defendant now at the Bar, for being one of thofe who 
 aflembled to concert meafures for calling afterwards another Con- 
 vention of the people. We have evidence that thofe two Gentle- 
 men were delegates to the firft Convention, and that they had in- 
 ftruftions given to them; thefe inftruftions inftru6led thefe dele- 
 gates, as the Court has heard, to purfue clofely the rule and inftitu- 
 tions of thofeby whom they were appointed ; the rules and infti- 
 tutions of this Society, and which have already a long time been 
 made public. If therefore it flioutd turn out in the courlie of this 
 proceeding, that the delegates ordered to aft under the rules and 
 inftitutions of this fociety, did what many honeft men may do, and 
 what many honeft men have done, in the moment of heat and irri- 
 tation, fay fomcthing that in their cooler moments they could not 
 approve if Mr. Margarot had faid or done any thing of this kind, 
 and went beyond the letter andthe fpirit of his inftruftions, I main- 
 tain that you cannot by fuch an Aft affeft the prifoner at the bar, 
 
 L of
 
 82 ] 
 
 of which, however, there is no evidence ; nor can there in this 
 way be any evidence fairly brought againft him, lor it is not the 
 thing complained of in the record. Your Lordlhips will give 
 me leave to call this point to your recollection : the defendant now 
 at your bar, is charged with no aft of the Convention of Edin- 
 burgh. He is charged with that of which I cannot think him guil- 
 ty ; if I thought him fo, as 1 am his counfel, I muft have gone 
 through my duty unqueftionably in defending him ; but I fhould 
 then have done it in a manner very different from that which I 
 fhali adopt for his defence. He is charged with having encom- 
 paffed the death of the King, whole life is dear to us all ; to prove 
 that he had that wicked intention, _the evidence fhou!d be clear, and 
 refer to the aft itfelf, but no aft can be given in evidence, that does 
 not go to Ihew that the prifoner had that wicked encompaffing in 
 his own breaft at the time the ; >c l was committed. If they can 
 fhew that any inftruftions were given to the two men who attended 
 this convention, and that evidence demonftrated a wicked inten- 
 tion, which was manifefted afterwards, on the part of the prifoner, 
 in the way which this indiftment imputes to him. or any thing that 
 approached towards it ; then the counfel for the Crown will be 
 right. My Lord, I do not make this objection from any appre- 
 henfion of the importance of ;he prefent queftion : I have no de- 
 ftre to make captious objections ; I think we have already given 
 proofs that we have no wifh for fuch a praftice. My friend, Mr. 
 Gibbs, and myfelf, have fat here filent enough, while many of 
 thefe papers have been read in evidence. 1 do not mean to give 
 to the Court any unneceflary trouble ; all that I wifh is that no- 
 thing of this fort fhould pafs, fo that juft rules of evidence may be 
 done away. As 10 that which is now propofed, I do not know 
 what it is, very probably I am wafting my own breath upon no- 
 thing, for that the thing itfelf convevs no intelligence ; but I 
 fpeak from another motive, I fpeak in defence of the rules of evi- 
 dence in a Court of Juflice. 1 am nr. \- engaged in defending the 
 Jifeof Mr. Hardy only ; but I ought to tonhder 'hat if the rules of 
 law and jailiceare broken in upon, I may foon have to defend my 
 own hie, I muft take care that the rules of evidence are pre- 
 {< ed inviolate All that I mean to fay is, that if Mr. Hardy 
 knew of the proceedings of this convention in Edinburgh, then 
 tny ohjeftion falls to the ground in this refpeft." 
 
 The Lord Prc fid^t agreed, that the evidence propofed could not 
 be adduced immediately againft the prifoner. He cbferved, how- 
 ever, that it might be kf in . bui that the application of it was 
 another thing At all events, the pr.Iontir might afterwards object 
 that the Delegates had exceeded their commiflion, and that objec- 
 tion would be valid fo far. 
 
 Mr. Bower. Yes. my Lord, we mean to ir.cw, in many inflances, 
 the prifoncr's fubfequent approbation of the proceedings of the 
 Britifh Convention. 
 
 Th Lord ?relident. That declaration is enough to let in the 
 evidence; the application of it will depend on what will further 
 
 appear-
 
 C *3 J 
 
 toppear. If the Deputies exceeded the limits of their million^ it will 
 be matter for obiervation to the Jury. 
 
 The Solicitor General. The Deputies mud be regarded, I ap- 
 prehend, as agents to the priloner ; and if he did not dilclaim their 
 conduft when he became acquainted with it, he of courfe becomes 
 4 party. 
 
 Mr. Templar, Clerk of the Rules in the King's Bench, now pro- 
 ceeded^to read the Minutes of the Britifh Convention, tiicr. Mr. 
 Scot had proved the feizure of them. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. 1 beg your Lordfhip's pardon, but we have not yet 
 found the place in our copy to follow the reading. 
 
 The Lord Prefidcnt. You need not apologize ; we fliall think 
 no delay mifplaced by which you become enabled to make the molt 
 complete defence for the prifoner that his cafe will admit. 
 
 The Proceedings of the General Committee at Edinburgh, of the 
 6th November, 1793, were then read through. 
 
 The firft Sitting of the Convention at Edinburgh, of the ift No- 
 vember, i 793, was alfo read through. 
 
 Read alfo the following Refolutions of the Convention, en- 
 tered into on the 28th November, 1793. 
 
 " That this Convention, confidering the calamitous confecjuences 
 of any aft of the Legislature which may tend to deprive the whole 
 or any part of the People of their undoubted right to meet, either by 
 themfelves or by delegation, to difcufs any matter relative to their 
 common intereft, whether of a public or private nature, and hold- 
 ing the fame to be totally inconfiltent with the firfl principles and 
 fafetyof lociety, and alfo (ubverfive of our known and acknowledged 
 Conftitutional Liberties, do hereby declare, before God and the 
 World, that we fhall follow the wholefome example of former 
 times, by paying no regard t'o any act which (hall militate againft 
 the Conftitution of our Country, and fhall continue to aflemble 
 and confider of the beft means by which we can accomplifh a real 
 Reprefentation of the People, and AnnualEleftions, until compelled 
 to den (I by fuperior force. 
 
 " And we do refolve, That the firft notice given for the intro- 
 duction of a Convention Bill, or any Bill of a fimilar tendency to 
 that palled in Ireland in the lad Scflion of their Parliament ; 
 
 " Or any Bill for the Sufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus At, or 
 the Aft for preventing Wrongous Imprisonment, and againtl undue 
 Delays in Trial in North Britain; 
 
 *' Or in cafe of an Invallon; or the admiffion of any Foreign 
 Troops whatfoever in Great Britain or Ireland; 
 
 " All or any one of thefe calamitous circumdances, fhall beafig- 
 nal to the fevcral Delegates to repair to fuch place as the Secret 
 Committee of this Convention fhall appoint; and the firfl. feven 
 Members fhall have power to declare the fittings permanent, fhall 
 conltitute a Convention, and twenty-one proceed to bulinefs. 
 
 " The Convention doth therefore" refolve, that each Delegate, 
 immediately on his return home, to convene his Conftituenls, and 
 explain to them the neceffity ofeleftinga Delegate or Delegates, 
 
 L and
 
 gnd eflabliflung a fund, without delay, againft any of tncfe emer-v 
 encies, for his or their expence ; and that they do inftruft the faid 
 Delegate or Delegates to hold themfelves ready to depart at on 
 hour's warning." 
 
 Letter dated 8th December, 1 793, at Edinburgh. 
 
 Letter dated igth December, 1 793, at Edinburgh, figned Mau- 
 rice Margarot to Thomas Hardy, read. 
 
 Mr. G arrow, for the profecution, then called James Davifon, 
 who being (worn, faid he was a printer was employed to print the 
 paper now prefented to him believes that that happened on the 
 2oth of February laft. Thelwall brought him the copy or ma- 
 nufcript, from which he printed it. There was aHo another perfon 
 along with Thelwall, but does not know who he was it was not 
 Hardy. 
 
 Here Mr. Erfkine, on the part of the prifoner, objefted to the 
 further proceeding in this part of the evidence, as it appeared that 
 Hardy was not concerned in it. 
 
 Mr. Gaiiow contended for the propriety of the evidence. He 
 faid that the connection of Thelwall with Hardy had been already 
 To fully proved, that this being an aft of Thelwall's, attached alfo 
 upon Hardy; befides, the prifoner having paid for the printing, 
 ftrengthened the application of it to him. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid, that no doubt, in indiftments for confpiracy, 
 when one perfon is connected with another, the aft of one, if it 
 be to one and the fame purpole, even from one and the fame crime 
 as that for which they are convifted, attaches upon the other ; but 
 this, he contended, was totally different, and therefore inadmiffible. 
 Thelwall gives papers to be printed ; that naked faft could by no 
 means criminate the prifoner; and as to his paying for them, that 
 was not in proof, and could not be taken into confideration. Sup- 
 pofe this paper contained crime, would the Court, he demanded, 
 faften it on the prifoner ? In criminal cafes the Court would not 
 ftretch the rules of evidence. 
 
 The Lord Prefident faid, that he rhought the infi fling on one 
 fide, and objcftion on the other, were both premature. It muft be 
 firft known what (he paper contains, before the Court can deter- 
 mine, or the Counfel contend, on the admiffibility of it as evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Mr. Garrow faid that this ws a paper of incitement to the 
 people to rife in furtherance of the general confpiracy, and an in- 
 ftrument to carry it into efTeft. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. " In order to juc'ge of it, it will be necef- 
 fary to open that point of the writing ; 1 have caft my eyes over 
 it, and Jaw fomething applying to the general charge." 
 
 Mr. Garrow then read the paper, and continued the examination 
 of Davifon, who dcpofcd that he printed, by Thelwall's order, 2000 
 copies of it. Did not print the whole that day; printed 200 only ; 
 carried them to the Globe tavern; met Hardy on the flairs; was 
 a member of the Correfponding Society ; had been at fome of their 
 aacetir.gs; faw Hardy at them; knew he was Secretary; toldHardy 
 
 that
 
 that he had brought the 200 copies, but Hardy defined him to 
 take them back, and not diftribute them ; brought them back ac- 
 cordingly, and returned to the Globe tavern to dinner. On that 
 day the Refolutions were paffed. Jicing queftioned as lo the time 
 of the day, faid he law Thelwall at one or two o'clock, at four or 
 five carried the copies to the Globe tavern, and came again to it 
 about fix ; was not prefent when the Refolutions were propofed. 
 Had the copy given to him on the i8th, and delivered them on the 
 2 oth had no doubt about it. The dinners on thofe occafions were 
 public ; each man paid for his ticket of admittance. Believes there 
 was a chairman, but cannot pofitively fay who ; imagines that 
 Thelwall was the man. but is not fure the priibner Hardy was 
 there. Some one afterwards fent to him for fome of the copies to 
 the Globe tavern, and they were brought lo the meeting : he him- 
 ielf faw only one there, which was handed round. There were 
 three hundred people prefcnt. Stayed there till about ten o'clock. 
 Afterwards, in the fame week, he printed a thoufand more, in pur- 
 fuance of the original order given him by Thelwall ; gave many of 
 them to Hardy, members of the fociety often came for more. 
 Printed fix thoufand more at other times ; and Hardy ordered him 
 to go on printing until defired to (lop. Thinks that it was in March 
 he was defired to flop. Printed eight thoufand in all. Has not 
 been paid for them yet: no one prornifed to pay for them : had no 
 communication about the payment with Hardy, but put the print- 
 ing down to the account of the fociety, and made them his debtors 
 for them : on other occafions printed for them, and Hardy paid. 
 Knows John Martin a little; cannot fay whether he was or 
 was not a member of the Correfponding Society; was at the meet- 
 ing held at the Globe tavern when he went there. 
 
 Here a paper containing the Addrefs and Refolutions of soth of 
 January, together with the toads drank on that day, were read. 
 
 The witnefs being afked whether he knew if any perfons not 
 being members of the fociety were admitted, anfwered that he did 
 not know; but being preffed by one of the Jury, faid that there 
 were, at dinners. Spoke of the toads with Martin; to whom he 
 faid, that he thought there were fome hard words in them; but 
 Martin faid, No, they were conftitutional there was no danger. 
 This happened on the sift or zzd. 
 
 Richard Williams was then fworn, to prove the hand- writing of 
 Mr. Thelwall. 
 
 Mr. Garrow. We have fhewn Thelwall to be a party in the 
 confpiracy, and an agent for printing the works of the fociety. 
 Any acl of his, therefore, in purfuance of the grand objel of the 
 deftruftion of all rank, and the eftablifhed order, is evidence againft 
 the prifoner. The mode he adopted was, that of writing fongs to 
 expole and vilify the eftablifhed orders, to prepare the minds of 
 low and ignorant people for their ultimate deftruftion. We mean 
 to produce in evidence an account of thefe fongs, as given by Thel- 
 wall. 
 
 Mr;
 
 [ 16 ] 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. If thefe fongs had been fung at the fociety, it 
 vrould have been evidence ; but Thelwall's account that luch fongs 
 had been fung is not. What an agent does, binds the principal, but 
 not what he fays he does. The account is given to a ftranger, un- 
 connefted with the fociety. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. We can have no anxiety to refift this kind of evi- 
 dence, but the connderation. that if it be frequently admitted, there 
 is no knowing where it may end. 
 
 The defendant is charged, id, Withcompaffing the King's death ; 
 ad, With endeavouring to effeci that objeft by means of an infur- 
 reftion, or with inciting the infurreftion with that fettled defign. 
 All evidence, therefore, muft apply to one of thefe points of the 
 indiftment : the prefent letter applies to neither. 
 
 Mr. Garrow. The whole objeftion applies to the effeft and 
 tendency of the letter, which is applicable only to the Jury. Now, 
 we fay, that the letter being in furtherance of the general confpiracy, 
 all the collateral parts involve every one conceined, provided they 
 do not diverge into feparate and diftinct offences. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. I have great doubts on this point of evi- 
 dence. Every part of a general confpiracy fhould be admitted as 
 imputable toallr but this is only a private letter: and though good 
 againft Thelwall ? in my opinion, fhould not be received againft 
 the prifoner. It is not fimilar to a faft done by Thelwall ; it is 
 only an account given by him like a declaration and confeffion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Baron and Baron Hotham were filent. 
 
 Judge Buller. 1 think this evidence is admiffible. The indift- 
 ment, in the prefent cafe, involves two diftinft points, which, if 
 kept feparate, the evidence will apply: ift, The exigence of a 
 traitorous confpiracy; ad, How far the prifoner is concerned in it. 
 The firft point fhould be eftablifhed, and then the fecond enquired 
 into. Suppofe the cafe flood thus : Thelwall had fpoken words to 
 the fame effeft ; the evidence might have been received as efta- 
 blifhing the firft point of the exiftence of a confpiracy. This was 
 done in Dameray and Purchaie's cafe; and recently in Lord 
 George Gordon's, evidence was received of what the mob faid, al- 
 though his Lordfhip was not prefent at the time. It fhewed what 
 defign was on foot. The other point involving the prifoner muft 
 afterwards be made out ; but Thelwall's letter or words make of 
 the faft a confpiracy. 
 
 Judge Groie. There 'are doubts on this fubjeft, but I cannot 
 think that the evidence fhould be rejected. Both are parties to one 
 plot, and it is very material to hear whateither fays concerning it ; 
 for that fhews the animus and objcft. 1 am therefore for it's ad- 
 miffion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Baron. There certainly is great doubt on the 
 fubjeft ; but it does rot appear to me that the letter meets the defi- 
 nition of furthering the confpiracy. I therefore am for rejecting 
 the evidence. 
 
 Baron Hotham. It does not appear to be part of the plan, but 
 
 a timple
 
 I. 7 J 
 
 a fimple narration, which fhould not be received ag^inft the pri- 
 ioner. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. I retain my opinion, and fee a wide dif- 
 tinclion between words and aflions. The cry of a mob in Lord 
 George Gordon's cafe was a part of the aftion and a fat. 
 
 Three Judges bcip-j againft the evidence, and two for it, the 
 evidence was rejef> . 
 
 Mr. Garrow wished to produce a letter from Martin, a member 
 of the London Con efponding Society, to Margaro', while at Edin- 
 burgh, as a Delegate to the Britifh Convention. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine objected, as Martin was not included in the indift- 
 ment, nor any way known but as a member of the London Cor. 
 refpepding Society. If his letter were to affe6l the defendant, he 
 fjw no 'id to evidence, as any letter of any of the numerous mem- 
 bers might he produced in the fame way, and he wifhed to know if 
 in that cafe he fhould be allowed to rebut the evidence by the fame 
 kind ; namely, evidence of innocent or meritorious intention . 
 
 Mr. Gibbs regarded this cafe as fimiLr to the laft. It was a rela- 
 tion and not a faft. 
 
 Mr. Garrow obferved, that the letter was an excitation to infur- 
 reftion in direft terms. 
 
 The Solicitor General faid, the objection appeared to him to have 
 no weight, and not at all conne6ted with the queftion which the 
 Court had decided. That decifion he was bound in duty to 
 fubmit to; but in contending for the admiffU>ility -of the pre- 
 Icnt evidence, he fhould' not be obliged to controvert what had 
 fallen from -the Bench. It appeared to him a clear propofition, 
 that where a confpiracy was proved to exift, a converfation 
 among a part of the confpirators might be adduced in evidence 
 againft any other of the confpirators, though he might not have 
 been preient at the converLtien. The diflinclion between the pre- 
 fent queftion anii that which had been juft decided, was very ob- 
 vious ; for this was a letter from a perfon charged with being in 
 the confpiracy to another {landing in the (ame predicament, and 
 therefore ought, upon every principle of evidence, to be read as a 
 proof of the intentions of the parties, and the objet of the Con- 
 fpiracy. 
 
 Inthectfeof Lord Stafford, much of the evidence was of the 
 general nature, fuch as the converfation between Andcrton and 
 two other confpirators, at which Lord Stafford was not prefent. 
 
 In the cafe of Lord Lovat, the fame doctrine was laid down by 
 the Solicitor General of that day, and the fame fpecies of evidence 
 admitted. In contending for the admiflion of the evidence, he did 
 not mean it as a politive proof of the^vo animo with which Hardy 
 acied, but merely as a means, by which to atcertain the general views 
 of the confpir<Uots. 
 
 Serjeant Adair was extremely anxious that this point fhould be 
 decided, not only from it's importance in the prefent cafe, but that 
 it might ferve as a rule for poflerity. It was neceflary to Hate ex- 
 aftly the grounds upon which the evidence was, tendered; he did 
 
 not
 
 t 88 J 
 
 not mean to contend, that the idle converfations of Martin were 
 pofitive proof of guilt againft Hardy; but as the letter offered to 
 oe read, was from one confpirafor to another, dating a faft which 
 had occurred in furtherance of their plan, it certainly ought to 
 be read, as tending to fhew the views of the parties. The charge 
 againft the prifoner was. that of confpiring againft the King, with 
 an intent to depofe him and take away his life; but this plan was 
 to be effected under the cloak of a parliamentary reform. The 
 latter might, under circumftances, be innocent; but among people 
 aciing in this manner, there muft of courfe have been ufed many 
 equivocal expreffions, which it would be impoffible to devclope, if 
 fuch an evidence as this were not to be admitted. The letter itfelf, 
 if read, would not prove perhaps any great degree of guilt againft the 
 prifoner, but the principle was fo extremely important, that he felt 
 anxious for it's being eftablifhed by the admifiion of this evidence. 
 
 Mr. Bearcroft faid, he would not apologize for troubling the 
 Court upon fo important a cafe; there were two things which he 
 would, in the courfe of what he had to fay, cautioufly avoid; he 
 would not break in upon the determination which the Court had lately 
 given, nor would he repeat one word which had been faid by his 
 learned friends who had preceded him. He thought h e might lay 
 it down as a pofition clearly acknowledged, that the general ru!es 
 of evidence, afted upon in cafes of a fmaller magnitude, were equally 
 applicablein a cafe of Hioh Treafon. In every trial for a Confpi- 
 racy. the faft of the confpiring having been proved, the declarations 
 or acts of one of the confpirators were always admitted as evidence 
 againft the others. It had already been proved, that Margarot, 
 Martin, and the Prifoner, were connected together in this plan, and 
 the letter of one of them was admiffible againft the others, whether 
 it proved much or little*. , 
 
 Mr. bearcroft, Mr. Bower, and Mr. Law, made feveral obfcrva- 
 tions on the admiflibility of this letter. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine in reply declared, that it never was his intention to 
 oppofe the reading ol any document relative to this bufincfs^ but it 
 was to prevent a dangerous precedent being eftablifhed. It was not 
 a matter of flight importance. He flood there as counfei for the 
 innocent man at the bar. tor the Country, and for the Conftitution, 
 and he would fuffe'r n<> precedent to be adopted that was incompati- 
 ble with their fafety. 
 
 Mr. Solicitor General frniled. 
 
 The learned Counfel obfcrved, that the folemnity of the occafion 
 ought to infpire emotions of a very different nature. If he was 
 miftaken in point of law, he was open to correction, but it was not 
 to him that he would apply for information on the fubjefct. 
 
 The Lord Prefident f*id. a confiderable portion of time had been 
 taken up in the difcuffion of this point. He did not throw any 
 blame any where, as the point certainly was of much importance. 
 He confeffed he did not think this evidence could be dtftinguifbed 
 from that which the Court, had refufed to admit. 
 
 Tins
 
 This letter was not proved to come to the hands of Margaret, 
 and therefore might merely have been written by Martin, and ne- 
 ver fent. Suppole four perfons arc accufed of a confpiracy, and 
 three of them acknowledge the confpiracy, that would not be evi- 
 dence againftthe other. The cafe of Lord Stafford did not apply to 
 this, becaufe in that cafe all the parties were engaged in converfa* 
 tion proved. His Lordfhip therefore thought the evidence ough> 
 not to be admitted. 
 
 The Lord Chief Baron thought there was a material diftinftion 
 between the former cafe and the prcfent, for this was a complete aft 
 in one of the confpirators, and in his opinion good evidence 
 stgainft the reft. 
 
 Baron Holham retained his opinion upon the former cafe, but 
 thought it very diftinguifhable from the prefent, and therefore was 
 of opinion that the evidence ought to be admitted. 
 
 Mr. Juftice Buller and Mr. Juftice Grofe were of the fame 
 opinion; and the letter was read, the hand writing of Martin was 
 
 proved by William Walker. It was dated Richmond-buildings, 
 
 Jan. 22, 1794; and direfted to Mr. Margarot, Edinburgh. 
 
 The following papers found in Hardy's houfe, were then read : 
 
 A letter from the Briftol Society for conftitutional information, 
 dated the 24th Jan. 1794, and addrefledto the prifoner. 
 
 Some circular letters, dated gth of April. 
 
 A letter from the Norwich Society to the prifoner. 
 
 A letter, purporting to be an anfwer to the laft, but not figned by 
 the prifoner, or in his hand- writing. 
 t A letter, dated Brillol, 24 April, 1794, from the Briftol Society, 
 
 A letter from the Norwich Society, dated 291)1 April 1 794. 
 
 A letter from the Hereford Society, dated i2th April 179-1- 
 
 The anfwer to the above, figned T. Hardy. 
 
 A letter from the Halifax Society, May 1 1, 1794. 
 
 A letter dated Edinburgh, Oft. 1793, addrefled to the prifoner. 
 
 A letter from the Society for Conftitutional Information, dated 
 14th June, 1792. 
 
 A letter from Hardy to the Society for Conftitutional Informa- 
 tion. 
 
 A letter from a fociety at Sheffield, addrefled to the prifoner, but 
 found amongft J. Thelwall's papers, was next produced. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine contended, that this paper was not matter of evi- 
 dence againft Hardy. There was no proof that he had ever feen 
 the paper, nor that the Sheffield Society, from which it came, was 
 that with which his client had been in the habit of corrcfponding. 
 
 Mr. Garrow faid, that as Thelwall was a fubordinate agent of 
 the fociety, andafted in conjunction with Hardy, the addrefs was a 
 fufficient proof that the latter was acquainted wiih it's contents. 
 
 The Lord Prelident (Eyre) agreed with the Counfel for the pro- 
 fecution. He added, that the aft of any one man engaged in luch 
 a confpiracy, was fufficient to criminate thofe with whom he co- 
 operated. 
 
 The letter was then read. It ftated the incrcafe of their num- 
 
 M bers
 
 bers in defpite of the ariflocracy. by which they were unrounded, 
 and their determination not to abate in their efforts until a reform 
 was accomplifhed. 
 
 Daniel Adams, late fecretary to the Society for Conftitutional 
 Information, was then fworn. He identified the books of that 
 fociety, which were feized at his houfe. Thefe books, he faid, were 
 always open to the infpeftion of the members, and lay on the table 
 at their meetings. This privilege was however ufed but ieldom, as 
 the minutes of the former were always read before they proceeded 
 to bufinels at the fublequent meeting. 
 
 The minutes of the meeting of the Conftitutional Society, held 
 at the Crown and Anchor on the i8th of Auguft 1792, and the 
 fubfequent days, were then read. Thefe related to the admiffion of 
 fix members fiom the London Correfponding Society ; their thanks 
 to Mr. Paine for his works , their declining his offer of a thoufand 
 pounds from the profits of the fale of the Rights of Man, to be 
 applied to fuch purpofes as the Society may think proper. The 
 ground on which they declined this offer was, that the principal 
 iource of his enjoyment they faid muft arife from his own con- 
 fcioufnefs of the good which his labours had rendered to man- 
 kind ; yet they did not think it right, that he fhould be deprived of 
 the profits fairly refulting from thofe labours. 
 
 As much (Irefs was laid by the Counfel for the profecution on 
 the far.flion and adoption thus given to the works of Mr. Paine, 
 we fubjoin a lift ot the members prefent at thofe meetings. 
 
 Mr. Froft Mr. J. H. Tooke 
 
 Mr. Edwards Mr. Bonney 
 
 Mr. J. Williams Mr. Payne 
 
 . Dr. iMaxwell Mr. Hull 
 
 Mr. Sharpe Mr. Pierfon 
 
 Dr. Kentifh Mr. Sturch 
 
 Mr, G. Williams Mr. Conftable 
 
 Mr. Rivington Capt. Harwood 
 
 Mr. Buftie, fen. Mr. Bufhe, jun. 
 
 Mr. Tuffnell Mr. Maillow 
 
 Mr. Hinde Lord Sempill 
 
 Mr. Fitzgerald Mr. Barbelow 
 
 Mr. Jennings- Mr. Allen 
 
 Mr. Chapman Mr. Afpinhall 
 
 Mr. Hardy Mr. Grant 
 
 Capt. Perry Dr. Towers 
 
 Mr. Gerald Mr. Littlejohn 
 
 Mr. Rutt Mr. Sutton 
 
 Mr. Moore Mr. Martin 
 
 Mr. Gough Mr. Simmons 
 
 Mr. Joyce Mr. Walfh, &c. 
 
 Mr. Jordan, bookfeller, in Fleet-ftreet, was then called, to iden- 
 tify the work of Mr. Thomas Paine, and to prove his hand- writing. 
 Mr. Jordan had never fcen Mr. Paine write. He had received 
 
 ieveraj
 
 fcvcral notes from him, but never, as far as he can rCcolleft, had a 
 converfation with him afterwards on the fubjeft of ihofe notes. He 
 had publifhed the works of Mr. Paine, but he could not fwear that 
 the copy prefented to him was one of his publication. 
 
 [Here appeared a temporary chafm in the evidence, as the man 
 was dead who had bought the Rights of Man at Mr. Jordan's by 
 direction of Mr. White, the folicitor of the treafury. Mr. Chap- 
 man, the printer of the book, was called, but did not appear. The 
 Lord Prefident faid. that as there was no appearance of the written 
 evidence approaching to a conclufion, the Jury may avail them- 
 ielves of this interval to take fome refrefhment. The court ad- 
 journed at half pad three o'clock for an hour.^] 
 
 The court being refumed, Mr. Lauzun, the meflenger, was called 
 in, and proved his ngnature to a copy of the cheap edition of the 
 Rights of Man, found in the prifoner's houfe. 
 
 A letter was then read from Mr. Paine to the people of France, 
 dated Sept. 25, 1792; in this letter he returns them thanks for 
 having eledled him a French Citizen, and a member of the Conven- 
 tion, and on having broken the line, which limited patrio'ifrrij 
 like vegetation, to the foil. Their'g, he faid, was not the paltry 
 caufe of kings, but the great caufe of mankind. He fhould there- 
 fore chearfully join their caufe, and'embrace their hazards. He con- 
 gratulated himfelf on thefliarc which he had taken in the American 
 Revolution, and the more as it now appeared that the Old World 
 had been regenerated as it were by the efforts of the New. He 
 obferves that it is impoffible to conquer a nation determined to be 
 free ; but that Kings, accuflomed to make war only on each other, 
 had no idea of the refources of an armed nation. The latter were 
 always found at their height when they were expefted to be at an 
 end, &c. 
 
 Mr. Chapman, book feller, of Fleet- flreet, was then called. He 
 proved the printing of the fii ft part of the Rights of Man, and the 
 fecond part as far as page i 28, by the direction of Mr. Paine. The 
 copy on the table he believed to have been printed by him. This 
 Mr. Garrow faid was fufficient for his purpofe, and the chafm in 
 the evidence being thus fuppHed, he directed the following ex* 
 trafts to be read by the Clerk at the table. 
 
 [As on thefe extracts, and the fanclion given by the two focie- 
 tics in queftion to the antimonwchical principles of Mr. Paine, the 
 treafonable charge of aiming to fubvcrt the monarchy of this 
 country appear.; chiefly to hinge; we have felt it out hity, though 
 the tafk is accompanied hy a confidcrable (hare of reluctance, to 
 give them literally to our readers."] 
 
 RIGHTS OF MAK, PART I. * 
 
 Pajre 5 4. " Can then Mr. Rurke produce the Englifh conflitii" 
 tion ? If he cannot, we may fairly conclude, fliat though it has 
 been fo much talked about, no fuch thing as a conftitution exifts, 
 or ever did exift, and confequemly that the people have yet a con- 
 ititution to form. 
 
 " Mr. Burke will not, I prefume, deny the pofition I have 
 M 2 already
 
 [ 92 3 
 
 already advanced ; namely, that governments arife either out of 
 the people or over the people. The Englifh government is one of 
 thole which arofe out of a conqueft, and not out of fociety, and 
 confequently it arofe over the people; and though it has been 
 much modified from the opportunity of circumftances fince .the 
 time of William the Conqueror, the country has never yet re- 
 generated itfelf, and is therefore without a conflitution." 
 
 Page 5,5. " A government on the 'principles on which conftitu- 
 tional governments arifing out of fociety are eftabliihed, cannot 
 have the right of altering itfelf. If it had, it would be arbitrary. 
 It might make itfelf what it p'eafe; and wherever fuch a right is fet 
 up, it (hews there is no conflitution. The aft by which the En- 
 glifh parliament empowered itfelf to fit feven years, fhews there is 
 no conftitution in England. It might, by the fame felf authority, 
 have fat any greater number of years, or for life. The bill which 
 the prefent Mr. Pitt brought into parliament fome years ago, to re- 
 form parliament, was on the fame erroneous principle. The right 
 of reform is in the nation in it's original character, and the conftitu- 
 tionai method would be by a general convention elected for the 
 purpofe." 
 
 Page 60. " Much is to be learned from the French Conftitu- 
 tion. Conqueft and tyranny tranfplanted themfelveswith William 
 the Conqueror from Normandy into England, and the country is 
 ftill disfigured with the marks. May then the example of all 
 France contribute to regenerate the freedom which a province of 
 it dcftroyed." 
 
 Page 152. " The two modes of Government which prevail in 
 the world, are, firft, Government by election and representation : 
 Secondly, Government by hereditary fucceffiorw The former is 
 generally known by the name of republic ; the latter by that of mo- 
 narchy and ariltocracy. 
 
 Thofe two diflinct and oppofite. forms erect themfelves on thes 
 twodiftinft and oppofite bales of Reafon and Ignorance. As the 
 exereife of Government requires talents and abilities, and as talents 
 and abilities cannot have hereditary defcent, it is evident that he- 
 reditary fucceflion requires a belief from man. to which his reafon 
 cannot fubfcribe, and which can only be eftablifhed upon his igno- 
 rance ; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted 
 Cor this fpecies of Government." 
 
 Page 156 " From the Revolutions of America and France, 
 and the lymptoms that have appeared in other countries, it is evi- 
 dent that the opinion- of the world is changing with refpect to 
 fy items of government, and that revolutions are not within the 
 compals of political calculations. The progrefs of time and cir- 
 cutnflances, which men aflign to the accomplishment of great 
 shanges, is too mechanical to meafure the force of the mind, and 
 the rapidity of reflection, by which revolutions are generated: All 
 the old governments have teceived a fhock from thofe that already 
 *pLe*r, and which were once myre improbable, and arc a greater
 
 - [ 93 3 
 
 fubjecl: of wonder, than a general revolution in Europe would be 
 now. 
 
 " When we furvey the wretched condition of man under the 
 monarchical and hereditary fyftems of government, and dragged 
 from his home by one power, or driven by another, and im- 
 poveriQied by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident 
 that thofe fyftems are bad, and that a general revolution in the 
 principle and conftruftion of Government is neceflary. 
 
 " What is Government more than the management of the affairs 
 of a nation? It is not, and from it's nature cannot be, the pro- 
 perty of any particular man or family, but of the whole commu- 
 nity, at whofe expence it is fupported; and thougk by force or 
 contrivance it has been ufurped into an inheritance, the ufurpa- 
 tion cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of 
 right, appertains to the nation only, and not to any individual ; 
 and a nation has at all times an inherent indefeafible right to 
 abolifh any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and efta- 
 blifh fuch as accords with it's intereft, dilpofttion, and happinefs. 
 The romantic and barbarous diftin&ion of men into Kings and 
 fubjeds, though it may fuit the condition of courtiers, cannot 
 that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which 
 Governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the 
 fbvereignty, and, as fuch, can acknowledge no perfonal fub- 
 jettion ; and his obedience can be only to the laws. 
 
 " When men think of what Government is, they mufl neceffarily 
 fuppofe it topoflefs a knowledge of all the objefts and matters 
 upon which it's authority is to be exercifed. In this view of Go- 
 vernment, the Republican fyftem, as eftablifhed by America and 
 France, operates to embrace the whole of a nation ; and the know- 
 ledge necefiary to the intereft of all the parts, is to be found in the 
 center, which the parts by reprefentation form: but the old Go- 
 vernments are on a conftruction that excludes knowledge as welt 
 as happinefs; Government by Monks, who know nothing of the 
 world beyond the walls of a Convent, is as confident as govern- 
 ment by Kings. 
 
 " What were formerly called Revolutions, were little more 
 than a change of perfons, or an alteration of local circumftances. 
 They rofe and fell like things of courfe, and had nothing in their 
 exiftence or their fate that could influence beyond the ipot that 
 produced them. But what we now fee in the world, from 
 the Revolutions of America and France, are a renovation of the 
 natural order of things, a fyitem of principles as univerfal as 
 truth and the exigence of man, and combining moral with poli- 
 tical happinefs and national profperity." 
 
 Page 161. "As it is not difficult to perceive, from the en- 
 lightened ftate of mankind, that hereditary Governments are 
 verging to their decline, and that revolutions on the broad bafis 
 of national fovereignty, and Government by reprefentation, arc 
 
 makin
 
 L 94- J 
 
 mak'fig their way in Europe, it would be an act of wifdom to 
 anticipate their approach, and produce revolutions by reafonand 
 accommodation, rather than commit them to the ifFue of con- 
 vulfion*. 
 
 " From what we now fee, nothing of reform in the political 
 world ought to be held improbable. It is an age of revolutions, 
 in which every thing may be looked for. The intrig ie of 
 Court?, by which the fyftem of war is kept up, may provoke a 
 confederation of nations to aboliih it; and a European Congrefs, 
 to patronize the progrefs of free Government, and promote the 
 civilization of nations with each other, is an event nearer in pro- 
 bability, than once were the revolutions and alliance of France 
 and America." 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 Page 21. " All hereditary government is in it's nature ty- 
 ranny. An heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what 
 other fanciful name fuch things may be called, have no other fig- 
 nificant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. 
 To inherit a government, is to inherit the people, as if they 
 were flocks and herds/' 
 
 Page 27. " How irrational then is the hereditary fyftem 
 which eftablifties channels of power, in company with which 
 wifdom refufes to flow ! By continuing this abfurdity, man is 
 perpetually in contradiction with himfelf ; he accepts, for a king, 
 or a chief magiftrate, or a legifiator, a perfon whom he would 
 not elect for a conftable." 
 
 Page 47. " This convention met at Philadelphia in May 
 1787, of which General Wafhington was elected prefident. He 
 was not at that time connected with any of the ftate govern- 
 ments, or with congrefs. He delivered up hiscommiflion when, 
 the war ended, and fincethen had lived a private citizen. 
 
 " The convention went deeply into all the fubjects ; and ha- 
 ying, after a variety of debate and inveftigation, agreed among 
 themfelves upon the feveral parts of a federal constitution, the 
 next queftion was, the manner of giving it authority and prac- 
 tice. 
 
 " For this purpofe, they did not, like a cabal of courtier?, 
 fend for a Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector ; but they re- 
 ferred the whole matter to thefenfe and intereft of the country. 
 
 " They fifft directed, that the propofed constitution mould 
 elect a convention, exprefsly for the purpofe of taking it into 
 confideration, and of ratifying, and ratification of any nine ftates 
 ftould be given, that thofe ftates ftiould proceed to- the election 
 of their proportion of members to the new federal government ; 
 and that the operation of it (hould then begin, and the former fe- 
 deral government ceafe." 
 
 Page
 
 [ 95 1 
 \ , 
 
 Page 52. " The hiftory of the Edwards and the Henries, 
 and up to the commencement of the Stuarts, exhibits as many 
 inftances of tyranny as could be acled within the limits to whicli 
 the nation has reftricled it. The Stuarts endeavoured to pafs 
 rhofe limits, and their fate is well known. In all thofe inftances 
 we fee nothing of a conftitution., but only of reftri&ions on affu- 
 med power. 
 
 " After this, another William, defcended from the fame 
 flock, and claiming from the fame origin, gained poflelfion ; and 
 of the two evils, James and William, the nation preferred what 
 it thought the lealt; fince, from circumftances, it mud take one. 
 The adl, called the Bill of Rights, comes here into view. What 
 is it, but a bargain, which the parts ot the government made with. 
 each other to divide powers, profits, and privileges ? You (hall 
 have fo much, and I will have the reft ; and with refpet to the 
 nation, it is faid, for your jbares Y.>TJ Jh all have the right of peti- 
 tioning. This being the bill of rights, is more properly a bill of 
 wrongs and of infult. As to what is called the Convention Par- 
 liament, it was a thing that made itfclfj and then made the au- 
 thority by which it a&ed. A few perfons got together, and cal- 
 led themfelves by that name. Several of them had never been 
 ele&ed, and none of them for the purpofe. 
 
 " From the time of William, a fpecies of government arofe, 
 ifliiing out of this coalition bill of rights ; and more fo, fince the 
 corruption introduced at the Hanover fuccefllon, by the agency 
 of Walpole ; that can be defcribed by no other name than a def- 
 potic legiflation. 
 
 " Though the parts may embarrafs each other, the whole has 
 no bounds ; and the only right it acknowledges out of itfelf, is 
 the right of petitioning. Where then is the conftitution either 
 that gives or that reftrains power ? 
 
 * It is not becaufe a part of the government is elective, that 
 makes it lefs a defpotifm, if the perfons fo eleded, poflefs 
 afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this 
 cafe, becomes fepa rated horn reprefentation, and the candidates 
 are candidates for defpotifm. 
 
 " I cannot believe that any nation, reafoning on it's own rights, 
 would have thought of calling thofe things a conftitution, if the 
 cry of conftitution had not been fet up by the government." 
 
 Page 63. " With refpe& to the two houfes, of which the 
 Englim Parliament is compofed, they appear to be effe&ually 
 influenced into one, and, as a legiflature, to have no temper of 
 it's own. The Minifter, whoever he at any time may be, 
 touches it as with an opium wand, and it fleeps obedience. 
 
 " But if we look at the ciifiindl abilities of the two houfeg, 
 the difference will appear fo great, as to fhevv the inconfiftency 
 
 of
 
 [ 96 ] 
 
 of placing power where there can be no certainty of the judg- 
 ment to ufe it. Wretched as the ftate of reprefentation is -in 
 England, it is manhood compared with what is called the houfe 
 of Lords; and fo little is this nick-named houfe regarded, that 
 the people fcarcely inquire at any time what it is doing. It ap- 
 pears alfo to be moft under influence, and the furtheit removed 
 from the general intereft of the nation. In the debate on enga- 
 ging in the Ruffian and Turkifh war, the majority in the houfe 
 of Peers in favour of it was upwards of ninety, when in the other 
 houfe, which is more than double it's numbers, the majority was 
 fixty-three." 
 
 Page 65. " But in whatever manner the feparate parts of a 
 conftitution may be arranged, there is one general principle that 
 diftinguifhes freedom from flavery, which is, that all hereditary 
 government over a people is to them a fpecies of Jlavery, and repre- 
 Jtntative government is freedom. ' ' 
 
 Page 107. " Having thus glanced at fome of the defeats of 
 the two houfes of Parliament, I proceed to what is called the 
 Crown, upon which I fttallbevery concifc. 
 
 " It fignifies a nominal office of a million fterling a year, the 
 bufinefs of which confifts in receiving the money. Whether the 
 perfon be wife or foolilh, fane or irifane, a native or a foreigner, 
 matters not. Every Miniflry acls upon the fame idea that Mr. 
 Burke writes, namely, that the people mud be hood-winked, and 
 held in fuperftitious ignorance by fbme bugbdar or other ; and 
 what is called the Crown anfwers this purpofe, and therefore it 
 anfwers all the purpofes to be expected from it. This is more 
 than can be faid of the other two branches." 
 
 Page 161. "The fraud, hypocrify, and impofition of go- 
 vernments, are now beginning to be too well understood to pro- 
 mifethem any long career. The farce of monarchy and arifto- 
 cracy, in all countries, is following that of chivalry, and Mr. 
 Burke is dreffing for the funeral. Let it then pafs quietly to the 
 tomb of all other follies, and the mourners be comforted. 
 
 " The time is notvery diftant when England will laugh at it- 
 felf for fending to Holland, Hanover, &ell, or Brunfwick, for 
 men, at the expence ot a million a year, who underftand neither 
 her laws, her language, nor her intereft, and whofe capacities 
 would fcarcely have lit ted them for the office of a parifh confta- 
 ble. If government could be trufted to fuch hands, it muft be 
 fome eafy and fun pie thing indeed, and materials fit for all the 
 purpofes may be found in every town and village in England." 
 
 The Preface and Dedication of the fecond Part to the Marquis 
 de la Fayette were alfo read. 
 
 A minute of the proceeding of the Conftitu'.iunal Society, dated 
 
 Sept.
 
 I 97 3 
 
 Sept. 28, was next read. It contained the thanks of the Society 
 \o Joel Barlow, Efq. for his pamphlet, entitled "Advice to the 
 National Convention." 
 
 Mr.-Johnfon, bookfellerof St. Paul's Church-yard, was called 
 to prove the publication of this work. Of this pamphlet ab'mt 
 ,5 or 600 had been fold. He was afked how many of Mr. Paige's 
 book had been circulated ? Mr. Johnfon admitted that he lud 
 fold the Rights of Man, but it was before it had been declared 
 by the verdicl of a Jury to be a libel. He appealed to the Court, 
 when preffed on this fubjf'dt, and the qtieilion was nver-ru!<d. 
 He admitted in reply to a more general qiieftion from Mr. Gar- 
 row, that the fale of Mr. Paine's book has been very confiderable 
 
 On being afked whether he had fold any, of Paine's letters to 
 Mr. Dimdas, he replied in the negative. He had forwarded fome 
 in a parcel to the country, but he could not fay from what quarter 
 they had been received. 
 
 The Clerk then proceeded to read feveral Extracts from Mr. 
 Barlow's pamphlet, addreifed to the National Convention, oa 
 the defects of the Conftitution of 1791. 
 
 A variety of other Letters uf Correfpondence and Papers were 
 produced and read in evidence. Among them was a pamphle 
 written by Joel Barlow, t 
 
 Mr. Johnfon was called, who proved that about onethoufand 
 of thefe pamphlets were printed and published, and that it un- 
 derwent three editions. 
 
 Of this pamphlet feveral pafTages were read, which purported 
 to be an anfwer to Mr. Burke. In one of the palfages, Kings 
 were reprefented to be inimical to a popular and free government. 
 Others contained a ftrong panegyric on the Revolution of France 
 and republican principles. This pamphlet was found in the 
 pofleffion of the prifoncr. 
 
 Mr. Johnfon alfo proved the publication of Paine's Letter, 
 entitled the Addrefs to the Addreifers, found alfo in the prisoner's 
 poffeflion. 
 
 A book of the London Correfponding Society was then pro- 
 duced, from which a minutwas read. By this minute it ap- 
 peared, that an Addrefs of Congratulation was lent to the National 
 Convention of France, figned by Margarot, as Chairman, and 
 the prifoner as Secretary. 
 
 Minutes of a meeting of the 26th of October, held at the 
 -Crown and Anchor Tavern, of the Conftitutional Society, woe 
 alfo read in evidence. 
 
 At this meeting it was refolved, that the fecretary fhould pro- 
 cure copies of feveral manifeftos that had iffued. 
 
 The minutes of the proceedings at feveral other meetings of 
 the Conititutional Society were reaJ. At fome of thefe meet- 
 
 N , ings
 
 ings it was refolved, that the letters from the Sheffield and other 
 focieties be referred to the Committee of Correfpondence. 
 
 An adcirefs to the National Convention of France was alfo 
 at one of thefe meetings produced and approved of, and Paine's 
 Rights of Man ilror.giy recommended. 
 
 It was agreed, that this adtlrefs ihould be prefented at the bar 
 of the National Convention, by Mr. Froft and Mr. Barlow. 
 
 All thefe papers were found alfo in the prifoner's pofltflion. 
 
 The anf.ver of Mefiiturs Froil and Barlow, who prefented 
 the addrefs to the National Convention, was read. They laid, 
 they received the fraternal kifs from the prefident, and that the 
 addrefs was received with the greajeft pleafure and fatisfa&ion. 
 
 Mr. Herfkiilell was called, to prove the correct, ti a; il lion of 
 a letter from a fociety in France, directed to the Conlututionat 
 Sjciety. It recommended the people of England " to follow 
 the example of France, and to lift themielvep up againft the per- 
 fidious Court of St. James's, whofe iniernal policy had made fo 
 many victims between the two nations, and disunited the people 
 for the purpofe of tyrannizing ovt r them. It concludes by an 
 offer of bayonets and p;kes." T*>is Ictter.addrcfTed the Confti- 
 tutioiisl Society by the ftileof " Generous Republicans." 
 
 Another letter from the fame French Society, to the Confti- 
 tutional Society, and which was found among D.Adams's papers, 
 was alfo read. It contained a warm eulogium on the tranfactions 
 in France, on the memorable tenth of Augud 1792, reprobated 
 royalty, and fpoke in high terms of liberty and eq ality. It alfo 
 expreifed a grateful fenfe of " the intention of the ConfUtutional 
 Society to contribute to the fuccefs of the French arms." 
 
 A letter from Mr. Frofl was likewife read, dated at Pans, a 
 fhort time prior to the execution of the French King, giving an 
 account of the proceedings in France. 
 
 Mr. HerlkilfJl was then examined, to prove what the tranf- 
 a&ions were, that happened on the loth of Auguft 1792, alluded 
 to in the letter before itatcd. He accordingly detailed the noto- 
 rious circumftances that took place on that memorable day. 
 
 Mr. Woodfall was called, to prove the hand-writing of Mr. 
 Horne Tooke, to a draft of a letter he fern to Petion, in his 
 character of prefident 'of the National Convention. 
 
 In this letter, he fays, you are in no want of friends in Eng- 
 land.- We can now begin the patriotic gift of loool. and it 
 will, no doubt, in time, amount to many thonfand. 
 
 A letter, figned- Pction, directed to Mr. Home Tooke, wasr 
 then read. It mentions t!ic!e words, " You have the glorious 
 advantage of being hated by your Government." It defcribes 
 the caufe of liberty, in England and France, to be the fame. It 
 ajludes to pecuniary aid, and mentions a fum of 3000 livres. 
 
 An
 
 C 99 1 
 
 An anfwer of Mr. Home Tooke, to Petion, was alfo reap, 
 ft which he mentions his having inclofed 3000 livres, for the 
 promotion of the caufe of liberty. 
 
 The proceedings, as entered in the book of the Conftitutional 
 Society, were then read. They contained a great variety of re- 
 folutions, tending to manifefl their difapprobation of the prefent 
 war, their attachment to the Revolution in France, their wifhes 
 for a parliamentary reform, and the extenfion of liberty and 
 equality all over the world. 
 
 J. Du Bceuf, a Frenchman, was next called. He faid, he 
 fold French newfpapers, which he received, by means of Melfrs. 
 Minett and Fedor, from France. Among thefe, was the 
 French Univerfal Gazette, or Moniteur. 
 
 The Attorney General faid, he produced three of thefe French 
 papers, to prove, that they contained the fpeeches of Citizeps 
 Barrere and Saint Andre, which had become the fubjedt of a re- 
 folution of the Conftitutional Society. 
 
 The fpeeches contained in thefe newfpapers were accordingly 
 read. They contained marry flrong expreflions againft kings, 
 who were (tiled tyrants and defpots. The people were defcribed 
 to be " the fbvereign ;" and a Convention was faid to be the only 
 ttieans by which the people could effedtually emancipate them- 
 felves from the flavery of kingly government,* and exercife their 
 fovereignty. 
 
 The minute of the meeting of the I5th of February, 1793, 
 of the Conltitmional Society, was then read. It exprefled a 
 firm refolutiqn to pc-rfevere in the caufe in which they had fet 
 out, and to obtain, by all legal and peaceable means, a reform 
 in the reprefentation of the peopK 
 
 AB addrefs from the United Political Societies of Norwich, 
 directed to Mr. D. Adams, as fecretary to the Conttitutional So- 
 ciety, was read. It ftated, that their worthy London Corref- 
 ponding Society had fubmitted to their confidt-ration three p.ro- 
 politions, namely : '' Whether to petition Parliament, addrefs 
 the King, or have a general Convention, for the purpofe of ob- 
 taining a parliamentary reform." Thev wifhcd to refer the 
 matter to the fuperi'; r judgment of the Conftitutional Society ; 
 but, they added, that they wifhed the clay was arrived when a 
 Convention of the people fhould take place. 
 
 The Conltitutional Society deferred the confideration of his 
 addrefs, and afterwards direcled Mr. John Froft to prepare am 
 anfwer to it. 
 
 Another proceeding of the ConfHtnti-mal Society was read, 
 in which they refolved to thank Mr. Simon Butler and Mr. 
 Hamilton Rowan, Efq. for their patriotic conduit, and declare.d 
 that their fentences were, in their opinions, unjuit atidillt-gal. 
 
 N 2 3 At
 
 C 
 
 Ar ten o'clock at night Mr. Erfkine fuggeftecl to the CoufT, 
 lhat his learned coadjutor, Mr. Gibbs, was fo extremely fatigued 
 with the laborious duty of the day, as to render his retiring very 
 dt finable to him. It was then part ten o'clock, and the fatigue, 
 inlVparable Irom the bufinefs of the day, was eafy to be con- 
 ceived. It was to be noticed, that the prifoner's counfel had a 
 harder duty to perform than the counfel tor the crown, becaufe 
 the number of the latter being fo great, one could be occafion- 
 ally abfcnt for a whole day, but there being only two for the 
 ptifoner, neither of them could be fpared. Mr. Erfkine faid, 
 that from the early hour the Court met in the morning, and the 
 late period at which it adjourned at night, he (aw no day-light 
 till the bufinefs commenced. 
 
 The Chief Juftice faid, that he fhould certainly do every 
 thing in his power, to accommodate the prifoner's counfel. His 
 Lonifhip admitted the force of the remark made by Mr. Erfkinej 
 refpedling the different fituation, in point of accommodation, 
 between the counfel for the crown and for the prifoner. The 
 learned Judge thought Mr. Gibbs might retire for that night, 
 and flill the bufinefs goon. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid, he hoped that after the great chaos of evi- 
 dence on the part of the crown was finifhed, he fhould have 
 fume time allowed to confider it, before he was called upon to 
 addrefs the Jury. 
 
 The Court laid, that every accommodation would be granted, 
 to both the prifoner's counfel that public juftice would admit. 
 
 The trial then proceeded. 
 
 Mr. Daniel Adams, the fecretary to the Conftitutional So- 
 ciety, was called, to prove fome original papers, intended to be 
 entered by him in the Books of the Society. 
 
 The counfel for the crown, by the inftruclion and proceedings 
 of the Conftitut.onal Society, intend to avow the connection 
 between the two focieties, and that they combined to promote 
 the fame objct. 
 
 A refolutum of the Conftitutional Society was read, appoint^ 
 ing a delegation to hold a conference with the London corref- 
 por.ding foacty. 
 
 A reio'iirion for holding a convention of the people for the 
 purpofe, as it (tatcd, of producing a fair and lull repreferttatioa 
 'Of the people, was alfo read in evidence. 
 
 The Court at half part twelve o'clock adjourned to next morn- 
 ing at feven o'clock. 
 
 The Lord Prefident lamented, that at the clofe of a fecond 
 day, the labour of the Jury was fo far from being at an end. 
 
 The Jury complained ot thecoldnefsof the room appropriated 
 for their purpofe j and faid it was impuifible for thuca to get reft, 
 
 A long
 
 L io' 3 
 
 A long converfation then took place, between the Court, the 
 Bar, and the Jury, upon the be ft mode of accommodating the 
 Jury. It was propofed to fend them to the London Coffce-houfe, 
 if twelve beds could be got there for them ; upon enquiry, it 
 appeared that beds could not be procured. The Hummums 
 was then mentioned, and agreed to, and the Jury were fern there 
 in three coaches, attended by three bailiffs and a fervant, who 
 were fworn to attend them. 
 
 The Court then adjourned to ehven o'clock the next day, oh 
 the requeft of Mr. Erfkine, who wiflied for a little timto 
 examine and collate the evidence. 
 
 Thurfday Off. 30. 
 
 The Court did not affemble this day until twelve o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Gurnell depofed, that he found a paper in the prisoner's 
 pofTeflion, dated April 30, which mentioned the election of 
 Maurice Margarot, he being appointed delegate of the divifion, 
 No. 7, of the London Correfponding Society, for three months, 
 James Sheriff in the chair. 
 
 Another paper was alfo put in and read, which was fworn to 
 have been found in the poffefilon of Mr. Hardy, mentioning the 
 appointment of David Rowland as a delegate, at the Blue Pofts, 
 in the Haymarket. Margarot Sec. and M'Neil in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Gurncll fwore to another paper found in Mr. Hardy's 
 pofleflion, ftating that the Sixteenth divifion of the London Cor- 
 refponding Society had appointed John Baxter a delegate to the 
 (landing committee. Grey, Secretary. 
 
 The next pjper put in arid received, found io Mr. Hardy's 
 poffeflion, mentioned that John Richtcr was appointed a delegate 
 by the London Correfponding Society, to eftablifh a fixteenth 
 divifion of the fociety, at the Friend's Hand, Knight (bridge. 
 This paper was alfo proved 'to be found in the prifoner's pollef- 
 (ion b ; y Mr. Lauzun. 
 
 The next paper put in and read was found in Mr. Hardy's 
 houfe by Gurnell, dated the yth of May, 1792, which men- 
 tinned that he, Mr. Hardy, was appointed a delegate from the 
 London Correfponding Society, to a meeting held in Exeter- 
 ftreet, Strand, tor the purpofe of forming a conftitutional coda 
 ot laws, for the government of the Conftitutional Sjciety. 
 Signed Thomas Boyd. 
 
 The next paper put in on the depofition of Mr. Gurnell, finned 
 T. Hardy ;was for the purpofe of delegating Mr. Vaughan, tY6m 
 a divilion of the fociety, and aurhorifing him to be prefent at 
 the meeting at the Bell, Exeter-ftreet, to affiA the committee ap 
 pointed to form the conftitutional code of law* tor the govern- 
 ment of the fociety. 
 
 The
 
 [ 102 
 
 The Attorney General followed this paper by another found 
 in the polFfflion of the prifoner by Mr. Gurnell ; it was figned 
 T. Hardy, and dire&ed to Mr. Wharton, M. P. It began by 
 informing Mr. W. 4< That it was an original paper worthy of 
 his perufal, and if he faw any thing in the preamble worthy his 
 approbation, or adopting, he may ufe it accordingly. In all it's 
 j:arts it poflefTed many fweets, and it expreffed a hope that he 
 would, like the bee, extract a little from each. It pointed out 
 the prefent ftate of reprefentation, and lamented the many who 
 were deprived of having voices for members to ferve in Parlia- 
 ment. It had been read in the fociety, and excited univerfal 
 difguft ; the evils in the reprefentation it ftated to be of the 
 moil glaring kind, and could not be made too public." 
 
 A letter from the Conftirutional Society, at Sheffield, in York- 
 fhire, to Mr. Hardy, was fhewr. Mr. Gurnell, which he faid he 
 found among the prifoner's papers. It was as follows : 
 
 "Sheffield, April 24> 1794- 
 " Fellow Citizen?, 
 
 " The barefaced ariftocracy of the prefent adminiftration has 
 made it necetTary that we mould be prepared to act on the de- 
 fenfive againft any attack they command thefr newly-armed 
 minions to make upon u?. A plan has been hit upon ; and if 
 encouraged fufficiently will, no doubt, have the. effect of fur- 
 nifhing a quantity of pikes to the patriots ; great enough to 
 make them formidable. The blades are made of fteel, tem- 
 pered and poliflied after an improved form. They may be fixed 
 into any fhafts, but fir ones are recommended, of the girth of 
 the accompanying hoops at the top end, and about an inch more 
 at the bottom. The blades and hoops, more than which cannot 
 be properly fent to any great diftance, will be charged one {hil- 
 ling, money to be fent by the order! As the inftitution is in it's 
 infancy, immediate encouragement is neceffary. 
 
 Struck through in the original. 
 
 " Orders may be fent to the Secretary of the Sheffield Confli- 
 tutional Society. ' ' 
 
 Signed 
 
 " To prevent poft fufpicion, dired to Mr. Robert Moody at 
 Sheffield." 
 
 Another was produced, directed to the fecretary of the Nor- 
 wich Patriotic Society, and inclofed in the above. It was as 
 follows : 
 
 " Fellow citizen, 
 
 " The barefaced ariftocracy of the prefent adminiftration has 
 made it neceffary to prepare to act upon the defenlive, in cafe of 
 any attack upon the patriots. 
 
 A plan
 
 L '03 3 
 
 *' A plan has been formed for the carrying into effed this np- 
 ceflary bufinefs.~ Pike blades are made with hoops for the lhafts 
 to fit the top ends ; the bottom end of the thefts fhonld he about 
 an inch thick. .r , and fir is recommended for the fha'ts, (elected 
 by perfons who are judges of wood. The biad :s and hoops will 
 be fold at the rate of one (hilling, properly tempered and po- 
 lilhed. The money fent with the orders. 
 " Signed. 
 
 " Direft to Mr. Robert Moody at Sheffield." 
 
 Mr. Lauzun depofed having found a paper in the pofTefiion of 
 Mr. Hardy, entitled, " The Report of '.he Committee of Con- 
 dilution of the London Correfponding Society, printed for the 
 ufe of the members, and fold by Thomas Sp.nce." This paper 
 ftated, 
 
 Firft, That all men are by nature free. 
 
 Secondly, That though a man, who enjoys the advantages of 
 fociety, miift relinquilh apart of his liberty f,>r the general be- 
 nefit, yt-t he mould not furrender more than neccflity abfolutely 
 required. 
 
 Thirdly, That the maj >rity, however great, cannot deprive 
 the minority of the whole of their civil rigirs. 
 
 Fourthly, That the people mould have an equality of voice*, 
 in the elecYi >n of per funs, by whom the laws weie admmiftered, 
 and that the people had a right to the free exercife of public 
 opinion, and (hould be fuffered to enjoy rel g'ou.> freedom. 
 
 This paper next adverted to the hanllhip ot the Gsme Laws, 
 which fubje&i.'d the people to th >fe baihaws, C >untrv Jaft : ce.s, 
 and encouraged a fyltemof fpit-s and iniorme;:> lep'i- n.: it to the 
 Englifh conflituti -n. It took a g.nvral vie v o* p..iiti-s, and 
 H.-ged, that every perfon arrived at trie years of ij'c.ciion, not 
 difqualified by any mental denngom. in, ih >u!d have a voice for 
 a representation in parliament. It mentifmed that nf> naTie 
 fhould be ufcd in the fociety Calculated to make party di ft n6lions, 
 and recommended the nfe of the wo:d citizen, as being what 
 was ufed during the republics of Greece and Rome. 
 
 It entered into a definition of the phrazes, Ariitocrats, Roy- 
 alifts, Re-publicans, Democratr., &c. and mentioned, that when 
 any divifion of the focify ani-'unted to thirty, books ihoiild 
 be kept, and all members admitted above that nn nber Ihonld 
 be entered as fupernumfraries, and when tney amounted to fix- 
 teen, they mould be formed in o a divifion, &c. 
 
 Jane Ricktnan, wife of Clio Rickman, bo ikfeller, was exa- 
 mined on the p.irt of the crown. 
 
 She depofed, that two books pre.fentcd to her were written by 
 Thomas Paine, and published at her houfe. She knew Mr. 
 
 Paine ;
 
 Paine : her hufband was a bookfeller. Paine had lodged in her 
 honfe, but when one of the books was printed, her hufband was 
 not in England. Slie faw the book in (beets, which were 
 brought to ker houfe. The large book was publifhed during the 
 abfence of the author from England. She (aid, that Paine was 
 at the houfe when the fmall one was^ publifhed, the Addrefs to 
 the Addrefiers, and wa to have profits from the large book, 
 but not, (he believed, from the other. 
 
 Mr. Erikine afked her, if (he had ever read the books (hewn 
 her, and if (he had not, how could (he prefume to fay, that they 
 were not written and ptiblifhed by fome perfon elfe ; and was it 
 not poffible that fome other perfon might have written a book 
 with the fame title, and have affixed her hufband's name to it ? 
 
 She faid, (he was pofitive as to the books. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine to the Court. " I truft, my Lords, that when- 
 ever this fociety, or that is mentioned, that we (hall not have 
 loofer proof allowed, than what is required in cafe of libel." 
 
 Mr. Attorney General. " I Hiall not admit any propofitioa 
 to the extent you fay." 
 
 Mr. Gio Rlcbnan examined on oath. 
 
 Q. Have you puolilhed thole books ? ((hewing him the two 
 pamphlets). 
 
 A. They were publifhed with my name without my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Q. How did you know they were published ? 
 
 A. I heard it in the country, where 1 went early in September 
 1792. 
 
 Q, Who was to have the profits ? 
 
 A. Never heard from my wife on that fubjeft during my ab- 
 fence. 
 
 Q. Whofe hand-writing is on this book ? ((hewing it to the 
 witnef-). 
 
 A. Not mine, it is my wife's. 
 
 Q. Look at the matter of the book ; did you, in the common 
 courle of your profelfion, ever fee any other book, entitled, The 
 Addrefs to the Addrefllrs ? 
 
 A. Never read any other book, under that title, but thefe. 
 
 C^ You have been amemb- r of the Constitutional Society? 
 
 A. 1 have, but not for fome time. 
 
 Q. Are thefe the books fold at yc-ur (hop ? 
 
 A. They are fomething like, but I cannot fwear pofitively. 
 
 Jane Rickman fwore, that (he put her name on the books 
 fold in her (hop. 
 
 Mr. Erikine obferved, that the publication in qucflion, was 
 milled, " The Addrels to the Addrefors." What he wiihed 
 
 to
 
 [ <s 3 
 
 to know was, howitCDuld be admitted as evidence in this caufw 
 He was aware that the book entitled, " The Rights of Man," 
 could be admitted, becaufe it was proved in evidence on a former 
 txxafion, by members of two focieties that came to refolutions to 
 circulate it, that Thomas Paine was the author of the work ; but 
 in the prefent cafe no evidence of that kind was before the court. 
 
 The Attorney-General, in reply, faid, that it had been proved 
 in evidence that Thomas Paine was the author of the firft part of 
 The Rights of Man, and of a Letter addrefled to Mr. Dundas. It 
 was proved that Thomas Paine was a member of the Conftitutional 
 Society ; and it was in evidence that Clio Rickman was A member 
 glfo. Thus, from both being members ol the famefocier'y, he fub- 
 mitted, that the witnefs might know that Mr. Paine was the author 
 of the Pamphlet in queftion. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. " This is perfectly a diftinft matter." 
 
 The Attorney-General. "Then I fhall not trouble you, my Lord, 
 to hear this paper read." 
 
 Mr. Gurnell proved that he found two papers in the pofleffion 
 of the prifoner. The one was dated Sheffield, April 24, 1794^ 
 figned " Richard Davidfon," and addrcffed to " T. Hardy." It 
 began with thefe words : " The barefaced ariftocracy of the pre- 
 fent adminiftration, &c." The other was directed to the Secretary 
 of the Norwich Society, and figned " Richard Davidfon." Thele 
 papers contained feveral obfervations on the grievances of the peo- 
 ple, and alluded to a model for pikes. They both concluded with 
 the advice, that in cafe any anfwers fhould be fant, no letters 
 fliould be directed to " Richard Davidfon," but addrefled, to pre- 
 vent the fufpicion of the Poft-mafter, to " Robert Moody, China- 
 fquare, Sheffield." 
 
 The Attorney-General now propofed to prove, that there was 
 a perfon of the name of Richard Davidfon connected with the 
 Sheffield Society. 
 
 William Cammage was therefore called, and faid, that he was 
 a member of the fociety for conftitutional information at Shef- 
 field, of which he was Secretary, till the latter end of May, 1793. 
 He figned letters, but a committee managed the affairs of the 
 fociety, compofed of David Martin, John Holcroft, Geo^e 
 Widdefon, and Matthew Campbel Brown. The avowed object 
 was firft a parliamentary reform, and it fo continued. He re- 
 mained a member after he ceafed to be fecretary. They had a 
 delegate to the Scotch Convention, who was Brown. He himfelf. 
 too went to that meeting, and carried Brown a fupply of cafti ; iol. 
 from Sheffield, and tol. from Leeds. Gailes, a printer at Shef- 
 field, he knew, and Henry York. The latter ufed to exhort at 
 the meetings of the fociety. Arms, he never heard him mention in 
 public. At firft they thought of applying to Parliament for a 
 parliamentary reform ; but no fpecific plan was ever pointed out 
 to obtain it. In private, he had heard York fay, that the fociety 
 fliould be armed to protect itfelf, which he understood to allude 
 
 O t
 
 I ' 6 ] 
 
 to (he threats, that the people of Sheffield meant to difperfe the 
 fociety when it met. He had feen the blade of a pike made by 
 one Hill, which was approved of by York, for the purpofe of 
 arming. Others had been (hewn him, which he did not approve 
 of. In all he had feen about three dozen of thefe. He knew 
 Widdefon, and had feen handles for the pikes. They met to talk 
 about this bufmeis, and fee the inftruments at night, and it was 
 always at private apartments. 
 
 He recollected, that at the meeting on Caflle-hill near Sheffield, 
 York ftrongly recommended in his addrefs not to petition Parlia- 
 ment for a reform, in confequence of which, a refolution was 
 come to by the fociety to that effeft. York, at that time, recom- 
 mended an addrefs to the nation, and after the meeting was over 
 was drawn home in a carriage by the populace. He, the witnefs, 
 had never heard him talk of a Convention, but had heard him dif- 
 approve of the Scotch Convention, affigning, as a reafon, that 
 the people were unprepared for it. They fhould firft, he faid, 
 have brought out an Addrefs to the People. The two letters to 
 Hardy and the Norwich Society, he, the witnefs, had feen in 
 Davifon's pofleflion, who came from Leeds to Sheffield. Robert 
 Moody was the man who put handles to the pike blades, and was 
 a carpenter by trade. The blades were ten inches long, the handles 
 feven feet ; the former were like a bayonet, fluted and (harp at 
 the point. Davifon and Gailes abfconded from Sheffield before 
 the witnefs was apprehended. He had feen the model of a 
 night-cat, and had been told that it was to ufe againfl cavalry, 
 having three fharp blades by five or fix inches long to lame them 
 as they t tror' 
 
 On being crofs-examined by Mr. Erfkine, he faid, that ^ Parlia- 
 mentary Reform was his only objeft in belonging to the fociety, of 
 which he was fecretary from it's firft inftitution in 1791, till May 
 1793. By that reform he meant a more equal reprefentation of 
 the people in the Houfeof Commons. He had no intention what- 
 ever againft the King or Houfe of Lords, and had no reafon to 
 think that the fociety had. The change was fought for without 
 any fpecific plan to obtain it. Had he had any idea of force 
 being ufed, he would not have been a member, or have continued 
 fo after that plan had been discovered. He had no conception 
 that the fociety or it's objefts afte&ed the fafety or honour of his 
 Majefty, or that the Scotch Convention meant to affume the power 
 of the King or Parliament, but that they meant to petition by 
 numbers for a reform-, thinking that it would be more effectual 
 han the petition of a few. He profeflfed himfelf a friend to the 
 Englifh Conftitution in it's purity, and that he had no wifh to in- 
 troduce the milery and defolation of France into this kingdom, or 
 to bring down ruin on our Royal Family. He was afraid, and 
 the Society, of the perfecution of the people of Sheffield, who- 
 were averfe to them. He conficlered all they did as legal, and the 
 pikes and cats he never thought intended againft the King or 
 
 Govern-
 
 C 107 3 
 
 Government. By the Bill of Rights, he conceived, he had a right 
 to have arms individually and collefttvely for their defence. 
 
 The Attorney General. Who told you that the Bill of Rights 
 permitted you to have arms ? 
 
 A. Mr. York. I never conceived that they were to fupport a 
 convention ; but that what I contended for would make the K.in&'$ 
 title more fecure. 
 
 Q. Why were pikes chofen ? 
 
 A. For cheapnefs. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear of night-cats being ufed ? 
 
 A. Yes; at Newcaftle many years ago. 
 
 Q. You fay you expected to oppofe the people of Sheffield only. 
 Why, therefore, were the arms provided for London, as Davifon's 
 letter mentions ? 
 
 A. Davilon might think them neceflary for the fociety in Lon- 
 don as well as here. 
 
 Q. If meant only to oppofe the oppofite party of-Jown's people, 
 what fignification had the words barefaced ariftotracy of Minijias in 
 the letter ? 
 
 A. It alluded to the oppofite party. 
 
 Q. Were night-cats too, to be ufed againft the oppofite party, in 
 that fenfe town's people ? 
 
 A. I know of none that were made. 
 
 William Broomhead was next called, and examined by Mr. 
 Garrow. 
 
 Q. Where do you refide, Mr. Broomhead? 
 
 A. I live at Sheffield. 
 
 Q. What are you by profeflion ? 
 
 A. I am a carpenter by bufmefs. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time, and when, become a jnember of the 
 Conftitutional Society at Sheffield ? 
 
 A. I became a member of the Sheffield Conftitutional Society 
 when it was firft formed in the year 1791. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time become a member of the Society of 
 Twelar at Sheffield, that was ailbciated with the Conftitutional 
 Society in London ? 
 
 A. I never knew of any fuch Society. 
 
 Q. Do you not know of your own knowledge, Sir, that ths 
 Sheffield Society was aiTociated with the Conftitutional Society in 
 London ? 
 
 A. I qinderftood that both the Societies acled in conjunction, but 
 I know nothing further ol the. junftion of the Societies, than that 
 .they correfpohdecl by letter. 
 
 Q. Do you happen to know what the objeft of the Society was ? 
 
 A. The profefled objeft of the Society was the ellecling a Par- 
 liamentary Reform. 
 
 Q. In what manner was a reform lobe efic6led? 
 
 A. It was to be effected by meetings. 
 
 Q. Mow by meetings? 
 
 O a A, By
 
 C 10* 3 
 
 A. By means of thofe meetings the minds of the lower order ef 
 people were to be enlightened, knowledge to be diffufed, and thft 
 ration at large made'acquainted with it's grievances, and with the 
 neceffity of a reform. 
 
 Q. Was the mode of obtaining reform ever difcuffed in your 
 Society ? 
 
 A. No ; it never was. 
 
 Q. Do you know that your Society ever had for it's object uni-. 
 verial fuffrage ? 
 
 A. No ; it never had. 
 
 Q. Whom did your Society fend as delegate to the Edinburgh 
 Convention? 
 
 A. They fent a perfon ofjjthe name of Matthew Campbell Brown. 
 Q. Do you happen to know a perfon of the name of Henry 
 Yorke ? 
 
 A. Yes, I know a gentleman of the name of Henry Yorke. 
 Q. Do you know that he went by any other name? 
 A. Yes ; he went by the name of Henry Redhead. 
 Q. Did Yorke reiide at Sheffield ? 
 A. No, but he has frequently vilUed the town. 
 Q. How long have you known Yorke Itay at Sheffield at a time ? 
 A. For the {pace of fix, (even, or eight weeks. 
 Q. Did he frequent your meetings ? 
 
 A. He did, and was very much refpected whenever he made his 
 Appearance. 
 
 Q. On what account was herefpe&ed ? 
 
 A. Becaufe he was a great Orator, and a man of fplendid talents. 
 Q. Were there not meetings held every week, and was there 
 not a Committee ? 
 
 Q. There were weekly Meetings held, but regularly fpeaking, 
 there were no Committees. 
 
 Q. Did Yorke write any work when he was at Sheffield ? 
 A. Yes, Mr. Yorke wrote feveral Pamphlets while he was 
 there ; as well as I can recolleft, I believe he brought a great part, 
 f not the whole of the manufcript copy to the different meetings, 
 to be read previous to their being printed. 
 Q. Where were thofe meetings held ? 
 A. They were held at my houfe. 
 Q. Jn a large and commodius room I fuppofe ? 
 A. Yes, the room was commodious. 
 
 Q. Was there any particular elevation appointed for the perfon 
 who was to addrefs the meeting, and what was it called? 
 
 A. Yes, there was an elevation, which fome called the pulpit, 
 and fome the tribune, but it was never regularly chrijientd ? 
 
 Q. Do you remember any of the fpeeches that Yorke made at 
 thole meetings? 
 
 A. Yes, but I cannot charge my memory with any particular 
 part at prefent. I recolleft Mr. Yorke at one of thofe meetings, 
 iield a book written by Locke, in his hand, and read extracts from
 
 [ io 9 1 
 
 it. He expatiated upon the Conftitution, and he informed the 
 People, that there was a great deviation from the Conftitution as 
 it was originally formed. 
 
 Q; Can you remember any particular paffages in his fpeech ? 
 
 A. Why, I cannot fay I do. I know he was peculiarly energe- 
 tic, and in fome parts very warm, and in others very ftrong. 
 
 Q. Strive to recollect fome palfages of his fpeech ? 
 
 A. Why, I do not think he faid any thing detrimental to the 
 Conftitution. 
 
 Q. Do you rccolleci any propofttion that Yorke ever made to 
 you ? 
 
 A. Yes ; I remember that Mr. Yorke and Mr, Gales both pro- 
 pofed t hat I fhould make a motion at the meeting at Caftle-hill, 
 lor a reform in the representation of the People. - 
 
 Q. Why you in particular ? 
 
 A. In order that it might be over-ruled, and for the purpofe of 
 making another motion in it's ftead. 
 
 Q. And did you make this motion ? 
 
 A. Yes, I did, and it was objefted to either by Mr, Yorke or 
 Mr. Gales. 
 
 Q. Was there any elevation at the meeting at the Caftle-hill, 
 from whence the Orators fpoke ? 
 
 A. Yes, there was what was called the pulpit. 
 
 Q. Was this meeting very numerous ? 
 
 A. Yes, there were feveral thoufand people affembled in the 
 open air. 
 
 Q. And what was the confequence of this meeting ; were there 
 any refolutions drawn up ? 
 
 A. Yes, the motion which I made to petition the Houfe of 
 Commons was rejected, and another motion made to petition his 
 Majefty to redrefs the grievances of the people. 
 
 Q. Was that motion carried ? 
 
 A. Yes, and drawn up upon parchment, 
 
 Q. Where was the petition left ? 
 
 A. It was left at my houfe for fignatures. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Yorke make a fpeech to ihe multitude upon this 
 occafion? 
 
 A. Mr. Yorke addreffed the meeting in an eloquent fpeech. 
 
 Q. What became afterwards of the petition ? 
 
 A. It was fent up to Lord Stanhope, i order that his Lordfhip 
 plight prefent it to his Majefty. 
 
 Q. And did he ? 
 
 A. No, his Lordfhip would not prefent it in that form. 
 
 Q. Do you happen to know that Yorke's fpeech upon that oc- 
 cafion was ever printed ? 
 
 A. I remember that Mr. Yorke agreed to have his fpeech printed, 
 and it was printed accordingly. 
 
 Q. Did you fee it in print ? 
 
 A. Yes,
 
 A. Yes, I faw it after it was printed, and I believe it contained 
 the fubitance of what Mr. Yorke laid. 
 
 [Here Mr. G arrow handed the Wifnefs a pamphlet, which he 
 defired him to look at, and to tell the Court and Jury whether he 
 thought it was the fame pamphlet that he faw at'Sheffield. This 
 queflion the Witnefs anfwered in the affirmative.] 
 
 Q. Did you receive any copies of this pamphlet, and from 
 whom ? 
 
 A. Yes, I received a number at Gales's (hop, in confequence of 
 relolutions of the fociety. 
 
 Q. What did you do with thofe books ? 
 
 A. 1 packed them up in 24 different packages, addreHed them 
 to different perfons, put them all into one box, and, to the bell of 
 my recollection, fent them to Thomas Hardy. 
 
 Q. Who applied to you to fend thoie books ? 
 
 A. A perfon of the name of John Allcock. 
 
 Q. Why did you become fecretary to the fociety? 
 
 A. In order to increafe my means, as the War had deflroyed my 
 bufinefs. 
 
 Q. Do you know that there were arms prepared before the meet- 
 ing'at Caftle-hill ? . 
 
 A. I believe there were a few pikes, but this circumftance de- 
 jnands a very full illuftration. 
 
 Q. We (hall be particularly thankful to you, Sir, for an illuftra- 
 iion. 
 
 A. Two days before the meeting, when it was underflood that 
 it was the Right of Englifhmen to take arms in their own defence, 
 a fpurious hand-bill was circulated, fpurious I fay, becaufe it was 
 not 6gned by any magiflrate. But how do you think it was circu- 
 lated? Not as one would be led to fuppofe, .in the open day, no, 
 it was fcattered about the town in the very dead of night, in the 
 dark, in order to excite us to the commitment of fome defperatc 
 ami unjuftifiable aft. But this was not the cafe, and the hand- 
 bill completely failed. 
 
 Q. What fpecies of arms were talked of at this time ? 
 
 A. The arms that were talked of were pikes. 
 
 Q. Did you fee the model of a night-cat, as it was called ? 
 
 A. Yes, I faw a thing that was called a night-cat, but it was only 
 a play-thing fora child. 
 
 O. Where did you fee this model ? 
 
 A. 1 faw it at the houfe of one Benjamin Dunn. 
 
 Q. Who produced it there ? 
 
 A. Or-e Charles Rofe. 
 
 Q. Was it examined ? 
 
 A. Yes, the model was then thrown upon the floor in order to 
 be examined. 1 recollect it was then called a cat. 
 
 Q. \Vhat was the nature of the conversation that was held about 
 it's ufe ? 
 
 A. I never heard any converfation about it's ufe, but a mere 
 
 trifling
 
 C m ] 
 
 trifling and defultory converfation, an irregular difcourfe. It was 
 {hewn as the pioduftion of a boy. 
 
 Q. Were you prefent at any other meetings where Yorke made 
 any particular fpeeches? 
 
 A. Yes, I have heard Mr. Yorke when he did not fpcak Co 
 cautioufly as he did at the meeting at CaSlle-hill. 
 
 Q. Be fo^ood as todeftribe in what manner he fpoke. 
 
 A. He was certainly very warm at Tome of the fubfequent meet- 
 ings, and his warmth conSiSted in his drawing a very able compart- 
 fon between the grievances that Englishmen now labour under, 
 and the inestimable privileges they formerly enjoyed. 
 
 Q. Go on, Sir. 
 
 A. Mr. Yorke faid, that Englishmen were now reduced to a 
 low, pitiful, and defpicable Situation, and that fooner than fubmit 
 to it any longer, he would go up with them (meaning the people 
 then prefent) to London. 
 
 Q, When was this fpeech delivered? 
 
 A. It was made before the fubjeft of arming came upon the car- 
 pet. 
 
 Q. "Was not this fpeech delivered from the Tribune? 
 
 A. I believe it was, 
 
 . Q. How did that declaration of Mr. Yorl-e's affeft you; I mea 
 when he faid Sooner than fubmit to it any longer, he would go 
 up with them to London? 
 
 A. I mirft confefs that declaration gave me fome pain. 
 
 Q. Why? 
 
 A. Bec<mfc I fear God, and honour the King. 
 
 O. Did you ever fee this pamphlet ? [Shewing him a pamphlet. J 
 
 A. O yes, I think I have feen a copy of it. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the proclamation fora general faft ? 
 
 A. I believe I do. 
 
 Q. How was it received at Caflle-hill? 
 
 A. The bulinefs relating to the proclamation was not tranfafted 
 at Caftle-hill, but in the open air at Weftgaie. 
 
 Q. Were there many people aflembled upon that occafton ? 
 
 A. There were fome thouiands. 
 
 Q. Of what number did your Society cpnfift? 
 
 A. It confifted of 600 perfons. 
 
 Q. How do you happen to know the number fo exaftly ? 
 
 A. I know it by the number of diftrift books that were fent to 
 ach member of the Society. 
 . Q. Howjwere the diftritl meetings attended ? 
 
 A. The difhicl meetings were not attended fo well as.the general 
 meetings. 
 
 [The examination of this witnefs was here interrupted by Mr, 
 Laiizun. who was called up to prove that he found the two pa- 
 pers, which had been fhewn the witnefs in the couii'e of his exa- 
 mination, in the p$flcflton of Mr. Haidy.J 
 
 Q.Do
 
 [ "2 ] 
 
 Q. Do you recolleft any hymn that was compofed for the ptir- 
 pofe of celebrating the faft-day ? 
 
 A. Yes, there was a hymn compofed, and printed too, by Mr. 
 Gales. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether any lefture was read ? 
 
 A. Yes! 
 
 Q. By whom was the lecture read ? 
 
 A. By a gentleman from Halifax. 
 
 Q. Was there any prayer upon the occafion ? 
 
 A. Yes, I compofed a prayer for that occalion. 
 
 Q. By whom was it delivered ? 
 
 A. By myfelf, before a private meeting of feveral members of th- 
 fociety. 
 
 Q. Did you ever happen to hear the name of John Paine ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Was he a member of your fociety ? 
 
 A. He was. 
 
 Q. Were Jofeph Gales and David Martin members alfo? 
 
 A. They were. 
 
 [The clerk of arraigns was here directed to read the proceedings 
 of a meeting held at Sheffield on the 7th of April, 1794 ; which he 
 id accordingly. The proceedings were contained in the two 
 pamphlets already alluded to.] 
 
 William Broomhead croff-examined by Mr. Cibbs. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. Attend to me, Mr. Broomhead. I think you faid, 
 if I underftood you right, that there was a fpurious hand-bill cir- 
 culated at the time that the pikes were talked of? 
 
 A. There was, Sir. . 
 
 Q. What was the tendency of this hand-bill? 
 
 A. It advifed the meafure of taking up arms, in order to guard 
 againft foreign invaders and domeiiic enemies. It had a molt fla- 
 gitious tendency, for the body of it contained thefe words : " We 
 never can do any thing, till we have ourfelves caufed a riot." 
 This was evidently done with a view to throw us off our guard, 
 and to incite us to commit fome unjuftifiable aft. 
 
 Q. What was the firft occafion of your fpeaking of arms ? 
 
 A. This fpurious hand-bill, which was circulated without th 
 fanftion of any magiflrate. 
 
 Q. What idea had you, Sir, about the people taking up arms 
 then? 
 
 A. The only idea that I entertained of the people taking up arm3 
 was, not that they might be prepared to make any attack, but that 
 they might be ready to oppofe any illegal force, and to maintain the 
 law of the land.- 
 
 Q. How were thefe fiJie> that you talk about to bfi ufed ? 
 
 A. They were to beuicdas instruments of defence only. 
 
 Q. Had you, Sir, or do you think the fociety had, any idea of 
 
 attack-
 
 C 'U 1 
 
 attacking the King and Parliament, or of meddling with the Confu- 
 tation? 
 
 A. O no, Sir : I think if they had they would deferve to be 
 Jtnt to Bedtum ! 
 
 Q. Had you yourfelf any fuch idea ? 
 
 A. No more than I have the idea this moment of flying to the. 
 fun! 
 
 . Q. What did you under/land the objeft of the fociety was ? 
 A; What I underflood the objeft of the fociety was, is this, that 
 they would ufe their endeavours to have the grievances which had 
 been ftated to have exifted, redrefled in a legal and confliruttonal 
 manner. Such grievances I fay as thefe where a man works fourteen 
 or fifteen hours in the day, and after all is not able to fupport hisjamily. 
 
 Q. Would you, Sir, have continued in the fociety a moment, if 
 you were aware that they entertained the lead notion of attacking 
 *he King, Lords, and Commons ? 
 
 A. Moft affuredly not. 
 
 Q. Do you think there was a man in the whole fociety fo wicked 
 as to harbour fuch an idea ? 
 
 A. I do not think there was fo wicked a man among them all. 
 
 Q. The objedl of the fociety was not to meddle with the King 
 or Lords, but to endeavour to effeft a Reform in the Commons 
 Houfe of Parliament? 
 
 A. Mod certainly that was their object. 
 
 Q. Did they not think, Sir, that the King and Lords with the 
 Commons fo reformed, would immediately redrefs the grievances 
 that were complained of? 
 
 A. They alluredly did. 
 
 Q. Was it not their objeft to obtain this peaceably ? 
 
 A. Moft certainly. 
 
 Q. You have no reafon to think that thofe perfons, who might 
 be ient as delegates to a convention, would not al in a peaceable 
 manner ? 
 
 A. None in the leaft. 
 
 Q. When a reform was talked about, did you not underfland 
 that by that was meant a reform in the Commons Houfe of Parlia- 
 ment? 
 
 A. I c' ainlydid. 
 
 Examined again by Mr. Garrow. 
 
 Q. If a convention had been called, you could not take upon 
 yourfelf to anfwer for the conduct of evil difpofed perfons ? 
 
 A. I fhould think it enough to anfwer for myfelf. 
 
 Q. Do you not know, Sir, that the meafure of difcarding the 
 fociety of the Friends of the people, from the Sheffield Society, 
 was difcufled in the diftrift meetings? 
 
 A. I believe it was. 
 
 Q. Do vou not know, that the Cenftitutional Society at Shef- 
 
 P field,
 
 [ 11+ ] 
 
 field, difcarded the fociety of the Friends of the people, becaufc 
 they would not go the fame lengths with them ? 
 
 A. I know of no fuch thing. 
 
 Q. Was it not the object of the mifchievous hand-bill, that you 
 have mentioned, to excite the people to take up arms againft fo- 
 reign invaders and domeftic enemies? 
 
 A. "It was. But when the fubjeft of arms had been talked of, 
 we were afraid that illegal force might be employed againft us, as 
 ivas the cafe in Birmingham and Manchefter. 
 
 Q. You did not then, in confequence of this hand-bill, apply 
 to the civil power for protection, but immediately came to th 
 refolution of arming? 
 
 A. Thefe refolutions were come to, though not with any mif- 
 chievous intention. 
 
 O. Do you happen to know who propofed thefe refolutions? 
 
 A. They were propofed by Mr. Yorke and Mr. Gales, and 
 winked at by the fociety. 
 
 Q. Do you not know, that plans of arming were communicated 
 by the Sheffield Society to the other different focieties? 
 
 A. If fuch a thing was done, I was not informed of it. 
 
 A printed paper was next put in and read, containing minutes 
 of the meeting at Sheffield on the faft-day on the a8lh of February ; 
 the left are read on the occafion, together with the refolutions en- 
 tered into at the faid meeting, expreffive of the difapprobation of 
 thofe prefent, upon the war, the landing the Heffian troops, and 
 the univerfal conftruftion of barracks throughout the kingdom. 
 
 Henry Alexander, examined by Mr. Wood, faid, he was a 
 member of the London Correfponding Society ; that he became fo 
 in the latter end of November, 1 793 ; that ihe fociety of which h 
 became a member met at Robin's Coffee- houfe, in Shire-lane He 
 thought he was the 95th member then admitted. He knew Mr. 
 Yorke; he came in while he was there. He remembered him, 
 and was with him there in the year 1793, at about the end of it. 
 There might be between 60 and 100 people in the room when ho 
 went there, for it was quite full. On the lafl night Mr. York was 
 there, he took leave of the company in a long fpeech. He faid he 
 was going, the witnefs faid, to Belgium, (laying the accent broadly 
 on the letter i) for that he had received a letter from a friend of his ; 
 he faid they would be ripe for a revolution there, and he was go- 
 ing to be at the head of them. He faid he was afterwards coming 
 to England, and that he was ia hopes he fhouid be at the head off 
 them. 
 
 Juryman. " Look this way ; where was he to come to ?" 
 
 Witnefs. *' To London. He made a very long fpeech. He 
 faid in that fpeech, in fubftance, that he had received a letter, that 
 he had the honour of being a member of the National Convention 
 of France, and that he had hopes of coming over here, and that 
 he fhouid fee them all ready to join him ; and "Mr. Pitt's, with the 
 different memffers tl at he meant, and. the King's head, fhouid be 
 
 oa
 
 [ "5 ] 
 
 en Temple-bar, and that that fociety would join him. Mr. Pill's, 
 meaning the Minifter, and the King's head, would be on Tomple- 
 bar." 
 
 Juryman. " Mention the time." 
 
 Witnefs. "The time was the 5th of November, 1793. Us 
 made many obfei vations on the King and Queerf of France." 
 
 Counfel. " This was the fubftance." 
 
 Chief Juflice. {! Put the wItnefs in mind of the fubjeft, but not 
 what he is to fay." 
 
 Witnefs. " I cannot rccolleft the words he ufed. It was that 
 they had met with what they dcfcrved. I do not recollecl; he faid 
 any thing to us about the war. He faid fomething of the Sanr- 
 Culloltes. That they were a fet of brave fellows, I believe. He 
 faid a deal about them, but I do not recolleft what. He faid fome- 
 thing to us about arms. That when he came home he fhould find 
 them all ready to join, and that when the time came he hoped he 
 fhould not fhrink from what he profefied. He faid it was impoffi- 
 ble to do any thing without bloodfhed. This was in the fociety. 
 He faid there could not be good done without bloodfhed. He faid 
 there was a fet of brave men at Sheffield. I cannot tell that he 
 faid how they were brave. He did not fay where the blood was 
 to be fhcd. He faid nothing about bread and cheefe, but a perfon 
 came from Sheffield and faid fomething about pikes, and faid it 
 would be good for them as they had nothing but bre"ad and cheefe. 
 Mr. Yorke's fpeech was well received, and he fpoke very loudly. 
 They were all unanimous, and got up and fhook hands with him 
 as he got up to leave the room, I faw no more of Mr. Yorke I 
 do not know where he went. I went after that to Mr. Dundas, 
 and likewife to the Lord Mayor, Sir." 
 
 <: I went to the Lord Mayor and Mr. Dundas, becaufe I thought 
 they were not going on properly. At firft I was afked to go to the 
 fociety. When I went in I faw Mr. Smith. He afked me to be- 
 come a Member. I did not know what it was. I had a ticket, but 
 I have not it here, for I gave it to Mr. Dundas's fecretary. I 
 think it is feven times I was there. 
 
 Crofs- examined by Mr Erfkine. 
 
 I am a linen-draper.'! live at the Rofe, in Fleet-market: the tims 
 I went into the fociety was in the latter end of ihe year 17^3 ; I 
 did not go for the purpofe of being a member, though I bc:< amc 
 one. A friend of mine of the name of Whitcombe afked me to a 
 club; I went for nothing but curiofiry. Mr. Yoike was not there 
 the firft night, Smith was there, and Afhley w<js there. I do not 
 know who elfe. I cannot fay the month. I did not hear any 
 thing that was faid to me that night. They fat until 12 o'clock. 
 They had papers which I think Mr. Smith read. I became that 
 nighr a member. There was nothing faid but making a member. 
 
 Mr, Erfkine. In plain LngHfh you are a fpy ! 
 
 Whack. 
 
 P 2
 
 [ "6 .1 
 
 Witnefs. After I found what they were, I became a fpy, I did 
 not wifh for a parliamentary reform. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Why did you become a member, if it was not for 
 the purpofeof becoming a fpy? 
 
 Witnefs. I did not know what they meant by it. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Did you wifh any parliamentary reform when 
 you became a member, upon your oath, Sir? Look to the Jury, 
 look atthefe Gentlemen. You need not look at me, Sir, I fhall 
 bear you. 
 
 No anfwer for fome time. 
 
 Mr. Eifkine. Are you acquainted with Dunn of Manchefter? 
 
 \Vitnefs. No, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. I fhould have thought you was. 
 
 Chief Juftice. "Why don't you anfwer, Sir? 
 
 Witneis. I do not underftand you, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. I am forry for it, Sir. I believe you are the only- 
 one in Court who does not. 
 
 Witnefs. I never wifhedany thing of the kind. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Why did you become a member of that fociety ? 
 
 Witnefs. Smith faid to me, be a member One man then got up 
 and read fomething, but what he read I did not underftand. What 
 they read or faid afterwards that night I do not know. I do not 
 know what I heard that night, but I heard it before I came back 
 again. I did not approve of it. I related it to two or three of my 
 friends, and they did not approve of it ; they were of the fame 
 opinion as myfelf. I went a fecond time to fee what they were 
 upon. I had not been defired to go a fecond time. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. You wifhed to be ferviceable to the Public? You 
 went there a fecond time as a fpy ? 
 
 Witnefs. So it proved, at leaft, Sir ; I went there to fee the real 
 grounds then afted upon. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Did you take any notes of what you heard ? 
 
 Witnefs. No ; they would not fuffer me to take any notes ; 
 they would not fuffer me to take down any thing. They fat every 
 \veek. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. What time, what month was this? 
 
 Witnefs. I do not recolleft. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Was it in the fummer or in the winter ? 
 
 Witnefs. I cannot fay, Sir ; I attended twice after I had beeft 
 with Mr. Dundas. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Mr. Yorke faid he was going to Belgium. 
 
 Witnefs. He faid fomething of Belgium, or Belgiam. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. You went there as a lover of your country ? 
 
 Witnefs. Nothing lefs, Sir; I went voluntarily : there were threa 
 of my friends faid I was very right. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Who are they ? name them. 
 
 Witnefs. One, whofe name is Broughton ; another, Mrs. Gref- 
 fell. 
 
 Mr,
 
 I "7 ] 
 
 Mr. Erlkine. You are a matter linen-draper, I take it for grant- 
 ed ? 
 
 Witnefs. I am not in bufinefs for myfelf. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. You are a journeyman, then ? 
 
 Witnefs. No^Sir ; I am not in a fituation, myfelf. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Yes, indeed, you are, Sir, in a very fmgular fitua- 
 tion, Sir ! 
 
 The witnefs then proceeded to give an account of himfelf; 
 he faid he was out of employment now. He {aid he lived with 
 Mr. Gailaway, in Mooifields, who was a linen-draper then, but 
 who is now in the tayloring bufinefs. He came to him in Decem- 
 ber, and left him in May; that he lived with Mr. Faulding, a linen- 
 draper, on Holborn-bridge; he lived there two years ; that he had 
 been applying for bufinefs to feveral people ; that he had applied 
 at Tynham and James's, in Holborn, and to another perfon in 
 Holborn, facing Gray's-Inn-lane. That he had loft his bufinefs 
 by his attendance upon this bufinefs, according to his fubpcena. 
 He agreed with the perfons he ferved laft by the year ; they 
 were to give him 25!. a year; this was fome time before his 
 matter opened his fhop, which was on the zzd of the laft month; 
 he could not fay how long before he opened his fhop he entered in- 
 to this agreement with him : it was, he believed, the latter end of 
 July, or the beginning of Auguft laft. He told his matter, the 
 day he had the fubpcena, he muft leave him. Mr. Wood fub- 
 pcenaed him. He did not know it would be neceffary for him to 
 leave h.s fituation. He did not apply to the Solicitor of the Trea- 
 fury, to know whether he muft leave his employment, in order to 
 give his evidence at the Old Bailey. He had no other reafon for 
 leaving his employment than that of attending to give his evidence. 
 He did not apply to his maftcr, to inform him, that he was fub- 
 pcenat-d, or to know whether he would confent to his coming here. 
 He kept himfelf out of employment, without knowing whether his 
 mafter would allow him to do fo. He told his maftcr ihat he was 
 going out of town firft to York, then to Sheffield, as foon as this 
 trial was over ; but that was all out of his own imagination : the 
 reafon of his thinking fo was, that he was informed by Mr. White, 
 that he was to go down to York after this fhould be over. He had 
 not looked out for any employment fince. 
 
 Juryman. " Look acrofs the Court." 
 
 The witnefs then proceeded on Mr. Erfkine's interrogation to 
 give an account of himfelf. He faid he lived with Mr. Smith, of 
 Cheapfide ; between four and five years ago he was with him, he 
 believed 18 months ; he afterwaids went into the country, and 
 ftaid their forn months, to his friends, who lived at Wruteford, 
 fix miles from Salifbury ; he went to his aunt there, whofe name 
 is Alexander. He was afterwards with another aunt, on the other 
 fide of Moorfields, but he could not fay how long ; he was there a 
 confiderable while ; he was there 'until he went to Mr. Faul- 
 fjing's. He left Mr. Smith bccaufe he had fome words with him. 
 
 Mr.
 
 Mr. Erfkinc afksd him what words ; what was the caufe of their 
 quarrel ? 
 
 The Chief Juftice. ** Why don't you anfwer, Sir." 
 
 He hefitated again. 
 
 Chief Jullice. " Do you recollect ? If you'do, have you an 
 cbjeftion to anfwer ?" 
 
 Witnefs. '* No. my Lord." 
 
 Mr. Ejfkine ihen again afked him what was the caufc of the 
 juarrel. 
 
 The Witnefs then faid that he quarrelled firft with the other 
 fhopman. he believed they might have fought, and that afterwards 
 made him quarrel with his mailer. He then came again to the 
 bufinefs of the Club in Shire-lane. He faid he was Jure it was at 
 the latter end of the year i 703. that he went there about 8, and 
 fbid until 1 1 or 12. He heatd iome conversation about the pikes ; 
 but he did not recolleft any thing of what was done, except Mr. 
 Yorke's fpeech on the third night. On the fourth night he did not 
 recolleft any thing at all that palled ; he went the fifth night and 
 ilaid until they broke up ; he did not recoUeft that Mr. Yorke faid 
 much about the pikes, but a perfon from Sheffield faid, they ought 
 to have fomething inftead of bread and cheefe at 6d. a day ; he 
 could not tell whether that was or was not the feventh night he at- 
 tended. 
 
 Mr, Erfkine. " I have done with you, Sir." 
 
 Thomas Whiteall fworn. 
 
 He was fhopman to a bookfeller ; he had lived with Mr. Owen, 
 ai/d went from him to Mr. Baxter, at No. 81, in the Strand. He 
 became a member of the focicty at thelalter endof the year 1793; he 
 went the nrft time with Alexander ; faw Yorke but once, and went 
 himfelf once or twice ; after which he discontinued it, as it inter- 
 fered with his bufinefs, and was inconvenient on account of fitua- 
 tion -never converted with Alexander upon the fubject, and be- 
 came acquainted with him at H olborn-biidge. Yorke, he faid, 
 ieemed to be very well known at the fociety. He went away, and 
 left him (peaking; but knows nothing of the lubflance of his fpeech. 
 
 George Widdifon. 
 
 He faid he was a mernhrr of the Conftit'itiona! Society at Shef- 
 field, before they were claffed into divifions. He had left them 
 iome time. He knew Mr. Yorke he faw him firft about a twelve-, 
 month ago. He faw him at fcveral meetings of the fociefy he 
 was generally chairman of them when prcfent. 
 
 [TheCounfeifor the Crown was about to examine the witnefs to 
 -what was faid by Mr. Yorke at one meeting, but upon his ftatlng 
 that he (Mr. Yoike) was rather intoxicated, he delifled.J 
 
 He remembered the meeting at the Caflle-hill, in April, 1793, as 
 slfo the mcetiug this year, in March. The witnefs was hair-dreffef 
 to Mr. Yorke while at Sheffield. He remembered converfing with 
 him on the fubject of aims it was in April they talked of fuch
 
 [ ."9 ] 
 
 lifting making. The witnefs himfelf m*de a dozen and half of 
 fhaffs for pikes; tTiey were feized in his houie, and taken away by 
 Mr. Wilkinfon, the magiftrate. It was generally underflood among 
 the fociety, that thofe pikes were intended for ufe only in felf- 
 defeuce. Mr. Yorke explained to him, that the reform to be 
 looked for was the extenhon o! the ele&ive franchife to uni-otrjal 
 fuffrage. He himfelf, and the fociety, as far as ever he knew, to 
 underftood and purfued their objedt. In progrefs of time he 
 changed his opinion upon the propriety and expediency of fuch a 
 mcafure; he told Mr. Yorke his idea upon the fubjeft, declaring that 
 fuch a plan of reform was, in his opinion, impracticable, and carry- 
 Ing things too far; he hid he would no longer fubfcribe to fuch a 
 meafure: to which Mr. Yorke replied, he mud then give it up. He 
 remembered the meeting in April laft, in the open air; Mr. Yorke 
 was there, and fpoke at confidsrable length. He was not paid for 
 the pike-fhafts he had made; he expeclexi to be paid for them only 
 by thofe who took them of him. 
 
 Upon his crofs-cxamination, he faid, he was at flrft in favour of 
 univerfal fuffrage. At that time he was firmly attached to the King 
 and Queen too. He believed that al! thofe with whom he afted 
 loved the King; he certaitiiy would not have remained of their 
 fociety otherwif'e. He neither then nor now confidered univerfal 
 fuffmge as containing principles adveife to the Ciown. The fa- 
 mous plan of the Duke of Richmond was that which was adopted 
 by the fociety. Among the many publications, his Grace's letter to 
 Colonel Sharman was read at the fociely, and adopted by them. A. 
 well-known pillage cut of the letter was read to him by Mr. Erfkine, 
 in which his Grace ftates, that after long and mature deliberation, 
 he w*s decidedly of opinion, that univeriai fuffrage, together with 
 annual parliaments, is the only radical and effectual cure for the 
 evils crept into out conftimtion. This, the witnefs faid, was pre- 
 cilely the fentiment borrowed from his Grace by the fociety; and 
 he firmly believed, as far as he could dive into the hearts of men, 
 that this was their only objeft. He never underftood that force or 
 violence was intended. He quitted the Society not from any idea 
 or appreheniion of this kind, but folely f;om his diffent upon the 
 queftion of univerfal, fuffrage, as being of opinion that the minds of 
 the p-jcple were not as yet iufficicntly enlightened or prepared for it. 
 He was not prcfent when the fociety chofe a delegate for the Bii- 
 tifh Convention held at Edinburgh ; but if he had been, he would 
 have confentcd thereto, as approving of the meafure at the time.- 
 lie never ur.derfrood the objeft of holding that Convention to be 
 any thing elfc than petitioning for reform. From any thing that 
 paffcd there, he by no means fuppofed them as intending to atiume 
 the functions of Parliament. He then, and now, conlidered the 
 majority of tbe fociety as firmly attached to the King. It was then 
 th<::r general idea, that the lafcty of the monarch and the liberties 
 of the lubjeft were infeparabic. ^He never heard any thing faid of 
 ufing arms for the intent and purpofe of attacking the King, and 
 
 putting
 
 putting down the Government. He himfelf made the pikes for 
 the purpofeof defending himfelf, ifneceffary. He did fo becaufe 
 there was not a good, underftanding between the two parties; this 
 he explained as alluding to thole who were eager for univerfal 
 fuffrage, and thofe adverfe to that meafure. It was intended to de- 
 fend themfelves, not againft the magiflrates of the country, and the 
 legal force. 
 
 He had himfelf been threatened feveral times in company. The 
 Ariftocrats had faid publicly, that if the French invaded the 
 country, they would firft put to death their domeftic enemies. 
 
 He, nor he believed the fociety, had entertained no intentions 
 inimical to the Houfe of Lords. The only book he had ever feen 
 upon that fubjeft was that written by Major Cartwright. On the 
 whole, he declared himfelf to be, and believed the fociety to 
 have been firmly attached to the King and Conftitution of the 
 Country. He repeated that he faw Mr. Yorke at feverai meetings, 
 who always behaved with great moderation, except at the time 
 when he was intoxicated. 
 
 Henry Hill. 
 
 He was a member of the Conftitutional Society at Sheffield from 
 the beginning; he was the fecond or third member. Mr. Yorke 
 vifited them in 1792 ; he was alfo at the meeting on the Caftle-hill 
 in 1794. The witnefs, a blackfmith by trade, made ft pike from a 
 pattern given him by Davidfon, which was approved of by him. 
 He alfo fhewed it to Mr. Yorke. He made about one hundred and 
 thirty of them. The iron was procured upon Davidfon's credit. 
 He had three-pence a piece allowed him for making them. Da- 
 vidfon (aid to him, the pikes might be wanted in London as well as 
 Sheffield : by this he underftood him to mean, as againft thofe who 
 might unlawfully attack them. Davidfon left Sheffield about the 
 beginning of May. 
 
 Crofs- examination. 
 
 He never had in view, on becoming a member of the fociety, the 
 oppofing the King; nor did he believe that others of the fociety 
 ever entertained fuch an idea; They adopted and followed the 
 plan fo ably fuggeftcd and promulgated by the Duke of Richmond; 
 He had always heard them fay fo. 
 
 The preparation of the pikes was occafioned by the threats of 
 the oppofite party. They had carried thofe threats fo far, as to 
 come t,o the houfe where he lodged, and which they called the 
 Jacobin Houfe, on account of the club having fometimes met 
 there, and threaten to pull it down, and burn it. They had alfo 
 paraded the R reels with arms, and fired into feverai houles, This 
 conduct of the Ariftocrats of the town, and no other, he fwore 
 pofitively was the reafon of their deeming it neceflary to provide 
 arms ; not for rebellion, but felf- defence. 
 
 *i Thwies
 
 r "i ] 
 
 Thomas Moody, 
 
 He had been a regular member of the Conftitutional Society of 
 Sheffield for the laft twelve months he had been occafionally fa 
 before that time. Befide their general meetings, they were fubdi- 
 vided into diftrift meetings. 
 
 He knew Mr. V orke, who afted as orator, chairman, &c. at dif- 
 ferent times, particularly at the meeting at the Caftle-hill. There 
 were ten thoufand men prefent. Mr. Yorke fpoke there, but he 
 did not hear what he laid, as he was at too great a diftance. A car- 
 riage was brought for him when the meeting broke up; but the po- 
 pulace took off the horfes, and drew him home. 
 
 Gamage brought fome pike-blades, and befpoke three dozen 
 bandies for them; the remainder of the blades were afterwards lent 
 and fitted. He always underftood they were intended for felf- 
 defence. There had been rumours, that the oppofite party in- 
 tended, and had threatened to difperie their meetings, either with- 
 out or with the affiilance of a magiflrate, whom it would nofbc 
 difficult to procure ; and they were refolved to re fi ft fuch force. 
 
 He faw in Carnage's fhop a model of an inftrument called a cat : 
 but at the Privy Council he heard it called a night-cap. He afked 
 what it was for, and was informed it was an inftrument which 
 might be thrown into the {treet, in order to prevent a hoife from 
 palling. 
 
 A pike was here produced, which the witnefs faid was fuch as he 
 had made. 
 
 He remembered Davidfon afking his permiffion to have his letters 
 directed to his houfe^ which he contented to ; none, however, came 
 fo directed. 
 
 Crofs-examination. 
 
 The cat he fpokc of was about an inch long, and was merely 
 a model none were ever made from it. It was lying open in the 
 fhop, to the view and obfcrvation of every palTer by. 
 
 He never heard any expreffions made ufe of in the fociety dif- 
 rclpeftful to the King perfonally; nor did He ever hear mention 
 made of pikes, till the threats thrown out by the Arillocrats. If he 
 himfelf had an idea that any intent had ever been entertained of 
 ufing thofe pikes againft the King or the Government, he would 
 never have been concerned in making them. 
 
 [Here the Court adjourned for refrefhmenf, it being near feven 
 o'clock.J 
 
 John Edward* depofed, that a plan had been formed to make 
 pikes and blades at Sheffield, to be ufedby the London Correfpond- 
 ing Society; and that a meeting had been appointed at the Parrot, 
 in a court in the Old Bailey, to confider of a fubfcription for that 
 purpofe; that it had, at the meeting of a divifion in the Borough, 
 been propofed to the Society To learn the ufe of the mufquet; that 
 a divifion of the London Correfponding Society met at the houfc of
 
 L '22 ] 
 
 one Franklow in regimentals, and Franklow appeared in thofe regi- 
 mentals at the Globe tavern. There was no propofal for inftructing 
 Franklow's affbciation in the ufe of arms; neither was any fuch 
 propofition made at any other divifion. i 
 
 It was fufpefted that one Lynam had given information, and 
 therefore the Secret Committee had been diflTolved, and a new one 
 appointed to meet in private, to communicate with the fociefy oc- 
 cafionally. The General Commiitee of Delegates met at Compton- 
 ftreet. A Committee of Correfponcience had been appointed be- 
 tween the London Correfponding Society and the Conftitutional 
 Society. 
 
 He knew of a meeting at Chalk Farm, and was prefent at it. 
 There were two thoufand people aiTcmbled there. SeVe^^rrfons 
 of the Correfponding Society were there. Mr. Hardy was in the 
 long room all the time; he did not know what paffed there, the 
 bufinefs \vas tranfafted in another room from that in which the 
 \vitnefs was. He received a paper from Baxter, dated the 2gth of 
 April, which was read. The fame day with the m-eting 'at Chalk 
 Farm he flapped in Compton-ftreet. There was an anniverfary 
 dinner on the 9th of May, at which he was prefent. 
 
 On Hardy's apprehenfion, there was a propofal to fine a (hilling 
 a-piece to buy blades for pikes, one of which he had, but it was 
 afterwards deftroyed. The pikes were only bought for felf-de- 
 fence. 
 
 They were reading the Addrefs of Mr. Pitt and the Duke of 
 Richmond, when the Society was afTailed by two police officers. 
 
 The idea of having a military aflbciation was rejected. 
 
 Hardy was always a quiet man, and never fpoke improperly. He 
 always was againft having arms, or pikes. There was no connec- 
 tion between the order for making pikes, and the landing of Heffian 
 troops. The focieties had met for two years without interruption. 
 
 Samuel Willi.nnt proved the ex i Hence of an affociation at Lam- 
 beth, in(litu:ed by one Franklow, a member of the London Corre- 
 fponding Society; and thdt he, Williams, was employed to teach 
 fuch affoviation the manual exercife. 
 
 At eight o'clock the proceedings were refumed, when Mr. 
 G^rrovv calle.i upon 
 
 John Edwards, a metr,b r of the London CorrefpomHng So- 
 ciety. The witnefs faid, that he knew the prifoner Tr.omas 
 Hardy ; that he recol!cc.Ls certain orders for Sheffield rcfpe&ing 
 pikes in -April lull ; that hearing a letter was about to be fent 
 thither, he wifhed to inclo.'e a few lines to know who would 
 undertake to forge the blades (if pikes; that he remembers af- 
 terwanls reading a letter to Mr. Hardy, which letter the x\ itnefs 
 had received from Sheffield, explanatory of a plan formed there 
 for pikts ; that he had alfo communicated the particulars of that 
 plan to Speuce, Barks, ILllier, and others j that he had propof- 
 
 ed
 
 ed the adoption of a fimilar one in London ; that each member 
 who wifhed to have a pike, was to pay one (hilling for it. 
 
 Mr. Garrovv. Do you recollect of any place in the Borough 
 occupied to learn the ufe of the mufket, c. i 1 
 
 John Edwards anfwered, that he had heard of fuch a place, 
 but did not know the particular fpot ; that he knew of no fub- 
 fcrjption for the furnifhing of fire-arms ; that he had been ac- 
 quainted with Higgins and Goodwin, who were members; that 
 he believed the fociety in the Borough had been initiated in the 
 ufe of mufkets, but that he never had attended any of their 
 meetings ; that he d>d not know Bandy Legged Walk (which 
 Mr. Garrow mentioned as the place ot their meeting) ; that he 
 believed Franklow was a member of the London Correfponding 
 Society, but that he did not belong to his divifion ; and that he 
 himlelf remained a member till taken into cuftody. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine objected, at this time, to what might be ftated 
 as having fallen from Higgins, Goodwin, or Franklow. 
 
 Mr. Garrow per lifted in his interrogatories, to which the 
 Court acquiefced. 
 
 Edwards, the witnefs, then proceeded by faying, that he un- 
 derllood there was a corps called the Lambeth Loyal Aflbciation, 
 for the purpofe of acquiring the ufe of the muflcet ; that he could 
 not tell what Franklow 's aflbciation was for; that they wore 
 uniforms which confifted of a Blue Coa.t and a Red Collar, 
 white Breeches and Waiftcoat ; that he faw Franklow in that 
 drefs at the anniverfary dinner, at the Globe Tavern on the 2oth 
 ot January lalt ; that he knew the divifion number 2o, which 
 met at the Three Tuns, Snow-hill ; that at one of the meetings, 
 which confided of fix teen perfons, he, the witnefs, propofed to 
 form a corps fimilar to that of the Sheffield Aifociation, which 
 was unanimoufly refufed ; that this was long before the anniver- 
 fary dinner now mentioned ; that he afterwards fuggefted the 
 formation of a fociety like that of Franklow's, but that no per- 
 fon would fupport or join him ; that fome time after the Secret 
 Commitue was diflblved by confent ; that Martin (attorney), 
 1 hclwall, HodgfoQ, and others, were members of the Secret 
 Committee ; that they met at their own honks ; that the com- 
 mifee was infiituted to receive and anfwer letters ; and that 
 thefe communications were kept a fee ret from the fociety at 
 large. 
 
 On being farther interrogated, Edwards anfwered, that he 
 was a member of the -Committee of Delegates, Compton- 
 ftreet ; that the meeting was transferred to Mr. ThelwalPs, No. 
 2, Beaufort-buildings; that he ur.derftood the ConlHtmional 
 Society had deputed fix p'?rlons, and the Correfponding Society 
 
 Q_ 2 deputed
 
 t 124 ] 
 
 deputed five ; that the fociety to which he belonged added one ; 
 that thus fix and fix met to deliberate on particular meafures ; 
 that he remembered a meeting for the purpofe of prefenting 
 medals to the Jury who had acquitted Eaton ; that he was pre- 
 fent at the meeting at Chalk-Farm, which confided of 2000 
 perfons ; that he firft went to Store-ftreet, that he had cards of 
 ad million at the committee, Compton-ftreet ; that the reafon of 
 his going firft to Store-ftreet, was becaufe a room had been there 
 axlvertifed for the meeting; that when he arrived at the latter 
 place, he under Mood that Juftice Addington had been there; 
 that there was no other ceremony at Chalk- Farm, but th 
 transfer of the ticket ; that one half of it was given to the per- 
 fon at the door, and that the other half was put in his hat ; that 
 Thelv.all, Lovet, Moore, Richter, Blackman, and mod mem- 
 bers were there; that Mr. Lovet took the chair ; that he did not 
 fee Hardy, the prifoner,- there ; that he was in the long-room 
 with the ladies ; that he knew Robins's Coffee-houfe, Shire-lane, 
 where divifion, No. 29, ufed to meet ; that he had been there 
 frequently ; that he knew the matter of the paper now prefented ; 
 and that what he had feen was a different lized paper, and of a 
 different date. 
 
 [Here a very fhort converfation took place between the coun- 
 fel refpecling the propriety of fuch evidence.] 
 
 The paper now alluded to was read in court, and, among 
 ther exprefllons, contained the fubfequent words : 
 On the 3Oth of January, 1794, will be prefented, 
 
 A DRAMATIC ENTERTAINMENT, 
 
 Called 
 THE GUILLOTINE, 
 
 OR 
 
 GEORGE'S HEAD IN A BASKET ! 
 
 To which will ne added, 
 
 THE PRINCE OF LEEKS ! 
 
 Among other Actors, were 
 
 Mr. FOX, Mr. GREY, 
 
 Mr. SHERIDAN, Mr. ERSKINE. 
 
 (Loud Laugh J 
 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 
 EILLYTAX LIGHT! 
 
 Between the Acts, a Song, 
 
 TWENTY MORE ! KILL THEM ! 
 
 To conclude with 
 
 GOD SHAVE GREAT GEORGE OUR 
 
 Vive la Liberte ! Vive la Ripultique. 
 
 On being further interrogated, Edwards affirmed, that he read 
 (his bill of entertainment in October, three months before the 
 
 time
 
 E 1*5 3 
 
 time appointed for the performance ; that after the meeting at 
 Chalk- Farm the witnefs went to Compton-flreet, where he 
 fupped ; that Mr. Thelwall was there ; that he never received any 
 information farther than what he has related refpe&ing arming ; 
 that he knew Alhley, but never heard any thing from him detri- 
 mental to the prifoner; that he was at the meeting at the Crown 
 and Anchor on the 2d of May laft ; that he received his ticket 
 from Mr. Joyce ; that after the other dinner at the Globe Ta- 
 vern, the addrels read in the morning was circulated in a printed 
 handbill ; that he recollects nothing darted there refpecling the 
 Hefiian troops; that he favv no political paper there about the 
 ins and outs, but that he read one at the Three Tuns, Snow-hill ; 
 that he never received any paper on that fubjedt from Hodgfon ; 
 that he had attended Thelwall's ledture ; that the price of ths 
 pike was one (hilling a blade, as he had already ftated ; that the 
 Friday previoully to Hardy's- being apprehended, there was to 
 have been a meeting at Green-arbour-court, in the: Old-Bailey, 
 which was poftponed ; that whi'e waiting, they firft learnt that 
 Hardy was apprehended ; that each member fummoned was to 
 have depofited a (hilling for his pike-blade; that the only blade 
 at the meeting was that of the witnefs; that the (haft now in his 
 hand (here the witnefs examined it) was that on which his blade 
 had been fixed ; that he had deflroyed the blade, fearful left it 
 fhou'd be difcovered in his pofleffion ; that he believed Hillier alfo 
 had a pike fimilar to that which he had now defcribed ; and that 
 he recollected a handbill for another dramatic entertainment, 
 which he himfelf had fuggefted, called the Taking of the 
 Baftille, &c. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine crofs- examined the witnefs, who anfwered, that 
 he was by trade a lilverfmith ; that he had made a pike for him- 
 felf; that the only delign which he had in the ufe of that in- 
 (rrument was to refill any al legal difperfion of their meeting ; 
 that Mr. Yorke of Sheffield h'rft Communicated the idea of a 
 pike ; that this was at the fame time when the Heflian troops 
 had lanc'eJ in this country, without the confent of parliament; 
 and the witnefs folemnly declared, that neither he nor his aflb- 
 ciatcs had the moft diftant idea either of aiding or abetting a 
 rebellion, or of exciting the people to oppofe the government. 
 
 Edwards further recapitulated, that the fole purpofe of the 
 p;kes was to repel any attempt at an illegal difperfion of their 
 fociety, and that he was well grounded in apprehending fuch an 
 attemp, tbecaufethe focieties had been fcveral times ha Trailed by 
 the police officers; that once when the ficiety to which he be- 
 longed wss availed by the officers, he well remembered that they 
 were bufily engaged in reading the Addrefs of the Duke of 
 
 Rich-
 
 [ "6 J 
 
 Richmond and Mr. Pitt in favour of Parliamentary Reform ; 
 and that he in his conference knew thefe to be fo many truths. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " I wifh it to be underftood that I am no ad- 
 vocate for the Duke of Richmond's or Mr. Pin's Confcience !" 
 
 The Lord Prefiden.t. " I think this levity unbecoming the 
 dignity of the Court." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine feemingly afTented to what had pafTed from the 
 learned Lord Prefident ; but waxed warm and indignant on 
 hearing 
 
 The Attorney General fay, " I cannot fit in filence when 
 the Court is harrafTed by fuch frivolous or flippant obfervations." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " I muft tell the learned gentleman, that he 
 ufes language here, which he dare not avow in any other place." 
 
 The Attorney General. 4t The change of place or fituation 
 will never make me (brink from what I have advanced." 
 
 The Lord Prefident. " I lament the intemperate language 
 which has been ufed ; and I am forry to remark, that Mr. 
 Erfkine has betrayed an inclination to inflame, rather than to 
 conciliate, the gentlemen employed in the profecution for the 
 Crown. I hope, however, that all vhe learned gentlemen will 
 perceive how necefTary it is for the difpatch of bufmefs, to have 
 a proper underftandingon th occafion." 
 
 Edwards, the witnefs, being interrogated, faid, that he was 
 convinced no perfon meant to make any other tife of the pikes, 
 than what he had dated as his own defigns , that the Lambeth 
 Loyal Aflbciation had been incorporated for that purpofe ; that 
 he had always underftood that Hardy, the prifoner, had con- 
 ducted himfelf in a very peaceable manner ; that he never heard 
 him make ufe of any improper exprcflions ; that he never heard 
 him mention any thing about pikes ; and that he had always un- 
 derftood that Hardy was an enemy to every kind of violence. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " From whom did you firft receive the ridi- 
 culous play-bill now brought forward r" 
 
 The Lord Prefident. " Ridiculous play-bill ! I think it is an 
 infamous play-bill." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " I agree cordially with your Lordfhip. It is 
 a very infamous hill ! From whom did you receive it r" 
 
 Edwards. I faw it firft in the pofTefTion of Baxter, whom I 
 requefted to procure me a copy. ' 
 
 Mr. Erfkioe. " Do you believe that Hardy, the prifoner, 
 would have approved of fuch an infamous bill ?" 
 
 Edwards. " From what 1 know of Hardy, I am convinced 
 that he would by no means approve, or encourage, the circula- 
 tion of fuch a bill." 
 
 Mr. Garrow. Were not the pikes formed to oppofe the 
 
 landing
 
 I 127 I 
 
 landing of the Heflian Butchers, as they were called by certain 
 men ? 
 
 Edwards. No. 
 
 Mr. Garrow. Upon your oath, was your pike begun before 
 that time, and for what purpofe? 
 
 Edwards. All the allulion which I made to the Medians 
 was, that I had begun or finilhtd my pike, juft at the time 
 when the Medians had landed in this country without the con- 
 fent of Parliament ; ard thit this inftrument had been formed 
 to prevent any illegal difperfion of our Society. 
 
 Samuel Williams depofed, that he knew Hardy, the prifoner, 
 to whom he applied for a ticket for the confHtutional dinner, but 
 was reiufed, not being a member. He then went to him and 
 befpoke a pair of (hoes, and afterwards a pair of boots, and by 
 the introdu6tion of a Mr. Franklow, was admitted a member of 
 the fociety. He was foon appointed to inilnict fome rive or fix 
 members in the manual exercife, at Spence's houfc in Turnftile, 
 by candle-light, up two pair of (lairs. Hardy told him, that 
 Franklow intended to raife an armed fociety, and had the polt 
 of ferjeant major, teaching his men himfelf their exercife at 
 Lambeth. Williams fupplied them with (even Hand of arms, 
 for which he was paid by Franklow. He faid, that the armed 
 fociety at Lambeth was compofed of different perfons from thofe 
 he (aw at Spence's, and thai they were to have 60 rammers and 
 bayonets complete. 
 
 The clerk then read the regulations by which they were to be 
 organized. There was to be i Captain, t Lieutenant, r En- 
 fign, a Serjeant Major, and 60 rank and rile, a Fifer, Drum- 
 mer, &c. c. 
 
 He (aid, that Franklow appeared in the fociety with his mi- 
 litary uniform ; anil that it was their avowed intention to obtain 
 a reform by force of arms, if not by lair means. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs fubmitted, that this evidence d;d not apply in the 
 leait to the pnf >ner, Hardy. Where a fet of men vve/e joined 
 in a confpiracv, all the parties were accountable for the conduct 
 of any one of them, as far as regarded that fune confp'racy ; but 
 here was a man, Franklow, who, though belonging to the Cor- 
 refponding Society, was inftituting another fociety himfelf, uu- 
 con.neled, as far as the evidence went, with the matter of this 
 charge. He did not all-dge that Hariy either employed him or 
 paid him in this tranfacli'.n. 
 
 The Lord Preiidem fjid, that in this cafe fome fpecies of evi- 
 dence may be admidible, which had no immediate relation to 
 the prifoner. 
 
 friUiams then proceeded to fwear, that a Parliamentary Re- 
 form was not the general topic of converfution in iftcir meeting; 
 
 and
 
 and that in Hardy's (hop, and in his pretence?, he was consulted 
 about drilling 1000 men, which he declined undertaking. 
 
 The Lord Prefident obferving, that there was nothing appli- 
 cable to the prefent cafe in the evidence of this witnefs, he was 
 ordered to ftand down. 
 
 Saunders examined. 
 
 On the 2cl of April laft, he went to Shelmedy's in the Bo- 
 rough, where there were fcven or eight ftand of arms, and 
 twenty-feven or twenty-eight men of the Correfponding Society, 
 as he thinks, but knows that many of them were of that defcrip- 
 tion. From the 1 i-th of April to the ill of May, he attended at 
 St. James's, and the /bed at Weftminfter, where he was drilled 
 with others, by Williams, Franklow, and Augh. 
 
 On the 2d of April, he heard fome members declare, that a 
 Parliamentary Reform muft be carried at the point of the bayo- 
 net. In a divifion which met on May kit, in Shire-lane, he 
 heard a member fay, myfterioufiy, that Pitt went over the bridge 
 at twelve o'clock, but did not know what bridge was meant by 
 it. Another announced the defeat of the Britifli army as a piece 
 of good news; and on hearing that one of the King's meflen- 
 gers was killed, a third declared that he would rejoice in his 
 fate, were it his own father or his brother. 
 
 In his crofs-examination, he acknowledged that he was a fpy, 
 but faid he was L-d into the fociety by means of a bet. He did 
 not -then know who ufed the exprellion of carrying reform at the 
 point ot the bayonet. It happened in general converfation. 
 
 Edward Gifting examined. 
 
 He became a member of the London Correfponding Society in 
 April 1794, in confequence of fome fcditious publications which 
 he faw by them, and atter a converfation upon the fubjedt with 
 Mr. Wukham, a magiitrate. When he was admitted on the 1 5th 
 of April, at ClerkenvvJi, there were about 30 members prefent. 
 It was the day alter the meeting at Chalk Farm. The members 
 talked much of the fate of Charles I. and being, as he fuppofed, 
 elated after the meeting, they aifo declared that the Bntilh Con. 
 vention, like that of France, mui't b^ lupported by arms. He 
 went a'tenvards, with Hilliei, iovilit Dr. Hodglon in Newgate, 
 with whom he was before unacquainted, and there were a num- 
 ber of per fon s prefent. Hodgfon aiked him, if he had feen the 
 New Conltittition of the Correfponding Society ? and he replied, 
 that he had ncJt, as he was a very young inember. Lloyd, one 
 of the pnfoners then in Newgate, was of the party. One of 
 the toails given, was, 
 
 " The world a republic or a dcfart."
 
 C 129 ] 
 
 Hodgfon faid, amongft other things, that he hoped foon fo fee 
 a revolutionary.tribunal eftablifhcd in this country. 
 
 The fame evening, April 25, he went to meet the nth divi- 
 fion, where Wright, the delegate, faid, that he was provided 
 with his arms, and fo fhoulJ the other members. Gordon, the 
 fecretary, who is iince gone to America, allured the focieiy that 
 he was forry to leave them at a time that they were about to 
 aft as well as think, and to regenerate their country. 
 
 He accompanied Hillier to his own houfe, where he mewed 
 him, and oihers, the drawings of pikes, knives, &c. which ha 
 faid were the instruments foon to be made ufe of. He a.-Uicd, 
 that the principal d-'pendance of the fociety was in feizing 
 upon the pcrf nvs of the Royal Family, and the members of both 
 Houfes rf P-irliamem, after which, nothing was to be appre- 
 hended from the army, as they would have no leaders to refer to, 
 and that they could not fail to be allured by the additional p.iy of 
 eightcen-penoe a-day, initead of fixpence. One of the parties in 
 this conversion wa.s very much in liquor, but the reft were all 
 perfect iv fHber. 
 
 At Hillrer's houfe, on the gth of May, he met with Hill, 
 Bennet, and Baxter. The iaft faid, that he had b^en with Mr, 
 Joyce, -Chaplain to Lord Stanhope, who allured liim, that though 
 the mimikrs had taken up St >ne, he was a man of fufficientfi*m- 
 nefs to rer.-.ove all appreln nfion. Baxter alfo faid, that 'the co;n- 
 mitue <>; corfefponoence and co-operation was drawing up an 
 add.cfs to ' '-e armies, accompanied by fome rtrong refolu:icns ; 
 that a perfon, of the name of Moore, was particularly active and 
 fixrcefsfu! in gaining over the military ; that 01 the old foldiers 
 in Weftminfter, one third was already gained, and (he other two 
 wou'd not aft againft them. Baxter faid, he faw an officer, 
 lately introduced to the Que-.n, who, in fpeakirig of Her Ma- 
 jelty, ufed language which the witnefs c->uld not reiu-.-t, and 
 demanded why they did not fend the whole family to the devil, 
 or words to that effeft. 
 
 One of them afked the witnefs if he would buy a pike ? He 
 arfwercd that he would, if he knew how to make ufe of it. lie 
 then clefired him to goto the (i^n of the Parrot, iu Green Ar- 
 bour-c.'Hirt, in the O!d Bailey, and, ufing his ria ue, a fit for Mr. 
 Edwards, who wiuld come out, and not only fumifh him uith 
 a pike, but alfo have him Inftru&ed in the ufe of it. He ufktd 
 if a Reform could not be tffefted withoi't coming to blousr 
 Baxtt-r replied, there is not a man in the Society who bclkves 
 that a Parliamentary Refurm is all we want ; and without having 
 recourfe ro thefanguinary meafures ot the French Revolut 
 may be brought about in a few hourc. He did not wiflithe King 
 or any of the Royal Family to be killed. They may be lent to 
 
 R Hanover ;
 
 Hanover ; but at the fame time fome blood muft unavoidably be 
 ihed, on account of the infults offered to the people, which hu 
 man nature could not bear. 
 
 He faid that the heads of many thoufand pikes were manufac* 
 turing at Sheffield, but that the flocks would be made in town. 
 That filence, however, Ihould be obferved in the divifions until 
 the new conftitutioh fhould be eftablifhed, as there were fpies 
 amongft them. A part of the plan was to fet the Fierich pru 
 foners -of war at liberty, and if the emigrants made any oppofi- 
 tion, they fhould fhare the fame fate, that the Swifsdid in Paris., 
 Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Reeves, were mentioned 
 amongft the enemies of the people, whom it would be neceftary 
 to fecure. The purport of the addrefs to the army was to fow 
 jealoufies between the Britifh troops and the French emigrants, 
 to explain to them the feverity of their treatment, and propofe, 
 on the part of the fodeties, more lenient ufage, and to have thei? 
 pay increafed to is. 6d. per day. 
 
 On May the I4th, he attended another meeting at Hillier's, 
 but as that was fublequent to Hardy's being taken up, Mr, 
 Garrow did not think the prefent was the propereft time for of- 
 fering it in evidence. 
 
 Crofs Examined. 
 
 Is byprofeflion in this bufmefs of an informer, and in the wri- 
 ting way; was a dealer in naval [tores, but did fay the direct 
 contrary of this to Mr. Worfhip. Never laid he lived by cheat- 
 ing the King ; did not always go by his name; went by the 
 name ot Douglas ten years fiuce, and was in that name a hair- 
 tlre'Jer (even years in Petty- France, No. 3 ; took the name from, 
 pride, his father being in the wig and (having way, who kept 
 feveral journeymen. Played the part of Douglas feven years ; 
 knew Mr, Lincoln, borrowed money of him (a twenty pound 
 note) four or five years ago ; and gave him a note in the name of 
 G. Douglas, and paid part by himfelf and part by his wife. 
 
 Here the crofs examination was interrupted by Mr. Garrow, 
 who feeing or fancying th.-jt he faw Mr. Macna:nara,who fat not 
 far diftant from the pnfoner, ufmg fome geftures to embarrafs 
 the witnefs, requeued that he may be accommodated with a feat 
 upon the bench it' he could not be quiet. 
 
 Mr. Macnarnara withed to know in what he was not quiet. 
 
 Mr. Garrow explained, that as he appeared to be communi- 
 cating with the Counfel againii the proiccution, it was right that 
 be mould do fo in t v ie full lace of the Court, as the witnefs was 
 already fufliciently agitated by the nature of the examination, 
 without the intcrventiqn of a gentleman of fo much conudera- 
 tion, and once a Member of Parliament. 
 
 The
 
 C 131 ] 
 
 The witnefsthen proceeded to flate, that he told Worfhip he 
 was a dealer in naval (lores, becoufe he told him if he was a Clerk 
 he would not give him what he wanted, but did not fpeakagainft 
 ihe King, or ufe inflammatory exprellions in the focieties ; fvvears 
 pofitively that he never faid, why do not you arm ? He knew a 
 Mrs. Colman, who rented a (hop of him, died at his houfe, and 
 he buried her; me left a will, leaving her property to Burrows 
 and Leech ; don't know Mrs. Bidm ; he hefitated to anfwer 
 whether there was a complaint made againft him refpe&ing that 
 will; Leech was a hair-drefTer, and Burrows a relation; he (the 
 wirnefs) made the will ; never heard that he was charged with 
 having forged that will; knew Mr. Cox, a cheefemonger, witli 
 whom he dealt, for a (hop his wife kept ; never dealt in naval 
 ilores, though he did in paper fluff; did not fay that he got things 
 for a fifth of their value, by feeing the keeper to under-fell 
 them ; did not tell Hillier that he was in the habit of dealing ; 
 but whatever he told him was for the purpofe of extracting in- 
 formation from him. 
 
 The points of character being difcufled, Mr. Erfldne, though 
 he exerted great ingenuity, was not able to extract from him 
 any obfervable variation in his firfl teftimony. 
 
 Mr. Garrow, to explain the circumftances relative to the af- 
 fair of Mr. Macnamara. The prifoner gave the following ac- 
 count : Hegavea note to Mr. Lincoln for lol. or ten guineas, 
 of which there remained about four guineas due, and no demand 
 was made upon him till the prefent profecution was ir.ftituted. 
 Mr. Macnamara met him at the London Coffee-houfe, told him 
 he was a man of confiderable property, and a friend to the Con- 
 ftifution ; but that he would fee juftice done, and the debt owing 
 to him would be fpoken of in Court. 
 
 The witnefs faid, that he was a ftranger to Mr. Macnamara, 
 and that they were in an improper place for entering upon ex- 
 planations. Mr. Macnamara ufed no other threat. 
 
 Mr. Garrow then afked him it he had been under any profecu- 
 tion for the forgery of the will to which Mr. Erfkine alluded ? 
 The prifoner aufwercd in the negative. 
 
 Here the bufinefs concluded, the Jury again remitted to deep 
 at the Hummums, and at Two o'clock in the morning the 
 Court adjourned to Eight. 
 
 Friday, Qfiober 31. 
 
 The Court met at nine o'clock, and Mr. Hardy being placed 
 at the bar, 
 
 R 2 Mr.
 
 L 132 J 
 
 Mr. Attorney General produced two papers found at the pfi- 
 foner's houfe, dated Jnly, 1792, and addrefTed to a Mr. Roulfel 
 (now in Newgate) as a Member of the Conftitutional Society. It 
 would appear, that thefe papers were produced merely to prove 
 that Rouifel was implicated in thealledged confpiracy. 
 ;. Bernard Bailey proved the feizure of two papers at RoufTel's 
 apartments. One of them was a fmall pamphlet, containing 
 direcYions for learning the manual exercife. It was intended asa 
 gloflary to the engraving that was produced lad night, defcribing 
 the different pofuions in platoon firing. 
 
 The other was a fong, which, without any imputation of 
 blame to the Counfel on either fide, happened to be read before 
 the Court perceived that it was not legal evidence, inafmuch as it 
 had been lei'zed fubfequent to the apprehenfion of Mr. Hardy. 
 
 The Court and the learned Counfel regretted this circumftance 
 excee&ngly, and hoped the Jury would endeavour to expunge it 
 from their mine's. As to the book, it appeared by the title-page 
 to have been printed previous to the arreft of the prifoner, and it 
 was thought proper evidence. 
 
 Several .papers, foundon Me{T. Thelwall and Martin, afterthe 
 prifoner had been taken up, were produced. They wfere judged 
 good evidence, becaufe they related to the bufinefs at Chalk 
 i*arm, and appeared to have been prepared for that meeting in 
 April laft. 
 
 Mr. Gibbsbegged to ftatcthe queftion, whether, in theprefent 
 inftar.ce, it came within the rules of evidence, to bring forward 
 papers, bearing date the igtb of May, as Hardy, the prifoner, 
 was taker, up on the i2th of that month. 
 
 Chief Jiiftice Eyre faid, that certainly the paper which had 
 "been read, might have been printed after the Prifoner was in 
 cuftody, and the circumftance of it's having been found was no 
 proof that it hadtxifted before the period of his apprehenfion, ex- 
 cept evidence could be brought to prove that it was then in ex- 
 i Hence. 
 
 'John Groves was then called, who depofed, that he was pre- 
 fentat a meeting of the Correfponding Society, on the 2oth of 
 January, 1794 ;*that he was afterwards defired, by a particular 
 <_'v-iuieman, to become a member, winch accordingly he did. 
 The name of thi? gentleman he had no objection to mention, but 
 was told by the Counfei for the profecution that there was no 
 occafion. At the meeting where he firrt attended, Martin was 
 Jn the chair, an Addrefs xvas read, and a great many toalts given, 
 which he did not now rceoliecl. 
 
 Q. Do you remember any part of the converfation in thefiril 
 meeiing, at which you were prefent 1 
 
 A. Thei
 
 'I '33 J 
 
 A. There was a general talk of Univerfal Suffrage and Annual, 
 Parliaments. 
 
 Q. After you became a member of the Society, what was 
 publicly profelfed to be their object ? 
 
 A. A Reform of Parliament. 
 
 Q.. What were the means by which they propofed to attain 
 that object ? 
 
 A. By enlightening the minds of the lower clalfes, in order 
 that they might arrive at the knowledge of their natural freedom 
 
 Q^ What particular means did they take in order to enlighten 
 the 'people ? 
 
 A. Chiefly by distributing pamphlets fuited to their capaci- 
 ties. 
 
 Q^ Do you not recoiled!: the names of fome of the perfons, 
 who were foloud in the caufe of Univerfal Suffrage and Annual 
 Parliaments ? 
 
 A. I canot mention their names : it was the general voice of 
 the Society. 
 
 Q. Did you never hear any thing ftarted on the fubject of 
 Qrms ? 
 
 A. I ffever did. 
 
 Q. Were you prefent at any of Thel wall's Lectures ? 
 
 A. Yes, I wa^two or three times prefent. 
 
 Q._ What was the fubjecl of thefe Lectures ? 
 
 A. A general abufe of Adminiflration. 
 
 CX Did he not touch on the branches of the Legiflature ? how 
 did he fpeak of the King ? 
 
 A. In terms of contempt: 
 
 Q^ Do you recollect any of thofe terms ? 
 
 A. He called him a Soh.snon. 
 
 Q. How did he exprefs himfelf of the other branches of the 
 JLcgiilatiire ? 
 
 A. As entirely corrupt. 
 
 Q^ Did he fay then that they ought to be deftroyed? 
 
 A. No, but they ought to be new modelled. 
 
 Q. What means did he recommend for that purpofe ? 
 
 A. Annual Parliaments and Univerfal Suffrage. The witnefs 
 then proceeded to ftate, that he was prefent at the meeting of the 
 Correfponding Society at Chalk Farm, on the 1 4th of February. 
 Lovatt was in the chair; a letter was read from the Friends of 
 the People, and an Addrefs propofed ; fome printed papers were 
 delivered to the perfons prefent. He was afked if he had any of 
 thefe' printed papers about him, and upon anfwering in the af- 
 firmative, was required to produce them. The printed accoun^ 
 of the proceedings at Chalk Farm was then read. 
 
 CK How was the letter from the Society of the Friends of th$ 
 People received ? 
 
 A. With univerfal filence and luffing. 
 
 O ITd
 
 [ '34 ] 
 
 Q. Did you go to Chalk-farm in company with any pcrfon ? 
 
 A. Yes, withMr.Thelwall. 
 
 Q. Where was the meeting firft to have taken place ? 
 
 A. It was propofed to have taken place at Store-ftreet. 
 
 Q. Why was it afterwards changed? 
 
 . A. I was told by Mr. Thewall it was only to be given out that 
 it was to take place at Store-ftreet, becaufe they were afraid 
 that the magiftrates might interfere; accordingly at the door of the 
 houfe, there was a notice ftuck up that it was to be held at Chalk 
 Farm. 
 
 Q. Who were the principal perfons who fpoke and afted at the 
 meeting ? 
 
 A. Lovatt, Thelwall, Richter, Hodfon. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any thing being laid about fpies ? 
 
 A. Yes, Thelwall faid that he would permit all fpies to be pre-< 
 fent at that meeting, for the account they would have to carry 
 home of the numbers ot the Correiponding Socieiy, would be no 
 very agreeable news to their employers. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect in any refolutic.n that pafled on that occa* 
 fion,' the phrafe Britifh fenate being objected to? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect any thing that Hardy faid at the meeting ? 
 
 A. I recolleft him only to have uttered three words. 
 
 Q. What were thefe? 
 
 A. While Richter was reading the refolutions, he ftopt to make 
 fome remark of his own, when Hardy faid, " Read without 
 omment." 
 
 O. After the meeting was over, where did you adjourn to fpend 
 your evening ? 
 
 A. I adjourned along with Thelwall, to the public-houfe ia 
 Compton-itreet, whrre the divifion met, and there indeed I heard 
 fomething that much aftonifhed me; for Thelwall taking up a 
 pot of porter, and cutting off the head, faid, " Thus would I have 
 all Kings ferved," or " Thus I would ferve all Kings," 1 cannot 
 exaftly recolleft which of thefe expreffions he ufed. 
 
 Q. Was there any particular toaft afterwards given? 
 
 A. Yes; Thelwall gave, " The Lamp iron at the end of Parlia- 
 ment-ftreet ; and called upon another perfon to cover it, who gave, 
 " And at the Treafury Bench." 
 
 Q. Do you know a perfon of the name of Green, or recolleft 
 any particular expreffions which he ufed ? 
 
 A. Yes; he once faid, "That the pretexts of annual Parlia- 
 ments and univerfal fuffrage were only ladders to gain their ends." 
 
 Q. Did Green ever fhew you a knife of a particular con- 
 ftru&ion ? 
 
 A. At the meeting at Chalk-farm, I was fitting in a box, aboufc 
 ttn, and was rather furprifed at remarking that five or fix of them 
 produced out of their pockets, fmall inftruments exa&ly corre- 
 fponding with each other. Thefe referable what the French call 
 foyfcaujccrct j opening with a fpring, and not apt to fly back. One 
 
 of
 
 [ '35 3 
 
 of the company remarked that thefe were bread and cheefe knives, 
 at which 1 could oblerve a Imile upon their countenances. I was 
 told that I might have one at Mr. Green's {hop, Orange-ftreet, 
 Leicefter-fields ; I went there about a week after, he told me that 
 he had told about two or three hundred of tbefe knives, and, the 
 parlour door being open, defired me to fpeak very low, " For" 
 Jaid he, " My Wife is a damned Ariftocrat." 
 
 Upon being alked whether he recollected any thing further of 
 the proceedings of the fociety, he faid, that at one meeting at 
 which he was prefcnt, an application was made to grant fome re- 
 lief to Dr. Houfon, then confined in Newgate, but was refufed, 
 and the icalon afluned, was, on account of his extreme violence, 
 and he believed, it was alfo mentioned that he was no member of 
 the Correfponding Society. He was prefem at the dinnerof the 
 Society for Confttutional Information, held at the Crown and 
 Anchor, on the fecond of May laft. He ftatcd, that Hardy 
 brought him a ticket tor that dinner; he put ins hand into his 
 pocket, but was told that there was nothing to be paid for it. Pre- 
 vious to the company having' aflembled to dine, fome very bad 
 news had arrived from the Continent, and feemed to diffufe an a'r 
 ofge.ieij! fat sfaclion. A copy of a fong was delivered to every 
 individual of the company, and there was likewife a paper laid ga 
 each pla^e, bat it's contents he did not recollect. 
 
 Q. Who was in the chair? 
 
 A. Home Tooke. 
 
 The Coiinfel defired him to recolleft himfclf, and that he faid 
 lie believed the chairman was not Home Tooke, but Mr. Whar- 
 ton, Member of Parliament. 
 
 Q. H4d you any mufic ? 
 
 A. The moment the company entered the dinner-room, the air 
 of fa-ira (truck up, and continued to be playing during the whole 
 time of dinner, being repeatedly encored; it was followed by the 
 Marseilles march, and the Carmagnole. 
 
 Q. What effect did Ihele airs produce upon the Company? 
 
 A. They called forth an univerfal peal of approbation ; tb> 
 clapping continued io loud and io long that hands fmarted, and 
 cars ached. 
 
 Q. What took place after dinner? 
 
 A. Home Tooke got up; he faid that there were in the room 
 ibme government (pies, and thofe he wifhed in the firft place to 
 addrefs. To this I particularly attended. He deli red the com- 
 pany to remark that he was not in a (late of inebriation, for h..- 
 fomething to (ay, he had taken care, to refrain from the indulgence 
 ef his' Dial's. He then proceeded : he called the Treafury Bench * 
 fcourdrel fink of corruption ; and the oppofition, a fcoundrel 
 fink of oppofition; he faid there was a junction between thcfc two 
 parties for the purpofe of deftroying the Rights and Liberties of 
 the Nation. He then, (peaking of the hcrediiary nobility, afkcd, 
 whether that (kip-jack Jenkinlbn could be confidered as one of the 
 hereditary Nobility. 
 
 Q. What
 
 Q. What did he fay of the Houfe of Lords ? 
 
 A. If ray memory ferves me right, he paid them much the 
 fame fort of compliment, which he had already paid the Houfe of 
 Commons. 
 
 Chief juftice Eyre. ' : Sir, in giving evidence, do not ufe that 
 language, in talking of the fame fort of compliment ; confine your- 
 felf to facts and expreflions which actually were made ufe of." 
 
 Q. How did he exprefs himfelf of the king ? 
 
 A, He called the King a pocrman^ but whether to amufe or abule 
 I know not. 
 
 O. How was his fpeech received ? 
 
 A. With great applaufe. 
 
 Q. Was there any fong fung upon the occafion ? 
 
 A. Yes; there was a fong to the tune of li God fave the King/* 
 but I do not recolleci whether it was fung by Home Tooke, or 
 whether he only added a verfe, which he faid had been forgotten. 
 This was the fong of which a copy was handed about to each of the 
 company, previous to dinner. 
 
 The Attorney General. This was the fong, a copy of which 
 Vas read in evidence in the proceedings of yefterday. 
 
 Crofs-examincd by Mr.Gibbs. 
 
 Q. Mr. Groves, what are you ? 
 
 A. I have been a conveyancer for thefe two or three and twenty 
 years ? 
 
 Q. Are you a folicitor ? 
 
 A. I am not a folicitor in chancery. 
 
 Q. I did not afk whether you were a folicitor in chancery, but 
 whether you were a folicitor. You do not anfwer; do you not 
 underftand the meaning of the qucftion ? Are you not a (olicitor 
 at the Old Bailey ? 
 
 A. I am ; I did not indeed at firft underftand the meaning of 
 your queftion. 
 
 Q. What, you forgot then that you were a foh'citor at the Old 
 Bailey, and thought it a fatisfaclory anfwer to my queftion to tell 
 me that you were not a folicitor in chancery? 
 
 A. I intended to give a direft anfwer. 
 
 Q. I have no doubt that your ipr.orar.ce was involuntary ; it 
 was very natural that you fhould forget your proieilion in the 
 court where you pratife , but when did you firit attend the meet- 
 ings of the Corresponding Society ? 
 
 A. In the month of January. 
 
 Q. You were fent, you fay, by a gentleman ? 
 
 A. Yes, I was employed to attend hy a gentleman high in 
 office, for the purpofe of procuring information. At the fame 
 time I mud rerr,a:k that I was notdefired by that gentleman to con- 
 ceal his name. 
 
 Q. What is his name? 
 
 Vv'unefs(addre(Iing the Chief Juflice). " My Lord, is it a pro- 
 per queflion ? If it is, I am ready to anfwer it."
 
 C '37 ] 
 
 Mr. Gibbs" If it was an improper queflioh, I would hot have 
 afked it." 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre. " Mr. Gibbs, he has admitted all that is 
 neceffary for your purpofe, by faying that he was fent to thcfe 
 meetings to procure information, i conceive that it would not be 
 expedient to anfwer your queftion, as he has confeffed that he was 
 employed by a perfon high in office, and to require from him the 
 name of his employer, might lead to a fort of difcuffion, whick 
 has nothing to do with the prefent trial." 
 
 Q. flow arofe your connection with your employer? 
 
 A. I have had the honour of being perfonally known to him 
 for thefe ten years, during which, 1 have enjoyed his confidence. 
 That gentleman would not employ me on any thing difhonourable; 
 he made ufe of me in order to procure neceffary information, and 1 
 have very different ideas of the nature of that engagement, from 
 what are generally entertained. 
 
 Q. I dare fay that the gentleman would employ you on nothing 
 which you conceived to be difhonourable, as well as that your 
 ideas on the fubjeft are very different from thofe which are 
 generally entertained. But from the amount of all you have faid, 
 I am to underltand that you never were prefent at any of the meet- 
 ings, except in the character of a fpy ? 
 
 A. If to be employed to procure neceffary information deferves 
 the appellation, I muft be content to bear it. 
 
 Q. Then you confefs that as a Spy 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre. " Mr. Gibbs, he has admitted that his objecT; 
 was to difclole information, 1 muft objeft to any name of that fort 
 being applied to a witnefs." 
 
 Q. You went then to pick up information, and carry it to your 
 employer ? 
 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. You fay that there was a large company at the firft meeting 
 that you attended ? 
 
 A. So very numerous that the floor broke down, and we were 
 obliged to remove to another room. 
 
 Q. And how happened it, Sir, that you, going there as you did 
 to collect information in order that you might afterwards be able to 
 bring it forward in evidence againft individuals, made yourfelf 
 mafter of no particular fal, of no exprc-ffion which can be made 
 the ground of a direct perfona! charge? Did you conceive it fuffi* 
 cient for the purpofe of individual examination that you fhould 
 bring fuch evidence, as, that there was a general clamour for uni- 
 verfal fuffrage, and annual parliaments ? 
 
 , Chief Juftice Eyre. " Mr. Gibbs, you go beyond the bounds of 
 crofs-examination. You are only to probe into all fafts, and to 
 endeavour to bring forward fuch as have not come out in the courfe 
 of the examination. , You ought not to introduce fuch a periphrafis 
 as you have juft now donl" 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " I do not conceive that my learned friend has ex- 
 ceeded the ufual limits of crofb-examination. What he addreffed
 
 C <38 ] 
 
 to the witnefs may be taken as a queftion. "How do you, having 
 been employed for the exprcfs purpofe of procuring information^ 
 account for being fo deficient in your knowledge of particular 
 fafts?" I have now practifed theie feventeen years, and I recollect 
 an inftance when a learned Judge (Buller), now on the bench, pre- 
 lided, Mr. Garrow, who was then introduced to the bar, at which 
 he noW ranks fo high, put a queftion to a witnefs, to which I ob- 
 j^fted; it turned out to be in the courle of crofs-examination, and 
 the laugh was raifed againfl me." 
 
 Judge Buller. "I confefs, that a greater la'ituue has been intro- 
 duced into crofs-exami nation than, perhaps, is proper. It has, in 
 fome degree, been fanftioned by -practice. It is allowable to lead 
 the evidence to the point to which counfel may wifh to bring him ; 
 but certainly not to put word* into his mouth which make direftly 
 againft himlelf." 
 
 Chief Jufticc Eyre. " In all thefe cafes my judgment is, that it 
 is the bufinefs of counfel to get at the particular. Any remarks on 
 the nature of the evidence ought to be referved to their proper 
 place, in the reply." 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. " I am happy to find myfelf fupported by the autho- 
 rity of my learned friend, with reipeft to the practice; though, I 
 confefs, my Lord, that I feel myfelf conficierably mortified, to have 
 incurred any remark from you, with refpect to my mode of con- 
 dudting the examination." 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre and- the Attorney General took an opportu- 
 nity to profefs the higheft efleem and refpeft for Mr. Gibbs, in his 
 profeffional capacity; and the crofs-examination proceeded. 
 Q. You are then employed in the law? 
 A. I have not pra&:fed thefe fix months. 
 
 Q. You do not mean to lay that you have declined praclice, but 
 that no bufinefs was brought to you? 
 A. Such has been the cafe. 
 
 Q. So indeed I fuppofed. Plow happened it at the meeting at 
 the Globe Tavern, of which you have given an account, you do 
 not recolleft any of the expreffiuns uled by partrcular perfons ? 
 
 A. When 1 fir ft went there, I was a ftranger to almoft every 
 perfon in the company, and could not, therefore, difcriminate the 
 particular fpeakers. 
 
 Q. You went afterwards, you fay, to Chalk Farm ? 
 A. Yes. . 
 
 Q. On that occafion, you feern to have fixed yourfelf on Thel- 
 wall? 
 
 A. No; he fixed himfflf on me we met at the door of the 
 houfe in Store- (treet, where the meeting, which afterwards they 
 thougnt proper to adjourn fo Chalk Farm 1 , was originally propofed 
 to have been held, and Thdwall feeing me there with a view to 
 
 . laid, "come along." 
 
 Q. Was there not at that meeting a gt*at*cry againft fpies? 
 A. Yes. 
 Q, 1 fuppofe then that you joined in that cry? 
 
 A. I
 
 I '39 1 
 
 A. I certainly did. 
 
 Q. Did you lee any perfon whom you knew ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What was his name? 
 A. Walfh. 
 
 Q. Was an enquiry made to you refpe&ing your knowledge of 
 him ? 
 
 A. Yes; I was afked who he was. and I anfwered I knew him 
 to be a perfon employed by government. 
 
 Q. And you told him that he had come there to procure infor- 
 mation ? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. So you admitted that he was a fpy ? 
 A. I'did. 
 
 Q. You conceived him on that occafion to be there in the fame 
 capacity with yourfelf; for the purpofe of making difcoveries? 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. You faid that you knew he \vas a perfon employed by go- 
 vernment, and a fpy ? 
 
 A. I was carried acrofs the garden by fome of the members who 
 fufpefled him, for the purpofe of telling who he was; befides, he, 
 had the words King and Conjiitution infcnbed on his buttons. 
 
 Q. So you admitted a perfon in the fame fituation with yourfelf 
 employed by government, and with the words King and Conftitu- 
 tion infcribed on his buttons, to be a fpy. Was you not afraid by 
 this declaration to expofe your friend to the hazard of being torn in 
 pieces, by the perions, ^ whole expence he came to make dif- 
 coveries r 1 
 
 A. Had I not made the declaration, I might have been myfelf 
 fufpefted. 
 
 Q. Oh ! it was only a fetch of cunning in order to conceal your 
 own character; and I think you told us before, that Mr. fhelwaJl 
 had faid, hewifhed all fpies to be admitted. What might be the 
 number prefer.t ? 
 
 A. I fuppofe about two or three thoufcnd, of whom however only 
 about eight or nine hundred belonged to the Conlhtut.ion.il Society. 
 The otheis were drawn thereby curiofity. 
 
 Q. At that meeting you faw lome knives of a particu'ar defcrip- 
 tioti employed by the company in e.iting bicad uud chi-ef;, Ildd. 
 not you often feen fuch knives before ? 
 A. J certainly had. 
 
 Q. Did not you know that they were exceedingly common r* 
 A. Certainly I did. 
 
 (.). You were afterwards, you fay, prefent at the Crown and 
 Anchor, on the 2d of M 
 
 A. I was, and was very much aflonifned to find, on entering 
 the room, (o great j number of refxcbl'le gentle nen aflembled. 
 
 Q. I have no doubt you was; but how did yuu contrive to 
 into theircomp.my ? 
 
 S i A. I hav
 
 [ HO 3 
 
 A. I have mentioned that I had been prefented with a ticket for 
 the dinner by Mr. Hardy. 
 
 O. You are not certain who was in the Chair ? 
 
 A. I now recolledt that it was Mr. Wharton. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Home Tooke, in the fpeech which he made on 
 that occafion, and of which you gave fome account, fpeak highly 
 of the antient hereditary nobility ? 
 
 A. Yes ; he paid them every compliment. 
 
 Q. Did he not alfo remark that the antient nobility had loft 
 their due influence in the country, inconfequence of the new no- 
 bility ( I do not wifh to make any offenfive allulion to individuals) 
 introduced by thofe upon whofe conduct he had been adverting in 
 the Houfe of Commons ? 
 
 A. I now recolleft he did. 
 
 Q. Did he not alfo fpeak highly of the office of the King in the 
 Conititution ? 
 
 A. I am clear he did, for he lamented the circumftance of the 
 new nobility, in conjunction with a corrupt "Houfe of Commons, 
 continuing, as he expreffed it, to amufe that poor man, the King. 
 
 Q. Did he make any other complaint then againft the Conftitu- 
 tion, except thatperfons were introduced into the Houfe of Com- 
 mons, and by this means into the Houfe of Peers, who reftrained 
 the due privileges of the' crown, and deprived the King of his pro- 
 per weight in the Conftitution ? 
 
 A. I perfectly recollect that he made ufe of thofe expreffions. 
 
 Mr., Gurnell was next examined. He proved that a paper, 
 \vhichwasputintohishand, was found in the polTeffion of the 
 prifoner at the bar. On that paper was written a fong to the tune 
 of * ; The Vicar of Bray." 
 
 After this fong was read, 
 
 Mr. Erfkine obferved, that it was fent to Mr. Hardy by fomc- 
 body or other in a letter. 
 
 John Thompfon produced a pike, which he faid he found in 
 thepoflefiion of one Hillier on the i8th of May lalt. The handle 
 was about fix or (even feet, and the blade about :o inches or a 
 Joot. 
 
 Carnage, who had been before examined, was again called. 
 He had ieen Margaret in the Tolboolh of Edinburgh, and on his 
 table he perceived a knife with a fpring fimilar to tho!e which Mr, 
 Groves law at Chalk-farm. It appeared to be a knife that opened 
 with a fpring, nine or ten inches in length. It was very hard to 
 firit after it was once open. 
 
 On crofs-examination by Mr. Erfkine, the witnefs faid he ne- 
 ver faw a knife of that kind before. It lay on the table, and Mr. 
 Mdrgarot eat his dinner with it. It was in no way concealed ; 
 and there were fix or fcven people prefent. It did not flrike the 
 witnefs that there was any thing wrong in it. It was a curious 
 knife, and Margarot fhewed it to him. 
 
 George Lynam depofed, that he became a member of the divi-. 
 fion, No, 12, at the fign of the Manfion-houfe. He received rules
 
 [ HI ] 
 
 of the Society, and an addrefs ; did not know the date, but believed 
 it was in March, 1792. The divifion of the fociety adjourned 
 from thence, in confcquencc of intimation given to the landlord, to 
 the Crown in Newgale- ftreet. 
 
 [This witnefs gave a very day and tedious evidence, from fevcral 
 books which he had filled with memorandums of the proceedings 
 at the different meetings and divifions. j 
 
 The next meeting was at the Unicorn, Covent-garden : the room 
 was fuii, and from feventy to eighty perfons were prefent. Hardy 
 was there, whom he underftood to be the fecretaty. This was a 
 meeting of divifion No. 2. There was brought forward Tom 
 Paine's addrefs to the French people, which was reported and or- 
 dered to be printed, and delivered out to the divifions of the fo- 
 ciety. It was alfo ordered that a paper, entitled The Rights and 
 Duty of Man, fhould be continued weekly. He next read an ex- 
 tract from h ; s notes, defcribing the mode in which the fociely and 
 divifions did their rmfinefs. The next meeting was on the 31(1 of 
 Oftober, at the Crown, Newgate-ftreet, where the addrefs to the 
 French Convention was reported and agreed to. A letter was 
 read from the editor of the Sheffield paper, at the divifion No. 2, at 
 the Boar, which dated, that it would be good to fend down dele- 
 gates to teach the farmers politics. A delegate from divifion No. 
 11, made a report that the fociety at Stock port approved of the dif- 
 ferent proceedings of the meetings of the eoirefponding Society. 
 
 Lauzun, the meffenger, proved the finding apaper in the pri- 
 fonsr's houfe, figned "Hardy," dated Monday May 1,1792, ap 
 pointing him a delegate to one of the divifions, in which office he 
 was to continue three months. 
 
 Alexander Grant proved the hand writing. 
 
 Lyivn continued his evidence by adverting to what pafled at the 
 meeting of the Crown, Newgate- ftfeet, at which nothing material 
 occurred. 
 
 He was interrupted by Mr. Bower, as to what patted at divifion 
 No. 2. 
 
 A. An inflammatory letter was read from Joel Barlow to the 
 National Convention, and louiiiy applauded, and the report was 
 made from the committee of delegates. It was alfo reported, that 
 the London Correfponding Society amounted to nine thoufand in 
 number : and that the divifion No. i |. Spiral fields, was increafing, 
 and was in number equal to any other divifion. The firlt meeting 
 of the fociety, he faid, was atK. Boyd's, Exeter- ftreet, when a letter 
 was read from Major Johnfon. that he didnot approve of the letter 
 to the Convention, but that he would prepare one, It was reported 
 by a delegate, that the addrefs of the fociety was approved by the 
 National Convention, and ordered to be fent to the eighty-five de- 
 partments. At this meeting there was much talk about Judge 
 Aflhhuril's charge to the Grand Jury. He was himfclf a delegate, 
 
 and
 
 [ 14*. J 
 
 and it was recommended to him to ftate that it was necelTary to 
 publifh thai the fociety were not l<:velleis, on account of the inagii- 
 Iratcs interfering with the publicans, and threatening to take away 
 their licences. 
 
 The witnefs flated the proceedings of the general committee of 
 delegates from thefeveral divifionsof the Correfponding Society, at 
 their meetings during the year 1792 ; but nothing material turning 
 on them, we forbear to repeat them. At the meeting of the dele- 
 gates in Compton-itreet, on the loth of January, 1793, a lettt-r was 
 lead from the Friends of the People, addrefled to the fociety, in 
 which they recommend to the fociety, to abftain from foreign par- 
 ties and correfpondence, and to confine themfelvcs to attending 
 to domeflic concerns; by which means they would avoid the im 
 putation of being confidered as levellers. On this it was refolved 
 cy the fociety to put an end to all f. thcr cnrrefpondence and com- 
 munication with the Friends of the People. On the debate on this 
 <jueflion, Mr. Bell faid, their addrefs to the National Convention 
 of France evinced their intention of adopting the laws of that coun- 
 try ; to which Mr. Margaret added, No doubt. 
 
 Meeting i^rh JJK. The prifoncr acquainted the fociety he had 
 lent go copies of their addrefs, together with 12 copies of M. Kier- 
 fant's fpeech in the National Convention, into the country to be 
 difperfed*. 
 
 Meeting 31 ft Jan. Mr. Baxter mads a motion, that out of each 
 perion's quarterly fubfcription, fix pence fhould be applied to the 
 ufe of the divifion to which he belonged, and feven-pence for the 
 defraying the charge of rent for the rooms where jthe poorer lo- 
 cieties met. This, it was remarked by a .member, was a good plan 
 forthe fupport and encouragement of the poorer divisions, fuch as 
 Spitalfields, Moorfields, who were very numerous, and it was abfo- 
 lutely ncceffary, in cafe of refiftance, to encourage and fupport 
 them. This the witnefs dated not from his notes, but from recol- 
 leftion. Theie divifions were, he laid, as many in number as all 
 the other rlivifior.s pat together. At another meeting it was moved 
 and refolvcd, that the (urplus of their fubfcriptions in hand fhould 
 be applied to the difcharge of the rent of the meeting-room of the 
 above divifion, (SpitaHiekls) and the fame reafon affigned at the 
 time, their poverty, and in cafe of war they would be ferviceable. 
 Being called on to explain what he meant by the word war, he 
 faid, it was unaerftood at the meeting to mean a riling in the 
 country. 
 
 Feb. 14. At this meeting; the rneafureof a petition to Parliament 
 was agreed to upon the fubjecl of reform. The delegates from t!ie 
 Borough, and the Friends of the People, were not for going fo far. 
 The Holborp fociety w^re for republicariifm. There were three 
 objpfts under corjfideraiiorfof this meeting to petition the King, to 
 petition the Houfe of Com-mons, or to call a Convention. 
 
 Feb. ID. The peiition to Parliament was furihcr-difcu'Jcd. 
 
 Feb. 21. It was Hated, that if their peiiiion to Parliament for 
 was p-jiftedj then they might pelition tfie King. A lettei* 
 
 was
 
 C 
 
 v?as read from the Friends of the People, dated 1 5th of February, 
 and addreilcd to the Society, in anlwer to one from them of the firft 
 of February. It Hated, that their plan would loon come forward. 
 Their object was to create an organ which fhould fpeak to the legi* 
 flaturc: it ftated the rel'olutions of theTociciy not to give up it's 
 power of action to any other fociety the time of aftion may not 
 be very fardiftant. 
 
 Feb. 28. Thanks voted to Mr. Fox, and the minority of 44, in 
 the Houfe of Commons as alfo to LordLauderdale for their fpi- 
 rited exertions in the c^iufe of the people. 
 
 March 14. The meeting refolved. that the petition to Parlia- 
 ment fhould be drawn up on parchment, one for each delegate, 
 for the purpofe of trying what coffee- houfe would take ii in, in 
 order to procure fignarures to it. 
 
 Match 21. There was a notice communicated to the focietv, ex- 
 preflive of an apprehenfion that they would be taken. up. A letter 
 was read from a fociety from Birmingham, dated Macch 15, re- 
 queftjng to corrcfpond xvith the fociety, and urging them to perfift 
 in their petition to Parliament. A motion was made by Mr. Mar- 
 garo', to print the addrcfs written by Mr. Friend, accompanied by 
 remarks and comments on particular paflages. 
 
 March 28. A fcrTeci committee was appointed to draw up'laws 
 for the guidance of the fociety : the committee were to fubmit thofe 
 laws, when digeftcd. to the conlideration of the feveral divifions > 
 for their approbation. A refoluiion was entered into to write to 
 all the focieties throuzhout the kingdom, requtfting their co-ope- 
 ration in the general caulV. It was alfo determined, that billf 
 fhould be ftuck up in various pails of the town, during the nighr, 
 requeuing fignatu;es to the petition to Parliament. It was likewife 
 iclolved. that application be made to Mr. Francis to prefcnt the 
 
 petition. 
 
 April 29. The armherfary dinner of the fociety was held at 
 the Crown and Anchor tavern, in the Strand. The Witnefs wjs 
 prefent at it. There were many who talked very boldly. Thsy 
 itemed affured that a revolution would foon take place, Sc 
 toafts \\ere given, which the witncfs read, but which have been 
 long in pofictTion of the public. 
 
 May 2. At the meeting of the ddegates at their ufual place in 
 Compton-ftr t r, a . . irom .Ndr. Francis, in which he 
 
 itates, that by radical reform, the term ufed in thi-ir intended peti- 
 tion, was generally underftcod univerfal fufFrage a mcafure to 
 \vhich he \vas ceitiiinly no friend. He however conler.tcd to pte- 
 Ifct their petition. 
 
 The witncls was here afked. and ftated, that a new eleftion of de- 
 legates from the feveral divifions of the London Correfponding So- 
 ciety had taken place in the preceding March. 
 
 ' Lauzun, the meficnger, was called to identify a paper found by 
 him in the poffeUign of the prifoner, among his other papers. It 
 was a letter figned C. J. Fox, in anfwer to an application from the 
 fociety, in which he ftatedj that having never icfultd to niefent % 
 
 petition
 
 [ 144 ] 
 
 petition from any of his conftituents, he would prefent trieir's, al- 
 though repugnant to his ideas, as he conceived that by radical reform 
 was generally underftood univerfal fuffrage, to which he declared 
 himfelf adverfe. 
 
 [Here the Court adjourned from four o'clock to half pad five.J 
 
 Upon the refumption of the Court, Lynam proceeded in the detail 
 of his evidence out of his written documents. 
 
 May 16. At the next meeting of the delegates, an anonymous 
 letter, addrefied to Mr. Plardy, as fecretary to the fociety. was read, 
 expreffing his patriotic zeal, his good wifhes for the fociety, appre- 
 henfions for their fafety, and exhortations to fpirited but prudent 
 conduct. A motion was made for drawing up a remonftrance 
 againdlhe war. It was urged, that if a petition appeared againfl 
 the war, it would ferve to refute the idea of it's being a popular 
 one. 
 
 May 23. A proportion was made for calling a general meeting. 
 An addreTs to the public was likewife propofed. Le Brun's Letters 
 to Lord Grenville were fpoken of as proper for publication ; but the 
 matter was poftponed, left it fhould appear as if they held com-, 
 munication wilh France. 
 
 May 30. At this meeting Mr. Hardy propofed to the fociety 
 to break up for three months. This proposition was negatived. 
 
 June 6. A public meeting was talked or, to be advertifed. There 
 was to be no dinner. The meeting to be called for five, and pro- 
 ceed to bu(inefs at fix in the evening. Thanks were voted to Mr. 
 "Wharton, for his fpeech in Parliament upon reform, and ordered to 
 be printed four times: the fpeech itfelf was alfo ordered to be 
 printed, together with comments thereon, and a committee ap- 
 pointed to draw them up. A letter from a fociety at Leeds was 
 read, requeuing to correfpond with the fociety, and ftating the ob- 
 jeft of. their affociation to be for the purpofe of inftrufting their 
 neighbours. 
 
 June 15. A letter was read from Mr. Stone, exhorting the fo- 
 ciety to perfevere in their endeavours to reftore the conftilution to 
 it's primitive purity, as eftablifhed in 1688 endeavours that mud 
 ultimately prove fuccefsful, in fpite of the contemptuous filence of 
 the majority of the country. Upon this it was refolved by the 
 fociety, that they will give their decided fuppurt to every meafure 
 brought forward tending te reftore the rights of the people, as 
 eftabb'fhed in 1688. Thanks were voted to the 112 members of 
 the Houfe of Commons, together with Mr. Wharton, for th^r 
 exertions. Ten thouland copies of his fpeech were ordered toip 
 printed, and diflributed by the fociety. 
 
 About this time the witnels ceafed to be a delegate from his divi- 
 Con to the meeting. 
 
 Sept. 25. He was prefent at the meeting of his divifion, No, 
 83, which met in a court near Bunhill-row. 
 
 It was dated there that anew Society was forming nearMoorfield^, 
 and was increafmg very fad ; alfo that a new divifion of the Cor- 
 
 refponding
 
 refponding Society, who appeared very violent, was formed at th 
 Grove in Bandy-legged-walk. A report was prefented from, the 
 divifion at Walworth by one of it's members, the fame who wrot 
 the bill of the farce of the Guillotine. He was fuppofed to be em- 
 ployed by the National Convention in France. The addref s in- 
 tended to be prefented to the King having been reported to be pro- 
 nounced treafonablc by Mr. Vaughan, whofe profeffional opinion 
 was taken on it, another was ordered to be prepared Oftober 7. 
 At the next meeting a letter was read from a member, ftating that 
 he was going to Ireland, where he would open a correfpondenc* 
 between the focieties there and the Correfponding Society. 
 
 The witnefs was alfo prefent at a meeting of the fociety, held at 
 Hackney, Mr. Hodgfon president, when Meffrs. Margaret and 
 Gerald were elefted delegates, to attend the Britifh Convention to 
 be holden at Edinburgh. 
 
 Nov. 5. Meeting of the divifion, No. 23. It was dated, that 
 Meffrs. Gerald and Margarot had fet off for Scotland and that the 
 funds of the fociety were very low, A new fociety, formed at 
 Briftol. Meffrs. St. Clair and M'Cleod, gone to Edinburgh to the 
 Convention from the Conftitutional Society. They were informed 
 that affociations were forming at Lambeth for the purpofe of learn- 
 ing their exercife; and that fimilar ones were about to be eftablifh- 
 ed all over London. 
 
 Nov. 12. Divifion Meeting. Read a letter from a fociety at 
 Norwich, approving of the Convention at Edinburgh, and requeft- 
 Jng correfpondence. It was ftated that the funds of the fociety 
 were very low, and a fecond fubfcription propofed, for the purpofe 
 of defraying the expcnces of their delegates at Edinburgh. There 
 was a letter to their delegates, inftrudting them to vifit the feveral 
 focieties in Scotland. It was faid there was going to be a fecond 
 general meeting in Edinburgh, but changed to Glafgow. 
 
 The witnefs was about this time re-elefted delegate from his di- 
 vifion to the general meeting of delegates from the feveral divifions 
 of the Correfponding Society. 
 
 Jan. 2, 794 Attended the general meeting for the firft time*' 
 Mr. Hardy xvas re-elefted fecretary. They had changed the place 
 of meeting from Old Cornpton-ftreet, to No. 3, New Compton- 
 ftreet. It was refolved, that no perfon could be a delegate but 
 thofe who have been at leaft three months a member of the divi- 
 fion from which he was delegated. A hand-bill was adopted, ap- 
 proving of the conduct of the Britifh Convention at Edinburgh, 
 and paffing a cenfure upon the magiOrates of that city. Ten thou- 
 fand copies of it were ordered to be printed and fent down imme- 
 diately to be difperfed in Edinburgh. A letter was read, addreffed 
 from a meeiing held at Sheffield, at which two thouland perfons 
 were prefeni, recommending 10 the fociety to adopt fpirited refo- 
 lutions, and to fupport their delegates at Edinburgh. 
 
 January 9. It was refolved that a general meeting be held on 
 the 2oth inftant. at the Globe Tavern in the Strand, to receive their 
 lau delegate to Edinburgh, Mr. Gerald. The meeting to be held 
 
 T at
 
 atone one o'clock in the forenoon; dinner at five. Stewards ap 
 pointed, Meffrs. Thehvall, Agar, Kyd, Harrifon, Stiff, Franklow, 
 Harris, St. Clair, Powell, Williams, Mitcham, Pearce, Moore^ 
 Moffatt, and Martin. An addrefs to the public upon innovated 
 rights by the magistrates, was read and adopted* It was alfo re- 
 folved to difcufs the conduct of Mr. Secretary Dundas upon th 
 above occafion. 
 
 The Witnefs was here called upon by Mr. Bower, the Counfel 
 for the Crown, who was examining him to explain the reafon o$ 
 his ceafing to be a delegate for fome time. Pie faid he had been 
 accufed by one of the London Correfponding Society of being a 
 'fpy \ and was thereupon fufpended. He was tried by a committee 
 Tppoirited for that purpofe, and after hearing evidence againft hirn^ 
 he was honourably acquitted. He was in conlequence of his pur> 
 gat ion re elefted. 
 
 Jan. 20. He was prefent at the meeting at the Globe Tavern it). 
 the Strarrd. Mr. Martin was prefident at the meeting before din* 
 ncr. He went early, before many members had aflembled, and he 
 ftayed till all was over. They aflembled before dinner in & room 
 upon the firlt floor. They were alarmed with the floor giving 
 way. They removed to the ball room upon the fecdnd floor. Th 
 Prefident, with a few others, were placed in themufic gallery. An 
 Addrefs to the Nation was read and carried. At the dinner Mr. 
 Th'elwail was in the chair. 
 
 January 23. "Meeting of Delegates. It was recommended that 
 a hand-bill be ftuck up at night in various quarters of the town, 
 Veprefenting our grievances, and demanding that they be redrefled. 
 A fubfcription alfo was adopted in fupport of their delegates in 
 Scotland. It was propofed to publifh the names of thofe who 
 gave evidence againft the delegates at Edinburgh ; but this was 
 oppofed by Mr. Thelwall, as a meafure which, by refentment, 
 might lead to bloodfhed and maflacres. It was propofed to ap- 
 point two members, whufe bufinefs it fhould be to be prefent at. 
 and watch over the proceedings in the Houfe of Commons. 
 
 January 30. A meafure was brought forward for dividing the 
 metropolis into divifions, and to open thofe. This he explained 
 thus : That houfes were to be appointed in the various quarters 
 of the town, to collcft tho'e in the different neighbourhoods round 
 bout them. It was refolved to advertife for iubfcriptions from 
 perfons, not being members, in fupport of the delegates in 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 A pennaner.t committee was appointed to confider of fuch mea- 
 fnres as it fhould be neceflary to purfue during the prefent pofture 
 of affairs the fame to be a fccret committee. They were to have- 
 a difctetionary power and to report to the general committee of 
 delegates at^leafure ; but the general committee of delegates might 
 difTolve them at ple*fure. Meffrs. Martin, Baxter, Williams,. 
 Thelwall and Moore, were unanimoufly elefted upon this com- 
 mittee. The fub-committee of three, to confider of fubfcription* 
 for the delegates in Edinburgh referred to the fecret committee* ' 
 
 fcb.
 
 C up J 
 
 Feb. 6. The Secret Committee above-named flatcd,- that they 
 wifhcd to decline the truft repofed in them, as there was a danger to 
 be apprehended of their being taken up. They proposed that a 
 Secret Committee fhould be appointed, the names of whofe mem- 
 bers might not be difclofed. This was accordingly adopted. 
 
 Here this witnefs clofed his evidence from his minutes. To the 
 queftions put to him by Mr. Bower, he dated him lei f to have been 
 bred an ironmonger. He became a member of the London Corref- 
 ponding Society by accident. Being at a public houfe where one 
 of the divifions met, he faw a printed paper, containing fome re- 
 folutions; he warned the landlord againft thefe focielies, which had 
 for their objeft to overturn the Conilitution; and if he fuffered 
 them to continue to meet in his houfe, he. would have his )i- 
 cenfe taken from him. He afterwards introduced hirr.felf among 
 them, for the purpole of obferving them, and became a member. 
 
 On crofs-examination by Mr. Erfkine, he (aid he had been en- 
 caged in the commiffion Lne, for ieveral years, for captains in the 
 fervice of the Eaft- India company. He had been firft induced to 
 become a member of the London Correfponding Society, from a 
 conviction that traitorous defigns againft the Government were 
 entertained by it's members, and that it was his duty, as a good fub- 
 jeft, to aflift in procuring the overthrow of their plans. Soon afier 
 his admiflion into the focicty, he became the object of fufpicion to- 
 fome of the members of which it was cornpofed, and was tried and 
 honourably acquitted of fuch a charge. 
 
 He was then afked by Mr. Erfkine, whether he had communi- 
 cated the memorandums he occafionally made to any perfon what- 
 ever. To which he anfwered, that he had communicated them to 
 one who, he was well allured, would convey the intelligence to 
 Government. He was then afked if fuch perfon was a magiflrate, 
 *nd if he was not, who he was? To both of which queftions, 
 
 The Attorney General objcfted, ftating as to ihe ritft, that it was 
 obvious to all, that on the gieateft principles of public juftice and 
 utility, the Executive Government ought to meet with every degree 
 of afliftance. in the difcharge of the important functions entrufted 
 to it, and confequently every Magiftrate ought to be protected in the 
 doing of theie acts, which he imagined he was performing for the 
 good of the community at large. Such was the indifputable rule is 
 to the cafe of the magiftrate himfelf, and upon the affumption ofi'.'i 
 truth, he would reft the decifion of the firft obj eft of enquirybr- 
 fore the Court; with refpecl to the fecond object of inveltigaiion i 
 humbly fubmrtted to the Court, that if (as appeared from the oath 
 of the witnefs) the communication was made with the defign of 
 being given to the magiftrate, and that defign was afterwards car- 
 ried into efFeft, it catne within the principle which he had laid 
 down, and confequently the fame rule of conftruthon ought to he 
 adopted. In fupport of thefe abftracl pofitions, he afhmilated the 
 prefect cafe to that of an information filed in the Exchiquci, .1 - 
 cording to the praftice of which, any man might be deprived 
 the whole of his fortune without any poflibiliiy oi his 
 
 T 2
 
 [ 145 ] 
 
 through what channel the informer againft him obtained his intel- 
 ligence. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine on the other fide contended, that it was not his with 
 irt preftlng the right he had to put the prelent queftion to infringe 
 upon the principles of ab&racljuflice, which had been laid on the 
 other fide. To preferve thofe principles from violation, to proteft 
 the Laws and Conftitution of his country from violation, and in, 
 doing both, to fave the life of his unfortunate client, were the great 
 and important objefts which he now had in view. In conformity 
 te thoie objefts, he fubmitted to the Court that he might put this 
 queftion, as it did not appear that this communication was made to 
 a magiftrate, nor with the certainty that it would ever be commu- 
 nicated to one ; though therefore he might be difpofed to concede 
 the firft point, yet as it was premature to enter upon the difcuffion 
 of it till he had obtained an anfwer to the laft, he would at prefent 
 content himfelf with infilling upon it's propriety. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs, on the fame fide, ftated the fame diftin&ion between 
 a communication to a magiftrate, and one to a third perfon who 
 might inform that magiftrate, contending, that the adoption of the 
 latter principle might involve every tranfaftion of focial life, and 
 bring every thought, word, and aftion, under the controul of Ex.-* 
 ecutive Government, contrary to the purpofes for which it was in- 
 troduced, and the limits which natural juftice had fet to it. 
 
 Lord Chief Juftice Eyre, Mr. Baron Hotham, and Mr. Juftica 
 Grofe, were of opinion that the evidence was admilTible, as the 
 communication was made with the exprefs defign of being given 
 to the magiftrate ; and as they could not diftinguifti it from the cafe 
 in the court of Exchequer, cited by the Attorney General, contra 
 the Lord Chief Baron, and Mr. Juftice Buller, who acceded to the 
 propriety of the diftin&ion of the prifoner's counfel. 
 
 The queftion was accordingly rejected, and the witnefs was at 
 laft ordered to attend to-morrow with his notes feparate, which 
 were then fo intermixed with the memoranda of his private affairs^ 
 that they could not be examined by the counfel for the prisoner. 
 
 John Coates, late of the Birmingham Volunteer-, acknowledged 
 that he had been a fervant or apprentice to P. Franklow, taylor, 
 No. 1, China-row, Lambeth ; that in the one pair of Hairs his 
 matter and feveral otr.ers ufed in the evening to be taught the 
 ufe of fire-arms ; that he never heard of an^circumftance which 
 induced him to believe that thofe who met there confpired againft 
 the King; that fo far as he understood, their principal aim was a 
 Reform in Parliament, and that he had feen his mafter in his 
 uniforms of blue coat and red collar, with white waiftcoat and 
 breeches. 
 
 James Wiil/h'f evidence followed. He flated his having beer* 
 at the Chalk Farm Meeting. He heard fomething mentioned 
 iefpeling a Convention. The refutations were read in his pre- 
 fence. One hundred thoufand copies were ordered to be print- 
 ed i and, if neceflary, it was faid, that the number might be in- 
 
 creafed
 
 C H9 J 
 
 created to 200,000. He remembered having heard Thelwall 
 fpeak on the occafion ; but does not recoiled} any part of his 
 fpeech. He was convinced, that there was no proportion, nor 
 one word uttered, relative to arm*. There was one man there 
 from Ireland, which he knew by his brogue. Cannot charge his 
 memory with any further particulars. 
 
 Thomas Green, of Orange-flreet, Leicefler-fields, was then 
 fworn. He declared, that he had dealt in knives and forks ever 
 fince he had been in bufinefs. Of three dozen of fpring knives 
 which he had received from Sheffiel 1, he had fold fourteen. He 
 had fometimes difpofed of (Ingle knives. The prifoner, Hardy, 
 had purchafed fome in packages, which confiftcd of fix, fome- 
 times feven in the package. Green fold one to B'llingion, and 
 another to Groves ; but laid that he had got mod of thofe taken 
 by Hard) on account, returned to him when the prifoner was 
 apprehended. The witp.efs remembered having been one evening 
 at fupper in Compton-flreet, where he cut his food with a knitc 
 of this defciiption, which received the approbation of the com- 
 pany. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine crofs-examined Green. 
 
 The Witnefs anfwered, that he had dealt in thofe knives for 
 feveral years. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " Did you ever underftand that thefe dreadful 
 knives were for the purpofe of throat-cutting?" 
 
 Green. " Never." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " Were they of a new or an old conftruc"r.ion ? 
 Were; they confidered as fecret knives for terrible defigns?" 
 
 Green. " They were neither new nor fecret. They always 
 lay in my window for common fale, and 1 dealt in them tor 
 more than feven years." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " I fuppofe all cutlers fell fuch knives ?" 
 
 Green. " I never knew any cutler without them." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " When Groves wifhed to purchafe a knife, 
 did you defire him to fpeak in a low tne of voice, becaufe your 
 wife was a damned Arittocrat, and might hear what he faid, from 
 the parlour r" 
 
 Green. " I never faid my wife was a damned AriltocraL ; nor 
 did I ever advife Groves to fpeak in a low tone of voice." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " Upon your oath, you did not r" 
 
 Green. " I fwear pofitive, I did not call my wife a damned 
 Ariftocrat." 
 
 Attorney General. " No, Mr. Green, I dare fay you could 
 not be fo impolite to your wire." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. " Groves has fworn to it." 
 
 Edward Hodfon was .next fwi rn. He faid that he was a mem- 
 ber of the London Correfponding Society about three months. 
 
 Believed
 
 '5 ] 
 
 Believed that there was no other object in view than a Parlia- 
 mentary Reform. That the change which they wifhed to effect 
 \vas that in the Commons Houfe of Parliament; that it was no 
 part of their plan to attack the King, but that they entertained 
 very different objects ; that |they v defigned no diminution of 
 his power ; that they never intended to difplace or overthrow th 
 Lords ; and that thewitnefs left the Society when he learnt that 
 Hardy and Adajns had been apprehended. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. Had the Society ever any idea of taking upoii 
 themfelves the legiflation of the country? 
 
 'Hod/on. " No." 
 
 Mr. Gibbs. " Did you believe that from their conduct they 
 ever meant to introduce the anarchy of France r" 
 
 Hedfon. " Never." 
 
 George Rofs lives in Edinburgh, entered a member of the So- 
 ciety ot the Friends of the People at the end of the year 1792, 
 was a member of the Britifh Convention, as delegate from his 
 Society in 1793. At the en d_ of November or beginning of De- 
 cember, attended feveral of their meetings. "There were feveral 
 delegates from England. Was not a member of the London 
 Correfponding Society. Received amongft other letters in num- 
 ber about halra doze.n, one from Mr. Stock in Edinburgh, the 
 fame with that which was then given into his. hands. Sent feve- 
 ral of the letters^he received from Stock into the country. Sent 
 one to S'rathaven, one to Paifley, and fome to other places. 
 Took fotne of the minute* of the C --invention, acting occafio- 
 na!!y as fccretary. Recollects the defperfion of the fee on d Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Crofs- Exam i nation . 
 
 The objefl cf this Society was a R,eform in the Houfe of 
 Commons, and no further. There was, to his knowledge, no 
 intention i;i the Alficiation to attack the King's Majefly. The 
 Convention did n"t cpnfjder themfelves as the Brniih Parlia- 
 ment, nor attempt to ufurp the functions of the Magiltracy. 
 Made no laws to bind trie people. Their only object was to 
 gain a Reform by means of a petition. The Convention con- 
 lifted of about two hundred pe,f in, unprovided with arms, and 
 yielded to the authority of the' Magistrates when they came 
 againft them. The Convention conn (ted of all ranks, poor and 
 rich, ma:.y of them reputable people, arid chiefly of fober 
 morals. 
 
 Mr. Garrow, in re-examination, afkcd hLn if he was prefent 
 *hen the Convention declared they would continue to aliembie 
 until compelled to rcfift by fuperior force r 
 
 ^Ie does not know that inch a refolution had pafTed, or at leaft 
 does not recollect that he was prefent at the time of fuch a pro- 
 
 pofuion,
 
 t 151 } 
 
 .pofition, as he had not an opportunity of attending every hour in 
 the day. Was prefent when a Convention Bill, &c. was to have 
 been a fignal for their afiembling. 
 
 Speaking of the morality of the Members, he denied that 
 Watt was a Member of the Convention, but acknowledged that 
 Downie was. 
 
 The Lord Prefident interrupted this kind of examination as 
 irregular. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. What were they to do when aftembleo in con* 
 fequence of fuch fignal ? 
 
 He faid it was to forward their petition ; but if their petition 
 was rejected they would not defift. 
 
 Arthur M' Nel^ of the Water of Leath, was a Delegate, in the 
 Edinburgh Convention, and attended their Meetings tometimes. 
 After the Convention was difperfed, there was a Committee of 
 tJnion formed, fome of them of the Committee of which Watt 
 was a Member. There was a Committee of Ways and Means 
 appointed afterwards, Mr. Holt, Mr. Burke, Mr. Richardfon, 
 Mr. Watt, Mr. Downie, and himfelf. 
 
 In that Committee, which was held in the month of April, 
 the original object was to defray theexpences of Mr. Skirving. 
 
 Watt read a plan, propofing to feize the Lord Juftice Cleric 
 and the reft of the Lords of Council and Sefllons, and the Lord 
 Provoft of Edinburgh; to kindle a fire in the Excife Office of, 
 the New Town, and there was to be a party Rationed. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine wimed to know the relevancy of this evidence. 
 
 The Attorney General refted the applicability upon letters of 
 correfpondence between Skirving and the prifoncr Hardy, in 
 which he endeavoured to (hew that they underftood, and were 
 in concert with each other. The documents which he brought 
 forward on this occafion, were exceedingly numerous and com* 
 plicated. From their concert, union, and correfpondence, h 
 inferred that they were all parties in the fame ddign. They 
 were both preparing pikes, and preparing plans of refinance to 
 Government, going on at the fame time in both countries, and 
 C mi far circumftances were deemed a confpiracy in the cafe of 
 Lord Lov.-.t. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid, that having fcarcely the time allowed 1 
 which nature demanded for reft, he was hardly prepared to anfwt-r 
 the Attorney General in all the references to which he ha:l iv- 
 courfe ; but as far as the prifoner was implicated in the proceed- 
 ings of the Scotch Convention. 
 
 The Prefident recommended to let the examination goon. 
 
 The examination being refumed, the witnefs faid, that a pirty t 
 was to be dationed at Lochin Brach, and a party in another narY 
 6f Edinburgh. The fire was to draw the military from the 
 
 Caftle.
 
 t '5* J 
 
 Caftle. The two parties were to take them in front and rear, 
 Different parties were to feize the different banking houfes in 
 Edinburgh, and commifiioners were appointed to collect the 
 caih of the banks. When Watt read this firft plan, were pre- 
 fent Mr. Stock, himfelf, Watt, Downie, and an another, being 
 five out of the nine of which the Committee was compofed< 
 The prifoner objected to any thing that would tend to ihed the 
 blood of his country, in which Downie agreed with him. 
 
 On er.e of the laft nights he attended, Watt read another plari 
 in the prefence of the fame Committee, in form of a proclama* 
 tion, prohibiting all farmers or dealers in corn, grain, or hay, to 
 remove the fame from their dwellirigs, under pain of death: 
 alfo that no gentleman fhould go above thiee miles from their 
 refpedlive habitations, under pain of death. ' 
 
 On the other fide of the paper was an addrefs to his Majefty, 
 ordering him todifmifs his prefent Minilters, and put an end to 
 the prefent war, or abide by the confequences. 
 
 The addrefs was to be fent to his Majefty the morning after 
 the attack. This plan he conceives was toftrengthen the former 
 one. 
 
 The witnefs told Watt thofe things did not belong to a Par- 
 liamentary Reform, and he would have nothing to do with him. 
 
 Watt called upon him, and a(ked him to take a walk to Or- 
 rock's, whom he afked to make fome pikes, which Orrock fketch- 
 ed out upon a board or plate. Watt defired him to be bufy and 
 \vork, as he had 4000 to fend to Perth, befide what he was to dif- 
 tribute about Edinburgh. 
 
 He mt Stock at the Committee, who faid he was going to 
 London or Briftol ; and that he would wait upon Mr. Hardy, the 
 prifoner. Watt offered him a letter to the prifoner, t form a 
 correfpondence with Mr. Hardy and him in a fafe manner. 
 Crofs- Examination . 
 
 Does not know whether Hard/ defired fuch correfpondence, 
 or whetTier any took place. The object of his Society, confifting 
 of twenty, was a Parliamentary Reform. Attended the Conven- 
 tion, and never heard fuch converfation as that he heard from 
 Watt. As far as he could underftand, they meant, by a petition, 
 to obtain a Parliamentary Reform. The very night they had 
 been difperfcd, they were to have confidered of a Petition to Par- 
 liament, or the King. Never faw any arms amongft them, nor 
 was any propofitions for an armament made. He fpoke in gene- 
 ral well of the moral characters of the Members, and gave the 
 fame defcription of their object as the former witnefs. He fwore 
 that hedid not know that the Convention had agreed not to fepa- 
 , except compelled by force, and as to the other latter, refolu- 
 
 fioas,
 
 [ '53 1 
 
 jioo.s, which were confidered as violent, he only knew of them 
 by report. 
 
 Mr. Garrow was examining why he did not give information 
 to the Magistrates of Watt's firft plan, when he was interrupted 
 by the Lord Prefident, who faid he was leading himfelf to make 
 a confeflion of High Treafon, and exprelFcd his regret for fuffer- 
 ing it to proceed fo far. 
 
 William Middleton (aid he had on the I5th of May fearched 
 the houfe of Watt. 
 
 This evidence was objeftcd to by the Court, as being fubfequent 
 to the time when Hardy was taken into tuftody, 
 
 Mr. Erfkine then faid, that the evidence on behalf of the Crowri 
 being now in a great mealure clofed, he muft reprefent to their 
 Lordfhips that Mr. Gibbs and himielf, being the Counfel, ap- 
 pointed by the Court, for the prifoner, had been fo continually oc- 
 cupied, as to allow them infufficient time even for that reft which 
 Tiature required ; but none at all for confulting upon the manner of 
 conducting his defence. For himfelf, he was lo much indifpofed 
 as to be unable to avail himfelf of the few hours granted on a for- 
 mer day, and he yet remained fo ill that nothing but an imperious 
 fenfe of duty could induce him to attend any longer. Notwith- 
 ftanding this he was far from wifhing to trefpafs on the time or 
 convenience of the Court; but, as much time would be faved by 
 fufferir.g him to proceed according to the arrangement he wifned ta 
 make, he hoped the Court would indulge him in fome time to 
 make theneceffary preparations. 
 
 The Lord Prefident obferved that, this was a very new and unpre- 
 cedented fituation. The Court felt for the difficulty of his fituation, 
 and he could affure him that, as far as depended on himfelf, the 
 Lord Chief Baron, and the other Judges^, any perfonal inconve- 
 niance to them fhould not deprive him of any neceffarv accommo- 
 dation. But that was not all the Jury were in the difcharge of a 
 more fevere duty than any he had heard of, and they bore it in a 
 manner that did them very great honor. Befides, it was a matter 
 of notoriety that great part of this evidence had been for a long 
 time in print, and it was not to be fuppofed that it had not been 
 duly weighed and examined. There was one alternative which 
 fuggefted ilfelf, which may be of general accommodation, which 
 was, that Mr. Erfkine fhould go on to examine his witneffes to-mor- 
 row, for, though he did not wifh to name Sunday exprefsly, he 
 muft inform him that the Court meant to fit very late on Saturday 
 night. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid, that the Attorney General having opened up 
 fo copioufly, and v.-ith fo many comments, the evidence on behalf 
 of the Crown, he could not venture a thing fo unprecedented in, 
 the hiftory of our jurifprudcncc, as to fuffer that evidence to gn in 
 llich a itate before the Jury, and the impre (lions which the crofs- 
 cxamination might have made to be worn off without entering fully 
 upon the defence, and explaining tha nature of the exculpatory 
 
 U evidence.
 
 L 154 ] 
 
 evidence. He meant not to afk any time for preparing his addrefs; 
 
 but limply to make fuch arrangements in the evidence as would 
 
 expedite the proceedings, and for this I require only a few hours. 
 
 .. Gibbs alfo remarked, that they could not hazard fo novel 
 
 a proceeding, as to enter upon the exculpatory evidence without 
 
 _ffing the Jury, left any imputation may lie upon them, fhould 
 
 the event be adverfe to the prifoner. 
 
 The Prefident faid, that consideration was perfonal to them- 
 felves, but not effential to the administration of juftice. The Court, 
 he faid, was afraid to hear Mr. Erfkine's explanation of what he 
 meant b'y a few hours, and was defirous to know what time he 
 demanded. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine declined the appearance of prefcribing to the Court, 
 and would be contented with what time they fhould think proper 
 to afford him. 
 
 The Attorney General being afked what further witnefles he 
 meant to produce ? faid there were only two, and thofe to points 
 given in evidence before, which may not take above twenty minutes. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine was afked whether he intended to call witneffes, 
 or reft the defence on the evidence already adduced? 
 
 He anfwered, thathe intended to call witneffes. 
 
 Judge Buller faid, that he neither accepted their expedient, nor 
 would mention precifely the delay he wifhed to obtain. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine reminded them that the Attorney General had taken 
 Tipwards of nine hours in opening the profecution, and it would 
 be but juft to allow an equal, or if neceffary a longer fpace of time 
 for making the defence ; but if he was fuffered to make fuch 
 arrangements and fele&ion, inftead of reading that part at full 
 length r of the evidence upon which he fhould have occafion to 
 cbferve, he need not occupy half the time that was taken by the 
 Attorney General. He therefore propofed an adjournment till 
 twelve o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 The Freficlent then offered to adjourn till eleven o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine begged earneftly for another hour, arid afked the 
 Jury, whether they would agree to accommodate him in that 
 manner ? 
 
 The Jury with one voice declared that they would agree to any 
 thing which would accommodate them. 
 
 The Lord Prefident faid, if the Jury begged it for him, he would 
 not refufe him. 
 
 The Court then, at half paft One o'clock, adjourned till 
 Twelve. 
 
 Saturday, November i. 
 
 * - 
 
 The Court met at twelve o'clock, purfuant to adjournment, and 
 the ufual forms of opening being gone through, 
 
 George Lynara was called in, and finifhed his crofs-exatnination. 
 He produced his books and. papers. The moil material part of his 
 evidence was, that he never heard the prifoner propofe any other 
 
 mode
 
 I 155 ] 
 
 mode of reform than by a peaceable and conflitutional application. 
 
 The Attorney General then produced two papers, which were 
 found in the poileffion ofThelwall, and in the hand writing of 
 Martin, after Hardy was in cuftody. They were brought forward 
 to prove that they exi (ted before x the apprehcnfion of the prifoner. 
 They were the re foliations of the Chalk Farm meeting, and were 
 proved by Shaw, the meficnger, to haYe been found in Thelwall's 
 houfe fince the apprehenfion of Mr. Hardy. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs thought this an informal mode of proceeding. H.5 
 conceived that the papers could not in the lead attach to Hard\-, 
 fince found fubfequent to his being taken into cuftody. After forr.e 
 converfation between the counfel for the crown and prifoner, the 
 papers were admitted. 
 
 William Walker, of the Adelphi, fwore to the hand writing 
 of Martin. 
 
 Evan Evans fwore that he had been confined for debt in the 
 King's Bench prifon about two years i that he was liberated from 
 thence on the 31 ft of July laft. From Martin having heen con- 
 fined for debt in the fame prifon, he became acquainted with him, 
 and he there faw both the papers produced in Martin's room; it 
 was in the beginning of April that he faw them, and before the 
 meeting at Chalk-farm was held. They were not then dated, 
 Martin told him that he wrote thefe refoluiions for the Chalk-farm 
 meeting; and read them feveral times over in the room while ihe 
 \vhnefs was prefent. He fdid that he had put plenty of Cayenne 
 in them, and if they would follow his advice, there would be a 
 plenty of warm work before the month was out. His wife faw 
 the papers, and Mr. Gay, Mr. Tourle, &r. fome other perfons 
 heard the declarations of Martin, refpeting his having prepared 
 the reflations. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs crofs-examined this witnofs. He faid, that he was 
 formerly a grocer; that he had once a difference with Mr. Martin 
 about the room which he occupied in the King's Bench prifon, but 
 that he never had ufed any exprefhons of refentment againfl Mai tin 
 on thataccount. 
 
 Ann Evans faid, (he is the wife of the former wi'r.cf^. and ufcd 
 to attend him while he was confined in the King's Bench prifon. 
 (One of the papers was produced.) She had feen it in Mr. Mar- 
 tin's poifefiion, at her hufbarid's room in the prifon. Remembers 
 Martin reading that paper, and in the courfe of fome conveifation 
 that pafied, his remarking that it was not lawful to take up arrt)S 
 againft the King. 
 
 Martin continued that he had drawn up the refutations to be 
 fubmitted to theCha'k-faim meeting; that they were \.v;nm, for lie 
 had put plenty of cayenne into them, and if they took his advice 
 there would be hot work. 
 
 The witnefs remembers Pearce brought feme of the printed 
 refoluiions that had been entered into at Chalk-farm (which were 
 rot the fame as thofe which were found in the poifeiTion of 
 Martin.) 
 
 L' A the
 
 I '56 ] 
 
 The Attorney General remarked, that Pearce was the fub-fecrei 
 tary to the London Corresponding Society. 
 
 The witnefs proceeded. Pearce, at the time he brought them 
 to Martin, in the King's Bench prifon, faid, that he had a num- 
 ber more, but that he had given the greater part of them away 
 among the men at a coachmaker's in Long-acre; that Hardy had 
 plenty of them, and if he wanted any more he would bring them 
 to him. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs crofs-examined this Lady. She faid, that the refo- 
 folutions were for the meeting of the fociety to have been held at 
 a dancing-room in Store-ftreet, Tottenham-court road. She had 
 very frequenly read the paper. (This v/as the meeting which was 
 adjourned to Chalk-farm.) 
 
 Thorns Tourle faid, that he was a prifoner in the King's Bench 
 at the time Martin was confined for debt there, and he became 
 acquainted with him. He never faw the papers produced, but 
 heard Martin fay, three or four days before the meeting at Chalk- 
 farm, that he had piepared refolutions tor that meeting, which were 
 warm ; and if they would follow his advice there would be hot 
 work. He knew Mr. Gay, who was a prifoner in the King's 
 Bench. 
 
 The Attorney-General then put in the paper, which was read. 
 
 " At a General Meeting of the London Correfponding Society, 
 held at on Monday the i^th day of 
 
 April, 1794. 
 
 " Citizen in the Chair. 
 
 n Refolvcd, That all fovereign, legiflative, and judicial powers 
 arc the Rights of the People; and though the People have delegated 
 thofe their original powers to others, in truft. for ths benefit of the 
 community, yet the rights themfelves are referved by the people, 
 and cannot be abfolutely parted with by the people to thofe perlons 
 who are employed to conduct the bufmefs of the State. 
 
 " Refolved, That the Conflitution of England is held by the 
 King, Lords, and Commons, and other Officers appointed by the 
 People, in truft, for the benefit of the People; and though thefe 
 truftees may regulate and improve the Conftitution, yet they carir 
 not alter or fubvert it without committing treafon againft the nation. 
 
 " Refolved, That Mngna Charta, or the Great Charter of 
 the Liberties of England, made in the reign of King John; the 
 Petition of Rights, aflented to by Parliament in the reign of King 
 Charles the Firft; and the feveral laws made at and in confequence 
 of the glorious Revolution in the year 1688, are declaratory of 
 thofe parts of the Conftitution of England which are in and by 
 them refpe&ively declared. 
 
 Refolved, That the office of King of England was not inftituted 
 by the people merely as an office of profit and honour to the King, 
 but he was fo appointed as chief truftee and guardian of the Con- 
 ftitution and Rights of the People; and that important and laborious 
 perfonal duties are annexed to j.he regal office, the objects of which 
 
 are.
 
 c 157 ] 
 
 prc, lo promote the good of the people, anfl prcferve their rights in 
 full vigour from innovation and corruption. 
 
 *' Refolved, That it is the duty of the King to preferve the Condi- 
 tution of England and the Rights of the People againft every in- 
 croachment; and, in order to enforce that duty, the following 
 oath is required to be taken by every King on his acceflion to the 
 throne or Great Britain; to wit, the Archbifhop or Bifhop fhall 
 fay Will youfolemnly promife and fwear to govern the people of 
 this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, 
 according to the ftatutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and 
 cuftoms of the fame ?" 
 
 " The King or Queen fhall fay, " I folemnly promife fo to do." 
 
 " Archbifhop or Bifhop. " Will you, to your power, caufe law 
 and jufticc, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?" 
 
 Anfwer. < I will." 
 
 " After this, the King, or Queen, laying his cr her hand on the 
 holy gofpels, fhall lay, " The tilings which I have before promifed, 
 * ! I will perform and keep ; fo help me God ;" and then fhall kifs the 
 book. 
 
 " Refolved, That his prefent Majefty, King George the Third, 
 on his atceffion to the throne of thefe realms, did folemnly take 
 the faid oath. 
 
 " Refolved, That the conftitutional rights of the people have 
 been violated, and that it is the duty of the people, in the prefent 
 alarming crifis, to affemble and enquire into the innovations or in- 
 fringements which have been made upon the rights of the people, 
 and how far the declarations of the Conflitution, as they were ut- 
 tered at the aforefaid Revolution, remain in force, and which of 
 them have been violated, and by whom ; and alfo whether fuch in- 
 novations, infringements, or violations, have been committed from 
 the negligence or corruption of thofe who have been entrufted with 
 the government of the ftate. 
 
 " Refolved, That this fociety do invite the people to meet in 
 their relpeftive neighbourhoods, to elect one or more perfon or 
 perfons as delegates, to meet in a Convention, to be held on the 
 day of next, at fuch place as fhalJ be ap- 
 
 pointed by the fociety ; and that the delegates fo elefted do forth- 
 with tranftnit to the fccretary of this fociety, No. 9, Piccadilly, 
 London, the vouchers of their feveral elections, in order that the 
 place of meeting may be duly notified to them. 
 
 " Refolved, That it is the right and bounden duty of the people 
 to punifh all traitors again ft the nation, and that the following 
 words are not a part of the oath of allegiance : to wit, " I declare 
 " that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take arms 
 againft the King." 
 
 John Edwards was fworn, and a hand-bill produced to him. 
 He was afked if he had ever feen fuch papers? He faid that he 
 had feen one of thofe bills handed about at the divifion meeting of 
 
 the
 
 the London Correfponding Society, No. 11, held at Mr. Scotncv'A 
 
 01*11 * ' 
 
 on onow-hill. 
 
 This bill was put in and read, The following is a copy of it. 
 
 "The Ins tell us we are in dar^r of an invafion from the 
 French. 
 
 " The Outs tell us that we are in danger from the Hefuans and 
 Hanoverians. 
 
 " In either cafe we fhould arm our-give$i Get arms, and learn 
 how to ufe them." 
 
 William Middleton, one of the fheriffs officers of the county of 
 Edinburgh, laid, that, on the evening of the igth of May laft, he 
 found in the houfe of Robert Orrock. Smith, in Edinburgh, thirty- 
 three pike-blades, finifhed and unfinifhed. They were only the 
 blades. On the fame day he found, in the houfe of Robert Watt, 
 who was lately executed'at Edinburgh, twelve pike or fpear-heads, 
 finifhed. At a. fecond fearch, in the fame houfe, he found two 
 other pike-heads, fimilar to thofe found on the firft fearch, two 
 battle-axes, and one fhaft-pole. 
 
 Here an objection was taken by Mr. Gibbs, who contended, that, 
 as thefe pikes were found after the prifoner was in cuftody, the 
 circumftance could in no way apply to him, and was not therefore 
 admiffible evidence. PI is objection was over- ruled. 
 
 The examination of the witnefs proceeded. He, in the firft in- 
 ilance, went to feareh Watt's houfe fbr the goods of a bankrupt, 
 \vhich wcie fufpecied to have been fecreted therein ; in a clofel or 
 prefs in the dining-room, which was locked up, he found the 
 pikes, on the firft fearch, and in the lower part of the houfe he 
 found the reft. Thele were delivered by him into the care of a 
 Sheriff Clarke. 
 
 Jofcph Edwards was called up again ; he begged to exp'ain to the 
 Court,' in a more diftinft way, a part of the evidence which he had 
 given on Friday, and which might have been mifunderftood by the 
 Court and Jury, -refpetiing the propofed meeting in Green-arbour- 
 lane, in confluence of a letter from Sheffield ; he wifhed it to be 
 underftood thai no meeting took place. 
 
 The Attorney General was proceeding to examine the witnefs 
 en this poiru, when the Lord Pn.fident interrupted him, and faid, 
 that it was a mare explanation of the' witnefs of what had been given 
 in evidence by him, arifiiig. as it appeared to him, from a good 
 motive, left it fhould be imfconfirued ; and that therefore he did 
 not think it r ght that the Counfel for the Crown fhould proceed to 
 examine him, which would admit of a cro!s-cxamination, and thus 
 there would be no end to the examination of the witneffes. 
 
 The Attorney-General fairf.. that many queftionsrmght have been 
 put to the witn^fs, if his evidence had differed from what it ori- 
 g.nally was, which, if the wunefs was permitted to amend that 
 evidence, and he was precluded from the pofnbility of again exa- 
 mining him, tould not be put. 
 
 The
 
 [ '59 1 
 
 The Lord Prefident admitted that it was fo, and that the witnefs 
 might have opportunities of refrefhing his memory and amending 
 his evidence, by the accounts in the newfpapers; for it had lately 
 become a practice to print fuch reports of the proceedings of a 
 court of juitice, as the* induftry of the perfons attending for that 
 purpofe could produce, and in fome^cafes he thought this practice 
 inconvenient. 
 
 '.Ham Lockkart, fheriff-clerk-depute of Edinburgh, faid, that he 
 went with Middieton to the houfe of Watt, and was prefent at the 
 finding of the pike-blades, the battle-axes, and one fhaft-handle. 
 
 A box was produced, containing the pike-blades and battle- 
 axes. 
 
 Mr. James Clerk, fhcriff-depute of the county of Edinburgh, faid, 
 that the box produced, together with it's contents, was in his cul- 
 tody from the time the pikes were found until the trials at Edin- 
 burgh. One Scot, who was fuppofed to be implicated in the guilt 
 of Watt, had abfconded. 
 
 Lockhart was again called up, and faid that he produced the box 
 and it's contents on the late trials at Edinburgh, and from that 
 time, until the prefent, it has been in his pcfleflVon, and no one has 
 opened it. 
 
 The box was then opened, and it contained the weapons which 
 the witnefs ftated to have been found at Edinburgh. The pike- 
 blades, as well as the battle-axes, fcrewed into the pole which wa? 
 found; and an iron handle was produced, which was found with 
 ihem, contrived to fit the fcrew of the battle-axe, fo as to render it 
 fit for ufe without the pole. 
 
 Mr. Gay was proved to have been a member of the Society fo r 
 Conftitutional Information, by the minutes of that Society, which 
 wt re read, and by which it appeared that he was propofed by Mr. 
 J. H. Tooke, and (econded by Mr. Bonney. Mr. Gay was not 
 called. 
 
 The Attorney General informed the Court, at one o'clock, that 
 he had clofed the evidence on the part of the Crown. 
 
 PRISO
 
 en u> 
 
 [ 160 ] 
 PRISONER'S DEFENCE. 
 
 The Hon. Thomas Ei fkine. " Before I proceed to the difchargc 
 of that duty to which my lituation this day calls me, I defire to 
 return my thanks to the Court, for having adjourned their pro- 
 ceedings to an hour which has afforded me an opportunity to take 
 that neceflary refrefhment which nature demanded, as well as to 
 you, Gentlemen of the Jury, for the very polite manner in which 
 you aflented to an adjournment fo eflential to my accommodation, 
 and to my being at all qualified for the tafk in which I am now 
 engaged. Before I proceed to the cafe, as it regards the law and 
 the evidence, I wifh to follow the liberal example that has been 
 let by the Attorney General, in his opening fpeech, in putting afide 
 every thjng collateral to the queftion. But firft, both in the name 
 of the prifoner for whom I ftand, and for myfelf, I defire to fub- 
 fcribe to all that eulogium pronounced by the Attorney General on 
 the conftitution of this country, as handed down to us by our an- 
 ceftors, the refult of their fuperior wifdom and virtue, and entitled 
 to the efteem and veneration of all pofterity. But having pre- 
 mifed this, the genuine expreflion of feelings, I truft not lefs ftncere 
 than thofe which diftated the panegyric of the Attorney General, 
 What, I will alk, entitles the conftitution to this eulogium ? What 
 renders it the objeft of our love and reverence ? I will not now 
 fpeak of the right which it affords toil's fubje&s, of making their 
 own laws, but of the equal protection afforded to all, and the fe- 
 ^urity provided for the impartial adminiftration of juftice. The 
 Attorney General feemed to lay great ftrefs on the anarchy and 
 confufion of France, on which he defcanted at length. Into 
 that fubjeft I will not at prefent enter ; I neither will enquire into 
 the caufes by which they were firft produced, nor the circumftances 
 from which they have proceeded to fuch an extent. But what is 
 it that the French have chiefly to deplore ? They are at prefent 
 under the dominion of a barbarous neceflity, in confequence of 
 which no man's lite, liberty, or property is fecure, or at his own 
 difpofal for a moment. The firft inftant that a charge of incivifm, 
 federalifm, or modcrantifm, is brought againft him, the fentence of 
 the Revolutionary Tribunal follows quick as the thunderbolt pur- 
 I'ues the flafh, and he is doomed to behold his friends and family 
 no more. Such is the comparative frate of England and France ; 
 and what is the inference we ought to draw with refpeft to the pre- 
 fent cafe ? If the profecution be indeed intended to avert from 
 this country the horrors of that anarchy, under which France at 
 prefent labours ; if it be intended to fecure the continuance of 
 thole bleffings which it enjoys under it's admirable conftitution, lee 
 not the prifoner fuffer from the execution of barbarous laws bar- 
 baroufly enforced, or from the well-meaning enthufiafm of thole, 
 who, fi nee rely attached to the conftitution, are defirous to enfure 
 it's prefervation at any price. For in' former inftances in the hiftory 
 of this country, where we have to lament the facrifice of innocent 
 pcrfons luider legal pretexts, 1 am apt to think tHat we ought ra-
 
 ther to condemn the miftaken zeal than the barbarous ferocity of 
 the age. It is neceflary then that you, Gentlemen of the Jury, 
 fhould guard againft ihis iource of delufion and injuftice ; it is ne- 
 ceffary thai in the decision which you are called to give, you 
 fhould ftand on the ftrict and unequivocal letter of the law. It 
 would not be enough that the prilbner (hould appear to you to 
 have been rafh, foolifh, or even wicked the lafl of which it \v I 
 be impoffible to fupport by any colour of evidence for I truft I 
 {hall be able to vindicate his conduct, which, in the prelent in 
 ftance, is of little confequence. It muft be proved to your fatis- 
 fattion. that he has offended againft that flatute under which he is 
 indicted. He holds his life from the law, and by it he demands to 
 be tritd. '1 his fair trial I afk ; fit ft, from the Court 1 afk it more 
 emphatically from the Jury but laftly, and chiefly, J implore it of 
 him in whole hands are all the iffues of life, whofe juft and merci- 
 ful eye expands itlelf over all the tranfaftions of mankind, without 
 whom not a fparrow falleth to the ground, at whofe command na- 
 tions rife and fall, and are regenerated. I implore it of God him- 
 felf, that he will fill your minds with the fpirit of juftice and of 
 truth, that you may be able to find yt-.ar way through the labyrinth 
 of matter laid before you ; a labyrinth in which no man's life was 
 ever before involved in the whole hiftoryof Britifh trial, nor in- 
 deed the univerlal annalsof human juftice orirjuftice." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine then proceeded to the indiftment.The firft charge of 
 the indiftment was,"that the prifoners malicioufly, traitoroufly.ani 
 with force of arms, didamongft themfelves and other falfe traitors, to 
 thejurors unknown, confpire, compafs, and imagine to excite infnr- 
 rection, rebel lion and war again ft the King, and to lub vert the Legifla- 
 ture, Rule and Government of the kingdom, and to depofe the King 
 from the Royal State,Title, Power and Government of the kingdom, 
 and to bring and put our faid Lord the King to death." 'Gentlemen 
 of the Jury,' laid Mr. Erfkine, * you have been extremely good in 
 taking down the evidence; allow me now to requeft you to at- 
 tend to the form and lubitance of the charge. The whole treafon 
 lies in the laft member of the charge, viz. " And to bring and put 
 our fdid Lord the King to death." The indiftment then goes o i to 
 charge the overt acts. " And to fulfil, perfeft, and brng to effect, 
 their moft evil and wicked treafon, and treafonable com pa Hi n J anil 
 imaginations aforefaid, viz. --to bring and out the Kingto death, ihey 
 met, confpired, coniulied and agreed among themfelves and cither 
 traitors to the Jurors unknown, to caufe and procure a Conven- 
 tion and meeting of divers fubjefts to be aflembled within th<- 
 kingdom, with intent and in oider tha the perlons fo alTembied, 
 and at fuch Convention and Meeting (hou!d traiioroufly, without 
 and in defiance of the authority, and againft the will of Parliament, 
 fubvert and alter, and caule to be fubverted and aliered, the Le^if- 
 feture, Rule and Government of the Country, and depofe, and canlVr 
 to be depofed, our Lord the King, from his Royal biatr, Tit!;-, 
 Power and Government thereof." This is the overt act T.'.it the 
 
 X
 
 L '62 ] 
 
 Prifoner confpired the deathof the King, and that in pujrfuance of 
 this intention, he did all the afts charged in the indiftment, provi- 
 ded arms, and concerted the plan of a Convention. And here two 
 things occur for co -ifideraiion, which are abfolutely neceffary in 
 order to eftabliih the guilt of the Prifoner unrier this charge. Fir ft, 
 it is neceffary to prove that he aftjally did the things which are 
 charged in the indictment. . Secondly, that he did them with in- 
 tention, and in purfuance of the object of compafling the King's 
 death. Was this Convention, by which he pro poled to put down 
 the King, to fuperiede the functions of the Legiflature, and ufurp 
 to itfelf ail the authority of the Staie ? A. man cannot be guilty of 
 the Overt act, without, fir ft conceiving the intention. It is the in- 
 tention which at the time paffes 'through his mind, that alone at- 
 taches guilt to the act. And if you are fatisfied with refpect to the 
 guilty intention, you are then to coniider whether the overt aft is 
 of a nature which amounts to the deicripiion of /that charged in the 
 indictment. A;:d here I would earnefHy implore the attention of 
 the Court and of the Attorney General, to what the Ia-A- is. It is 
 not my attention, on the prefrnt occaiion, to offer any thing of my 
 own. It is only my wifh to nir!ke vg-.i mailers of the authorities. 
 Nor is it neceffary that I fhouid bring forward my own authority 
 for the purpoie of defending the prifoiier, and anfwering the argu- 
 ments of my honourable tri'^nd the Attorney General for my ho- 
 nourable friend I have often called, and ft;ll will continue to call 
 him. He has not had recourte to barbarous, precedents nor 
 bloody murders committed under pretext of law ; he has not 
 brought forward the ex cedes of a rude and fan^uinary age, or 
 "the legal fuphiftry of corrupt and profligate Judges He has 
 refted on grave arid venerable authorities, ttiough miitaken in 
 my opinion w'th refpect to the deductions which he has drawn 
 from them. That miitake 1 afcribc neither to the defect of his 
 understanding or hts heart ; I have too high au efteem for the 
 enlargement of the one, and the integrity of the other. On 
 thofe very authorities which he has brought forward, I alfo mean 
 to reft; and I am pej fuaded that if there is any difference among 
 them, it will be found only to arife from a mere tripping of ex- 
 prefiion. Anil firil, I mutt advert to the conftrudliveTreafon <>f 
 depofing the King. Arid here I muft remark, that I (land in 
 a fearful and delicate foliation; it is neceffary therefore that I 
 fhouid occupy a large ground, as not only the life of the Pri- 
 f ner at the bar is at (lake, l>ut the lives of many, who are be- 
 hmd, involved in the fame qudtion, ami dependent upon the fame 
 iffue. 
 
 As trial was nothing more than the application of the facts 
 difck)fed in evidence, to a rulg of human action or conduct, the 
 breach and violation of whi.ii c inftittites the charge, the preli- 
 minary difcuili .>n mud be (Mr. Erfluno continuedj what was the 
 
 law.
 
 [ i*3 3. 
 
 law, and what the breach of it, which the prifoner was called 
 upon to anfwer. To do this, as it became him, upon fo folemn 
 and awful an occafion, he muft re fort to the hiflory of the coun- 
 try, the records of the law, and the authoritative writings of the 
 mod learned men upon the fubjel of High Treafon. In doing 
 this, it was not his cLfire, as he had faid, to prefs upon tho 
 Court any theories or opinions of his own, but to exnaft, by 
 legal reafoninp, from thoff unerring fources the law of the 
 land upon the fubjedh 
 
 As to the crime of High Treafon at common law, brfore the 
 ttatutt of- the 25111 Edward III. upon which the Indictment, 
 and every Indictment tor HK;h Treafon, 'muft now be framed, 
 little was neceHary to be (aid concerning it ; he fnould therefore 
 difinifs the conlideration of the common law on the fubjedl of 
 treafon, with the obfervation of that great, excellent, and muft 
 learned perfon, w'-.ofe memory would la(t as long as law or con- 
 ftirution re.-rained to Englishmen, Lord Chief Jnft-ce Hale, 
 who fays, " Ti at at common law there was a great latitude uf<d 
 in raifing offences to the crime and punifhineht of treafon, by 
 way of interpretation and arbitrary corftru&ion, which brought 
 in great uncertainty and confulion. Thus accroaching (/. e. en- 
 croaching on royal powers, was an ufnal charge of treafon an- 
 ciently, though a very uncertain charge, fo that no man could 
 tell what it was, or what defence to make to it." He then pro- 
 ceeds to flute various inftances of vexation and cruelty, and 
 concludes with this obfervation, " By thefe and the like in- 
 ftances that might be given, it appears how arbitrary and un- 
 certain the law of treafon was before the ilatute of the 25th of 
 Edward III. whereby it came to pafs, that alrnoil every offence 
 that was, or f.-eir.ed to be, a breach of the faith and allegiance 
 doe to the King, was by conflruclion and confcquence, and in- 
 terpretation, raifed into the offence of High Treafon." To r,e- 
 rmuy thefe grievous abufes, by which every faction in it's turn 
 facnriced it's enemies by arbitiary executions, founded upon con* 
 Itrucl.ve treafon, mak icient Eng'and like ir.odern France, 
 the wife and venerable i.iti. ^ of Kiiv/ E:1wird III. was made, 
 whofe excei'.ent and bene^o. nt <-bj. 6t was to make treafon cer- 
 tuin. Lord Coke called the parliament who parted this ftatutc, 
 Padlamentiim Bcnt'JiElum ; an t the like honour was given to it 
 by the different i'lututes which, from time to time, brought back 
 tit-afon to it' 1 ^ ftuidard, " all agreein in magnify ing and extoll- 
 ing tnis blelled llutute." As no Judge ever did or could deny 
 that this ftatute was enaded to give, by it's letter, all certainty 
 and precilion to the crime of treafon, ami to prevent the arbi- 
 trary conltrudlions by Judges, \\hich had disfigured and difho- 
 Hourcd the ancient (aw, and brought, to ufe liule's language, 
 
 X 2 iu-
 
 " infecurity upon both King and People ;** it might be affirmed 
 thatthis ce!eb:a'edftatute wmld little have defervedthe panegyrics 
 be ; U>wed upon it, it it had not, in it's enabling letter, which pro- 
 felfed to'reni'ive doubts, and to afcertain the law with precifion, 
 made ufe of exprefiians well known and afcertained ; and it 
 would he (ten how caunoufly it did fo. The two great objects 
 of the fbmite wt-re t(> guard, id, the natural life of the King 
 and 2d, his ex-auive power ant{ authority. S> important was 
 it confkiercd to f^ve the kingdom from the confuOon into 
 which it mint be thrown by cutting off the life of the firft ma?- 
 gillrate, t'^at it made the intention to kill the King equivalent to 
 the aff of killing him ; guarding the p e-eminent life of the fo- 
 veixi^n by fanct.ons fuperior to the ordinary laws, which guard- 
 ed even the ftate iifelt ; and therefore, though a comparing 
 the death of the King, Queen or Prince, was made High Trea- 
 fon, without the accomplishment of the purpofe, yet acompaf- 
 fing to murder the Chancellor and Judges, whofe lives, as the 
 King's reprefentd:ive, were alfo guarded by the ftatute, was 
 not made treafon To compais their deaths, when fitting in 
 judgment, was not made equivalent to the a& of killing them ; 
 no, nor even the compajjing to (ubvert the King's political authority 
 by war and rebellion. The ftatute not having fubltituted the 
 intention for the aft in that branch, leaving the fecurity of the 
 K'ng's natural perfon and life, and that of his Qjeen and Prince, 
 the only exceptions to the ordinary rules of judgment and law. 
 In order to prevent arbitrary con{trutions ot this fevere but ar- 
 bitrary law, and to guard the fubjedt from the uncertainty of 
 ju licial conftruclions of treafon, it cauiioufly fought for an ex- 
 preifion well known and underltood in the ancient law, viz. com- 
 p-'JJing the death the words are, " when a man doth compafs or 
 imagine the deah of rur Lord the King." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faul, as he wilhed cautiouHy in this part of his 
 addrefs to avoid ;,v; ry obfei vation or opinion of his own, he would 
 refort -to the explanation of this exprellicn by the celebrated 
 Judge fWfter. *' Tlic ar.tient writers, (fays Forlter) in treating 
 of felonious homicides, coniiikred the felonious intention, mani- 
 feft d by plain ;~6t, in the ia.uc light, in point ot guilt, as ho- 
 mi i(Fe iifelf. The ru!e was, voluntas rspittutur pro fatto, and 
 while t-his rule prevailed, the nature of the <;tf.-nce was expreilcd 
 by the term compajjing the death. This rule ha^ been long laid 
 afide a<: too rigorous in ti;e cafe of common perfons; but in the 
 cafe of the King, Queen, and Prince, the Itatute of trealon has 
 with grtat propriety retained it in it's full extent and rigour, and 
 in describing the offence bus likewife retained the antient mode 
 of expreifion. When a man doth compafs or imagine the death 
 of our Lord the King, &c. and thereof be upon fufficient proof 
 
 provablement
 
 L 165 3 
 
 provablement attainted of open deed by people of his condition, 
 the words of the ftatute defcriptive of the offence, mutt therefore 
 be ftnclly purfued in every indictment for this fpecies of Trea- 
 fon ; it mutt charge that the Defend mt did traitoroufly compafs 
 and imagine the King's death, and then go on and charge the 
 feveral ats made ufe of by the Frifoner to erTedhiate his traitorous 
 purpofe, for the comparing the King's death is the Treafon, and 
 the overt acts as the means made ufe of to effectuate the inten- 
 tions and imaginati'): s of the heart, an I, therefore, in the cafe 
 of the regicides, the indictment charged that they did traitoroufly 
 compafs and imagine the death of the King,, and the cutting off 
 the head was laid as the overt act, and the perfon who was lup- 
 pofed to have given the mortal ftroke was convicted on the famo 
 indictment. " This inftance of the regicides, felected by Foriter 
 to illuitrate that the traitorous purpofe was the crime, was very 
 {Inking and remarkable. Although the King was actually put 
 to death, the homicide was not charged, but the traitorous purpofe; 
 and the then Chief Baron, in his fpeech to the Grand Jury, faid, 
 " Thefe perfons areto be proceeded with according to the laws of 
 the land, and I fhall fpeak nothing to you but what are the words 
 of the law. By the ftatute of Eclw. III. it is made High Treafon 
 to compafs and imagine the death of the King. In no cafe elfe, 
 imagination or compadi rig, without an a&ual effeft, ispunifhabSe by 
 law." He then fpeaks of the facred life of the King, and fpeaking 
 ot the Treafon fays, ' The Treafon confifts in the wicked imagina- 
 tion, 'which is not appatent. But when this poifon fwells out of 
 the heart and breaks forth into aftion, in that cafe it is High Trea- 
 fon. Then what is an overt aft of an imagination or corflpaiTing 
 the King's death ? truly it is any thing which (hews what the ima- 
 gination of the heart is." After fhewing that the noble and ful>- 
 lime fpirit of humanity, which pervades and fupports the whole 
 lyi'iem ofour jurifprudence, ever awake to inter'ere in protection 
 of our imperfect natures, would not fulFer the ancient law, with 
 refpcct to private perfons, to remain, he faid, that for ages paft 
 the death of the private man had br.cn held necelfary to the com- 
 pletion of the felony: but as Forfler truly obferved in the paH'age 
 he had ju(t read, this rule, too rigorous in the cafe of the fub- 
 ject", the itatute of Treafon retained in the cafe of the King, 
 and retained alfo the very exprelii>>n. The Sovereign's life was 
 made to remain, an exception, and the vo'untas pro fatto, the will 
 for the deed, remained the rule; and therein*, faid Foifter, the 
 Iratute meaning to retain the law, which v.as before general, 
 rctuinrd the expreflion. The fhtnte did not, in it'sfin't branch, 
 rnakc a new law in it's principle or expreflion, but retained the 
 plJ one applicable to fubje&s. It followed inevitably t;iv:i 
 
 thence,
 
 [ i66 ] 
 
 thence, that within the letter and meaning of the ftature nothing 
 could be a comparing of the death of the King, that would not, 
 in ancient tirr.es, have been felony in the cafe of a fubjeft. The 
 opinion of Judge Fo;fter was confirmed by that of Lord Coke, 
 by that great prerogative lawyer, whole infamous ptroftitution in 
 the cafe of Lord Stafford would tarniih his name to all pofterity ; 
 but (till his opinions,, as a critic and a commentator, made him a 
 proper authority for him to life. Lord Coke, in his Commen- 
 tary upon the words of the ftatute, which he did with that pre- 
 cifion and technical nicety which, though not calculated to pleafe 
 the ear, were fo valuable in a bo; k o! luence, when he comes to 
 the words " doth compafs," fays, " Let us fee firft what the 
 compafiing of the dea'h ot a fubjecl was before the making of 
 this itatute, when volunfas reputabutur pro faffo." Thus falling 
 in with the opinion of Judge Forfler. 
 
 He then Hated Loid Coke's definition of the expreflkm of com- 
 mon law, which went to (hew that the comparing the death of 
 rhe King, not only by the plain common fenle of the expreffion, 
 but by looking back to the common law, from whence, for cen- 
 turies back, the expreilion was admitted to have been borrowed ; 
 it was clear that a probable fp'ecuiative confequence muft not be 
 confounded with an intention, fince the overt afc mull be laid 
 directly to (hew the traitorous purpofe of the heart. Notwith- 
 ftanding the benevolent precifion of this ftatute, it was lamentable 
 to fee the departures from it, which mark and disfigure our hif- 
 tory,; but, at the fame time, it fh'ould be a theme of confolation 
 to Englifhmen to refkdt, that as often as in arbitrary and wicked 
 times, it was invaded by Parliaments and Judges, the juftice of 
 better Judges and better Parliaments brought the law back to the 
 anqent itandard ; thefe invading fiatutes and judgments, and 
 their repeals, were indeed decifivs of the true conltru&ion of the 
 ftatute. The ftatute of the 25th Edw. III. had exprefsly di- 
 redled that nothing ihould be declared to be Trcafons, but cafes 
 within it's enabling letter ; yet Lord Hale fays, " that things 
 were fo carried by parties a:,d factions in the fucceeding reign of 
 Richard II. that tlu- (luure was but little obferved. But as this 
 or that party got the better, fo the crime of High Treafon was 
 in a manner arbitrarily impofed or adjudged, which by various 
 viciflitudes and revolutions mifchiefed ail parties firlt and lad, 
 and lel't a great unfettlednefs and unquietnefs iiVfhe minds of the 
 people, and Was one of the occafions of the unhappinefs^f the 
 King." Mr. Erfkine ihewed, in order, the various ftatutes 
 which had altered and impaired the ftatute of Edw. III. The 
 Xtatute of the 2ift of Richard II. which Lord Hale fays " was a 
 fnare for the people, iafomuch that the ftatute of the ift Henry 
 
 IV.
 
 IV. which repealed it, recifed that no man knew Wv he ought 
 to behave himielf, to do, fp,.-ak, or fay, for doubt of fiich pains 
 of Treafo -, aid therefore wholly to remove the prcjud'ce which 
 might come to the KingN fuhi^cls, the (tatute ift Henry IV, 
 chap. x. wa nude, which bro'iyht back Treafon to the (hnd- 
 ard of the 25^ oi Edward III." Now what viid rhis (brute of 
 Richard II. Which ^produced fo much milchief? It only went 
 beyond t e (Utitte nt Ed?vardlll. by the Irx/e conrtroftion of 
 compadrig to de ( <ok- i '.e King, and rai Ting people, and riding to 
 make war. Levying force to imprifon or dcpofr the King, was 
 already and properly Tre.tfon ; but r >l Richard JI. en- 
 
 larged only the crime i f comp iffing ; it extend to acotn- 
 
 paffing to impnfon or depoie, an:l m . t equal ro an actual 
 
 levying <{ v ar ; and this extend .n was r. , ftig'natized, 
 
 and repealed by the (tatute of tft of Henry I V. and " fo little 
 effect," fays Mr. Juftice Blackftone, *' have ;ivcr-violeut laws to 
 prevent any crime, that within t vo years after this new law of 
 Treafon refpc-cYmg impnfon ment anddepofing, this very Prince 
 was both depoffd and murdered." And thus were fwept away 
 at once the whole load of frivolous, extravagant, and ridiculous 
 treafons, by which tbe fubje& was harraileJ in the execution of 
 juftice, by venal wretches, of whom it might' be faid, in the 
 words of the fatirift, that you 
 
 Deltroy his fib and fophiftry in vain 
 The creature's at his dicty work again. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine then went on to the next departure of the ftafute 
 in the lit and id of Philip and M .ry, which made a comparing 
 to levy war, if manifefted hy printing, writing, or overt act, 
 High Treafon. This fhewed that a compafling to levy war was 
 not conlidered to have been treafon within the At of Edw. III. 
 which required anaclual levying of war. If compafling to levy 
 war had been con fidered as compafling of the King's death, it 
 would have brcn unneceflVy to declatc it tr:-don by this act. 
 The firft branch of the itauitc of Edward III. made it Higri 
 Treafon to compafs or imagine the Kind's d.-ath ; but the fecond 
 branch <>f the Ibtute required an aclual levvinj; of war necefTuy 
 tCLConftitute treafon. The law made the natural life of theKing 
 To much more facred than his executive a>jth.>fity, that to ima- 
 gine his leath was tr :i on, but th-re mtifl be a pofuive attack 
 made upon his executive authority by the levyi ng o, war, to con- 
 ftitnte the other. What was it that was meant to be reltored by 
 the Itatiue of the ift of Mary ? The letter of the 251)1 of Edward 
 III. or the judicial conltruclion t>t it ? Clearly it was the letter 
 that was to be reftored. He wiihed nothing to be taken, he fajd, 
 from any unauthorifed opinion ot hii own ; but he wifhed to 
 
 bottom
 
 L ' 16 8 ] 
 
 bottom himfelf upon the authority of the great Judges whofe opi- 
 nions had been preflTed erroneoufty into the fervice againft them. 
 He {aid erroneo&ly, becaufe it would be feen thai their declara- 
 tions were reconcileable. The writings of thofe great Judges 
 were thickly fown with warnings to Judges to avoid conftrudtive 
 treafon. Lord Coke fays, that * the ftatute of the ift of Mary 
 fpeaks a ftrong language againft conftructive treafons, when it 
 fays, it was declared by the whole Parliament, that lawsiuftly 
 made for the prefervafion of the whole common- wealth, without 
 extreme punimment, are more often obeyed and kept, than laws 
 and ftatutes made with great and extreme punifhments, and in. 
 fpecial laws and ftatutes fo made, whereby not only the ignorant 
 and rude unlearned people, but alfo learned and expert men 
 minding honcfty, are ottentimes fnapped and fnared." 
 
 " There muft be a compaffing or imagination for an at 
 done per infortunium, without comparing, intent, or imagination, 
 is not within this a&, as it aj'peareth by the exprefs words there- 
 of. 
 
 Et a<5lus non facit reum nifi mens fit rea. 
 
 "This compafting, intent, or imagination, though fecret, is 
 to be tried by the Peers, and to be di (covered by cinumftances, 
 precedent, concomitant and fuhfequent." The Lord Juftice of 
 Scotland, faid Mr. Erfkine, difreied from this ftatute in what he 
 faid at Perth, ** that very honeft men were guiity of Treafon 
 without knowing it." In this ftatote of Mary, Lord Coke 
 goes on to fay that two things are to be obferved, I. That the 
 word exprefted in the ftatute of M iry excludes all implications or 
 inferences whatfoever. 2. That no former attainder, judgment, 
 &c. &;c. other than fuch as are fpecified and exprefted in the 
 ftatute of Edward III. are to be, followed or drawn into exam- 
 ple, for the words be plain and dirt&. And further, on com- 
 menting on the word pnveafr/ement. he fays, " In this branch, it 
 is to be obfeived, the word proveabiement, provfably, i.e. upon 
 direct and manifeft proof, not upon conjectural prefumptions, 
 or inferences, or (trains of wit, but upon good and furiicient 
 proof; and herein the adverb proveably hath a great force, and 
 fjgnifieth a direfi plain proof, which word the Lords and Com- 
 mons in Parliament did ufc, for that the offence of Treafon was 
 fo heinous, and fo heavily and fe\rerely puniihed, as none other 
 the like ; and therefore the offender muft be proveably attainted, 
 which words are as forcible as upon direct and manifeft proof. 
 Nole, the word is not probably, for then commune argumentum (a 
 common argument) might have ferved, but the word is provea- 
 bly be attainted." Nothing could be (o curioufly and even tau- 
 tologoudy laboured, as this commentary of Lord Coke upon this 
 
 Tingle
 
 t t6s* ] 
 
 Tingle Word in the (latute ; which manifeflly (hews that fo far from 
 it's being the fpirit and principle of the law of England, to adopt 
 rules of conftruftion, and proof unufual in trials for other crimes, 
 that on the contrary, the legiflature did not fven leave it to the 
 Judges to apply the ordinary rules of legal proof to trials under it, 
 but admonifhed them to do juftice in that refucft in the very body 
 of the ftatute. Lord Hale's words were equally (biking. He 
 brings forward inftances to (hew " how neceffary it was that there 
 fhould be fome known, fixed, fettled, boundary for this great 
 crime of trealon, and of what great importance the ftatute of the 
 25th of Edward III. was in order to that end ; how dangerous it 
 was to depart from the letter of that ftatute, and to multiply and 
 enhance crimes into treafon by ambiguous and general words, fuch 
 as accroaching royal power, fubverting fundamental laws, and 
 the like ; how dangerous it was by conftruftion and analogy to 
 make treafons, when the letter of the law has not done it, for fuch a 
 method admits of no limits or bounds, but runs as far and as wide as 
 the wit and invention of accufers, and thedeteftation of perfons ac- 
 cufed, will carry men." Surely the admonition of this iupremi- 
 nent Judge, ought to fink deep into the heart of every Judge, and 
 of every Jury who were called to adminifter juftice, under an ac- 
 cufation upon this ftatuie. The great man feems to have had a 
 bird's eye of the prefent trial; he feems to have anticipated the 
 horrors of fuch a confufed, heterogeneous mafs of papers as were 
 now brought before a Jury; where no fpecific overt-aft direftly 
 expreffive of an intention to compafs the King's death was laid, 
 no precife point of a man's life fpecified but where four days, 
 had been neceffary to thc-mere accumulation of the mafs where 
 a fpeech of nine hours was required to explain the charge and a 
 whole life of treafons was to be collefted from inferences, fpe- 
 culations, and tendencies, that no man could touch with his under- 
 {landing, nor trealure in his memory. 
 
 The words of Mr. Juftice Forfter in tiis difcourfe upon treafon 
 were no lefs emphatical. After commenting upon writings and 
 words when nfcd as evidence of treafon, he fays, " I have ccn 
 fidered the queftion of words and writings fuppofed to be treaion 
 the more largely, not only becaufe of the di verliiy of opinions con 
 cerning it, but likewife for the great importance of the point, and 
 the extreme danger of multiplying treafons upon flight occa^ 
 lions." 
 
 The next and the great quefliou to be confidcred wa^ how the 
 doftiines of thefe great lawyers who had, thus inveighed againft 
 conftru&ive reafons were recnciieab!e with the portions to be 
 
 * X found,
 
 L 166* j 
 
 found in their works, which had been cited and relied on by the" 
 Attorney General. In order to difcufs the matter with precifion, 
 they mud advert to the language of the paffages cited, in doing 
 which they would find that none of thefe great authors had faid, 
 that compaffmg to change the laws by force, was treafon in the 
 abftraft, or that even compaffing to levy war againft the King 
 was treafon in the abftraft ; or that cornpaffing to imprifon the 
 King, until he yielded to particular demands, was treafon in the 
 abftracl; but only that any of thefe afts might be laid as overt' 
 afts of compafling. the King's death ; that they were acis that 
 might be legally fubmitted to the Jury, as the means made ufe of 
 to effectuate the purpofe charged in the indiclment, viz. the com-' 
 pafllng the death of the King, and might therefore be legally 
 charged upon the record, as overt-afts of that treafon: ths ftatute 
 required that the cornpaffing the death, which was the crime, 
 fhould be manifefted by overt-aft ; the overt-aft, therefore, muft 
 be laid in the indictment, What might be an overt-a6l was matter 
 of law for the Judges, but whether, when fo laid, it was fufficient 
 to eftablifh the traitorous purpofe, was matter of faft for the 
 Jury. 
 / 
 
 Thisdiftinftion was not peculiar to treafon, but pervaded the 
 whole law of England. What fatls were evidence from whence 
 any matter in iffue might be legitimately inferred, was matter of 
 law; but whether any given fafts, which were legally relevant to 
 prove the matter which they were adduced to eftablifh, were iuffi- 
 c,ient in any particular inftance, depended upon the conclufion 
 which the Jury fhould draw from the fafts fimply, or from the 
 \vhole evidence upon the trial of the iffue. Mr. Erfkine illuf- 
 trated this by a recent cafe, relative to bills of exchange, which 
 came before the Houfe of Lords. When the queilion was agi 
 tated in the fhape of a demurrer to evidence, it was decided by the 
 Jloqfe of Lords, that the conclufion to be drawn from relevant and 
 admiffible evidence, to prove any matter in iffue criminal or civil, 
 could not, by demurrer to evidence, or by any other procefs, be 
 withdrawn from a Jury to the judges; the province of the Judge*, 
 being to judge of the law, and confequently of the irrelevancy and 
 inadmiflibility of evidence as a branch of law, but that it belonged 
 to the Jury alone in each particular cafe to draw the particular 
 concluiions from relevant and admiffible evidence. This diftinc* 
 tion would at once explain all the feeming contradiction in the 
 books concerning overt-acls of treafon ; particularly in the treafon 
 of cornpaffing the King's death. The charge of cornpaffing being 
 a charge of intention, which, without a manifcftation by conduct, 
 r.ohupsn tribunal could try; the iiatutc n quired that the inten- 
 tion
 
 r 167* i 
 
 tion to cut off the Sovereign fhould be manifefled by overt-afts, 
 and as a prifoner charged with an intention could have no means of 
 knowing how to defend himTelf, when an intention was the crime, 
 without notice of the fails from whence fuch intention was to be 
 imputed to him, it was the pra&ice to ftate, upon the face of the 
 indictment, the overt-aft, as the means taken to cffeftuate his pur- 
 pofe ; and by the ftatute yth William III. no evidence fhall be ad- 
 mitted or given of any overt-act, that was not exprefsly laid in the 
 indidtment. In order to confirm thefe dodlrines, he would make 
 his appeal to every record and authority in the law of England. In. 
 the firlt place, fo far were the overt-a6l of comparing to depofe, 
 for compafling to imprifon, or compafling to change the laws by 
 force or intimidation, or any other comparting (hort of the direft 
 compafling the death of the King, capable of being made High 
 Treafon, that the indilment muft charge that the prifoner did 
 traitoroufly compafs the death of the King ; and the overt-a6t can 
 be put upon the record in no other way than as the means by 
 which the exiftence of that traitorous pupofe was to be put for the 
 confideration of the Jury. He quoted Lord Coke in -his 3d Infti- 
 tute, 11 and 12, to prove that this was his opinion. The contem- 
 plation, purpofe, and contrivance muft be found to exift, with- 
 out which, fays Lord Coke, there can be no cptnpafling. Lord 
 Coke's doftrine was fo implicitly followed by Lord Hale and For- 
 fter, as far as related to this part of the fubjtct, that it was almoft 
 unneceflary to advert to their works, but as he wifhed to ftand up- 
 on authority in every ftage, he would refer to them. 
 
 He then quoted from Lord Hale's P. C. page 107, dating 
 that the overt-adl muft be laid down fo far as to enable the ima- 
 gining to be brought to trial by human judicatures. As long as 
 the Englifh Conftitution prefervtd to a Jury the legal cogni- 
 zance of facts, we had the beft fecurity for the prefervation of the 
 ftibjec}. There was a mifconception in this particular, that 
 produced the innumerable^controverlies upon the Trial of Libels, 
 and which were at laft happily quietted by the late Adt of Parlia- 
 ment. But in the cafe of a libel it mult be allowed there was 
 fome plaufrbility, in the judicial ufurpation, whereas applied to 
 Treafon there was none. In the cafe of Treafon, the purpofe 
 of the mind was, the crime charged ; the overt aSl was only al- 
 ledged to be an a& done in puifuance of that intention ; which 
 made it fhocking alike to, common fenfe and to confcience to 
 fay, that becaufe the Jury gave credit to the overt adl as a matter 
 of hiftory, that they rnuit therefore find the traitorous pur- 
 pofe. 
 
 *X 2 -He
 
 [ 168* ] 
 
 "He then cnumefated Lord Hale's inflances, which had been 
 held to be fufficfent overt afts of compaffng. " When men 
 confpire the death of the King and thereupon provide weapons, 
 &c. or fend letters for the execution thereof , this is -an overt 
 aft within the (latute. If men confpire to imprifon the King 
 by force and a ftrong hand, until he has yielded to certain de- 
 mands, and for that purpofe gather company, or write letters, 
 that is an overt aft to prove the comparing the King's death, 
 as was held in Lord Cobham's cafe by all the Judges." In this 
 fentence Lord Hale did not depart from that precifion which fo 
 eminently diftinguifhes all his writings-; he did not fay that if 
 men confpire to imprifon the King, that was High Treafon ; 
 no, nor even an overt aft of High Treafon ; but to prevent 
 the polfibility of confounding the Treafon with matter which 
 might be legally charged as relevant, he faid, this is an overt aft, 
 to prove the compaffing the" King's death, and as if by this mode 
 of expreflioh he had not done enough to keep the idea afunder, 
 and from abundant regard for the rights and liberties of the fub- 
 jeft, he immediately adds, " But then there muft be an overt aft 
 to prove that confpiracy, and then that overt aft to prove fuch de- 
 fign is an overt-aft to prove the comparing of the death of the 
 King." The language of the fentence laboured on the ear frotn 
 the exceffive caution of the writer \ afraid that his readers fhould 
 jump too faft to the conclufion, upon a,*fubjeft of fuch awful 
 moment, he pn.lls him back after he has read that a confpiracy to 
 imprifon the King is an overt aft, to prove the compafling his 
 death, and fays to him, " But recoiled! that there muft be an 
 overt aft to prove in the firft place the confpiracy to imprifon 
 the King, and even then that propofition, that intention to im- 
 prifon fo manifefted, by the overt aft, is but in it's turn an overt 
 aft to prove the compafling or intention to deftroy the King." 
 He fays too, the detention muft be forcible, and he proceeds 
 to reprobate a conftruftive compulfion upon the King indepen- 
 dently of aftual reftraint. Lord Hale goes on to diftinguifh, be- 
 tween a conftruftive levying of war againft the King's Executive 
 Authority from confpiracies to levy war upon, his perfon ; and 
 declares that though it might be prime facia good upon an indict- 
 ment when barely laid as a levying war againft the King, yet it; 
 would fail when ii appeared in evidence to be no more than a" 
 levying war by conitrirftion and in f .irprctation 4 The mind 
 of the Prifoner, which it was the objeft of th& trial to 
 lay open would be (but arrd concealed from the Jury, when- 
 ever
 
 ever the death of the Sjvereign was fought by circuitous means, in- 
 ftead of a direct" and murderous machination. It xvas curious to 
 compare Lord Coke's fpeech to the Jury as Attorney General againft 
 Lord EfTex, with the writings which he had left as monuments to 
 porterity of the law upon this momentous fubjeft. But it was lofs 
 of time to confider the argument of an Attorney General, who 
 could fo diihonour himfelf and degrade his profeflion, as Lord Coke, 
 to his eternal infamy, did in the cafe of Sir Walter Raleigh. His 
 Honourable and learned Friend, the prefent Attorney General, 
 would, by his candid proceeding in the opening of this caufe, go 
 down to porterity with a purer character, though he might not have 
 written fo many books as this great, bafe, and degraded man. It 
 was fir, neverthelefs, for the prefent argument to obferve, that in 
 the cafe of Lord Eflex, Lord Coke exprefsly treated High Treafon 
 as a crime of intention. What was the rule with regard to penal 
 fratutes of every defcription ? The rule notorioufly was to adhere 
 rigidly to the letter. Judge Forfter fays it may be laid down as a 
 general rule that indiclments grounded on penal (latutes, efpecially 
 the moft penal, muft purfue the ftatute fo as to bring the party pre- 
 cifely wi;hin it. It was needlefs to fay that if the benignity of the 
 law required this precision in the indiftment, the proof muft becor- 
 refpondingly precife ; for otherwife the fubjeft would derive no be- 
 nefit from the ftridlnefs of the indiftment. If a defendant could be 
 cnvited by evidence amounting to a breaqh cf the real or fuppofed 
 fpirit of the ftatute only, then the ftriftnefs of the indiftment would 
 be no protection of the Prifoner, but would be a direft violation of 
 the firft principles of criminal and civil juftice. He illuftrated this 
 by referring to many different cafes. In Mary Mitchell's cafe. 
 Judge Forfter fays, " Although a cafe is brought within the reafon 
 of a penal ftatute, and within the mifchief to be prevented, yet if 
 if does not come within the unequivocal letter, the benignity of the 
 law interferes." He referred alfo to Gibbon's cafe, and thofe of 
 John Howard and John Bell, for illuftrations of the fame doftrine. 
 
 Having maintained the argument by the letter of the ftatute itfelf, 
 the authoritative writings whofe works were for ever referred to by 
 the officers of the Crown in ftate profecutions, the next ftagein the 
 argument was to examine whether thefe authorities had been afted 
 ujjon. He meant to maintain that in every cafe which was con- 
 fciered as a precedent, the fame conftruftion had been put upon an 
 overt- aft, and that no overt-ails had been regarded but fuch as went 
 direftly and not conftruftively as an attack on the perfon of the 
 fcing. The firft cafes that deferved attention after England had her 
 prefent Conftitution, were the trials on the aflalfination plot againft 
 King William. The trials of Sir John Frend, Sir William Par. 
 kyns, and others, before Lord Chief Juftice Holt; nothing in, 
 thefe trials went againft the principles which he had been endeavour- 
 ing to eftablifh. The charges againft Sir John Frend were unequi- 
 vocal ; the overt-afts relied on were, fending Mr. Charnock into 
 
 Y Franc*
 
 France to King James, to defire him to perfuade the French King, 
 to fend forces over to Great Britain, to levy war and depofc King 
 Williajn. The next overt-act was preparing men to be levied, ta 
 farm a corps to afiift in the relloration of the Pretender, and the ex- 
 pulfion of King Wil Jam, of which Sir John Frend was^tobe Colo- 
 nel. In this cafe the proof, was either to be wholly discredited, or 
 it went directly home to a legal overt-adl of the compaffing the 
 death of the King upon the principles which he had laid down. It 
 was not a fpeculative tendency to his death, but was a confequence 
 fo direct and immediate, that he who purfued the aft, might be 
 juftly convicted of the intention, for if the'plot had fuqceeded, and 
 James had been reftored, King William muft have been neceflarily 
 attainted apd executed by the forms of Englifti law. Obferving in 
 the geftures of the Counfel for the Crown, their hefitation as to this 
 propofuion, he repeated the fact, and faid, that indifputably the 
 reftored King might, and inevitably muft have brought King Wil- 
 liam as an ufurper before a Tribunal like the prefent, either at the 
 Old Bailey, or wherever elfe it fhould ha-e been appointed. No 
 man who engaged in that plot could be reafonably fuppofed not to 
 have forefeen, and to have intended the King's death. Lord Holt's 
 fumtning up did not go beyond this admitted principle. '' The 
 Treafon," faid he, " that is mentioned io the indictment, is con- 
 fpiring, compaffing and imagining the death of the King. To 
 prove the confpiracy and defign of the King's death, two principal 
 overt-afts are infifted on." He did not confider the overt-act of con- 
 fpiracy to be the Treafon, but evidence to prove the compaffing. 
 He then fums up the evidence for and againft the Prifoner, and 
 leaves the intention to the Jury as matter of fact. Afterwards he 
 comes to anfwer the Prifoner's objection in point of law. " There 
 is another thing," faid Lord Chief Juftice Holt, " he did infift 
 upon. The ftatute of B*ward III. contains divers fpecies of Trea- 
 fon . One is compaffing and imagining the death of the King ; ano- 
 ther is the levying war : Now," fays he, (Frend}, " here is no wai 
 actually levied, and a bare confpiracy to levy war does not come 
 within the law againft Treafons," To paufelierea little, faid Mr. 
 Erfcine, Fiend's argument was this : Whatever my intention might 
 be ; whatever my object by levying war might have been ; whatever 
 my defign ; however the deftruftion of the King might have been ef- 
 fected by my confpiracy if it had gone on ; and however it might 
 have been my intention that it fliould, it is not Treafon within the 
 2 jth of Edward III. To which Lord Holt's reply was ; " If there 
 be only a confpuacy to levy war. it is not Treafon ; it is only a fub- 
 ftantive Treafon ; it is not Treafon in the abftradt ; but if the defign 
 and confpiracy be either to kill the King, or to depofe him or im- 
 prifon him, or pat any force or perfonal reftraint upon him by 
 force; and the wiy of effecting thefe purpofes is, by levying a war, 
 there the confpiracy and confutation to levy war for that purpofe is 
 High Treafon, though no war be levied; for fuchcon/ultation and 
 
 confpiracy
 
 C I7i 1 
 
 ee-nfpiracy is an overt-art proving the compafling the death of the 
 King." If Holt had meant to lay down that fuch a confpiracy to 
 ievy war in order to depofe the King, without the further intention 
 to kill him, was in itfelf High Treafon, he would have itopped 
 here ; but that great lawyer went on to qualify his propofition by 
 faying, that fuch confpiracy was an overt-aft proving the compafs- 
 ing; that is, a confpiracy to depofe the King was evidence of an in- 
 tention to defrroy his life. He then goes on : " There may be a 
 war levied without any defign upon the King's perfon, which if ac- 
 lually levied is High Treafon, though purpofing and defigning fuch 
 a levying of war is not fo." Thus, as for example, if perfons do af- 
 femble themfelves to aft with force in oppofuion to fome law, and 
 hope thereby to get it repealed, this is a levying war and treafon, 
 though the purpofing and defigning is not fo So when they endea- 
 vour in great numbers, with great force, to make reformation of 
 their own heads without purfuing the methodj of the law, that is a 
 levying war, but the purpofe and defigning is not fo ; fo that the ob- 
 jefHon he makes is of no force. Here again we have a prophetic 
 glance at the prefent trial : for the whole volume before the Jury 
 went to no more than to accufe them of the defign of making refor- 
 mation of their own heads, and he concludes by again leaving the 
 matter to the Jury. Lord Holt, therefore, in this Addrefs to the 
 Jury, did not fay that if a man co; fpired to do an aft which a6l might 
 produce a given confequence, and which confluence, again building 
 conftruftion on conftruftion, and confeqnenceon confequence, might 
 lead to the King's death was an overt-acl of compafling. But he 
 put the confpiracy directly, with reference to the point before him, 
 as an immediate and direct confpiracy to depofe the King, and to fet 
 up another. Compare this dodrine with the cafe before us. Let 
 the Jury but turn their eyes to the mafs on the table of the Court. 
 He did not mean to accufe the law officers of the Crown, but let 
 them refleft on the fort of circunftances that had been a matted and 
 brought together in order to affcft the Prifoner at the. bar. Could 
 any man, whatever had been his attention whatever were his 
 powers of difcrimination, he defied him to develope the intention, 
 gilt and end of the heap before him. There was confequence added 
 to confequence there was fpeculaiion upon fpeculatton the Prifo- 
 foner was to be led from this to that the defire of enlightening his 
 .fellow citizens was to produce a defire of reform of certain griev- 
 ances the defire of reform was to lead them to Republicanifm 
 this was to lead them to arming and violence and in fome future 
 time, this was to produce a change in the frame of our Govern- 
 ment, and this change was to affedt the King's dignity, and finally 
 this was to be taken as an overt-aft of compafling his death. If it 
 were not unfit to introduce any thing ludicrous upon fo folemn an 
 occafion, he fhould fay that all this reminded him of the ftory in. 
 every child's gilt book, of " Here was the bull, that foiled the dog, 
 that worried the cat, and fo on, till you gel to the houfc that Jack 
 
 Y 2 built.
 
 bttilt. -Good Cod ! in this land of fecurity and juftice, were the 
 lives of men to be put upon fuch hazards ? Was it in England 
 was it in the year 1704, that fuch a trial was brought into a Court of 
 Criminal Juftice ? He knew that he might flop even here, and leave 
 the life of the prifoncr confidently to the fenfe and confcier.ee of the 
 Jury, for he had marked their unwearied attention, iheir difcrimi- 
 jiating judgment, and he would fo leave the cafe, if he were not 
 anxious for the prisoner's honour, as well as his life. Let them try 
 him by this dodtrine of Lord Holt : He told the Jury, in anfwer to 
 $ legal objection from the prifoner, that a confpiracy to levy war 
 was not treafon, but that a confpiracy to levy it, for the purpofe 
 charged in the indiftment, was an overt- aft, and it certainly was re 
 levant evidence to prove the intention ; for if the confpiracy wa 
 palpable and direS to dethrone King William, the defign of King 
 William's death was an inference not of law from the a-fl, but of 
 reafon and facl. Frend might have faid that the intention was to 
 fend King William back to Holland, to refume his flation of Stadt- 
 Jiolder, but who would have believed him? If the faft was proved 
 that he intended to depofe the King, and inrroduce King James, 
 they rnuft have found the compafling of his death as an inference. 
 The other cafes of Parkyns, Layer, &c. he did not enumerate, 
 .though they all ferved to confirm his dodtrine ; but he had already 
 fo far exhaufted himfelf, and had ilill fo much to go through, that 
 he muft depart from his original intention of paffing through all the 
 
 He referred to the cafe of Lord George Gordon, and he fhould not 
 be afraid of the Solicitor of the Treafury, if he were to adl in this 
 way. If he was to come to the Houfe of Commons with tea 
 thoufand men, for the purpofe of having a turnpike bill repealed, 
 and they actually did nothing but appear there, that would not be 
 Treafon. He was now brought to that part of the fpeech of the 
 Attorney General which referred to a more humble authority than 
 any he had yet mentioned, he meant a part of his own fpeech on 
 this trial, juft mentioned. that of Lord George Gordon. The 
 Attorney General iiad ftated Mr. Er&ine's own proportion on that 
 part of that trial, as if it was againft the prifoner at the Bar in the 
 prefenl cafe ; it fhould be remembered that Lord George Gordon 
 was not indicted for compaffing the death of the .King, and Lord 
 Mansfield faid fo on the trial, in which Mr. Juftice Buller concurred, 
 that the iccord on that trial, did not contain a charge againil the 
 defendant forcompaffing the death of the King Lord Mansfield told 
 the Jury upon that trial, 
 
 " The Prifoner at the bar is indi&ed for that fpecies of High 
 Treafon, which is called levying war againft the King, and 
 therefore it is neceffary you fhould firft be informed what is in 
 Jaw a levying war againft the King, fo as to conftitate the 
 critiie of High Treafon, within the ftatute of Edward III. 4 
 jnd perhaps acccording to th,e legal fignificatioo of the term 
 thaf ftatute* There were two kinds of levying war : One 
 
 againft
 
 ( 17* ) 
 
 gainft the pcrfon of the King, te imprifon, to dethrone, br to kill 
 him, or to make him change meafures, or remove Counfellors : 
 the other, which is faid to be levied againft the Majefy af ttx ki"g t 
 or, in other words, againft hiim in his regal capacity. In the pre- 
 fentcafe, it does not reft upon an .implication that they hoped by op- 
 pofition to H law to get it repealed, but the profecution proceeds up- 
 on the direcl ground, that the objeft was by force and violence, to 
 compel the legiflature to repeal a law ; and therefore, without any 
 4Joubt I tell you -the joint opinion of us all, thar, if this multitude 
 aflembled with intent, by acts of force and violence, to Ct iipel the 
 legiflature to repeal a law, it is High Treafon." 
 
 Such were the words of the venerable Earl of Mansfield on that 
 trial. Now he would take the liberty, as the Attorney General had 
 alluded to ir, of quoting his own words upon the fame trial. Thfe 
 was thefentence alluded to by the Attorney General : 
 
 " To encompafs tr imagine the death of the King, fuch imagination, 
 or purpofe ot the mind, vifible only to its great author, being ma- 
 ni felted by fome open aft ; an inftitution obvioufly directed, not 
 only to the fecurity of his natural perfon, but to the (lability of the 
 government; the life of the Prince being fo interwoven with the 
 Confutation of the date, that an attempt todeftroy the one, is juftly 
 held to be a rebellious confpiracy againlt the other." 
 
 This was true, thedeftruclion of the King lead to the deftruetion 
 of the State j but did the converfe of this doclrine follow of courfe 
 as the Attorney General feemed to infift upon ? That to compafs or 
 intend any alteration in the other branches of the Legiflature wa- 
 compaffing the King's death. The charge of comparing or imagin- 
 ing the death of the King was the inference of reafon from overt- 
 afls ; but did it ever enter into the mind of man, that the intention 
 was matter of law ? Certainly not, for it was a faft to be determined 
 by a Jury, and by them only ; it was the inference of their reafon 
 from the facls. and not the inference of law. 
 
 What the fate of the Prifoner would be, Mr. Erfkine faid, he 
 knew not j he was confident in leaving it to men of honour, dili- 
 gence and attention, who would be goided by the evidence under 
 the rule of the law, which governed this cafe, of real evidence in 
 thecanfe. What they had heard of in the proceeding of the Secret 
 Committees of the two Houfes of Parliament, under Number A. 
 or Number B. or Appendix C. and as to the evidence that was 
 offered, he hardly knew where he Hood when he examined it in % 
 court of juftice : One man heard another fay fomething, bu: he todk 
 no notice of it, though employed as a fpy for the purpoie ; another 
 took fome notes, but did not hear all that was faid ; a third heard 
 fomethirtg, fomewhere of arms, and fo on, but nothing of all thi 
 in the Prifoner's hearing. He would maintain, without fear 6f 
 contradiction, that if any excefs had been committed, the Sp<e> of 
 Government had proved that they provoked it all. Did he really 
 believe that the Prifoner was guilty he would have taken a very 
 
 different
 
 tUrterent courfe ; but believing him to be really inndcent, 
 .defend him to the utmoft of his power. 
 
 The Societies and the Prifoner at the Bar, as a Member of one 
 ef them, were charged with having formed 4 plan to fubvcrt the 
 .eftablifhed Government of the Country, as the means of carrying 
 into effec"l their traiterous purpofe againil the Life of the King. 
 The charge was nor, that they had confpired to aflemble the Con- 
 vention which met at pjdinburgh, but that they had confpired to 
 sffemble another Convention which never did meet. All the extra* 
 .ordinar; ^evidence they had heard, and the moft extraordinary the 
 greater j^t of was ever heard in a Court of Juftice, went to prove 
 the intention with which this fecond Convention was to be held. 
 Whether a Reform of Parliament was a meafure likely to produce 
 .all the good chat fome expefted from it, or all the mifchief that 
 others apprehended, the difcuflion was, in the cafe of his Client, 
 neither necefTary nor proper. It was fufficient to examine whether 
 all that had been faid, or written, or printed, in the proceedings of 
 the Societies, on the neceifity of Reform, for every article of 
 \vhofe condue! the Prifoner, in the idea of his Profecutors ought 
 to be Amenable, was (aid bonafide, with honeft intention, and in 
 the fmcere belief o f its being true, or^reforted to as a mere (talking 
 horfe, behind which to prepare the fhafts of treafon, and take 
 aim at the life of the King. He was ready to confcfs that, 
 if the fame defedh in the Reprefentation of the People in Parlia- 
 ment had not been noticed in any former period, had never occurred 
 to perfons in much higher ftations, and, as far as motives of felf- 
 interelt could attach men to any fyftem, to perfons who had a much 
 more important flake in the Conftitution of the Country, he might 
 have been led to fufpeft that the intention of thefe Societies was dot 
 exadly what they profefled. Happily, however, this was not the 
 cafe. That the Reprefentation of the People in Parliament was de- 
 feftive, that many and great abufeshad crept into it, and that the 
 health and longevity of the Conllitution depended upon the cor- 
 rection of thofe abufes, was a doctrine fupported by many and high 
 authorities. On maintaining this doctrine, the great Lord Chathatn 
 . built the fame and glory of his life, and bequeathed it to his fon, 
 whoraifed upon it his own fame and fortune. If the Counfcl for 
 theprofecution had chofen to carry their evidence fo far back, they 
 would have found that the Society for Constitutional information, 
 owed its birth to Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Richmond, whofe plan 
 of Parliamentary Reform was Univerfal Suffrage and Annual Elec- 
 tions: and although he thought, with thofe whofe political opinions 
 he had beenaccuftomed toconfider uith more refpecl, that this would 
 not be an improvement, jet he could not imagine that they, who 
 originally promulgated or ftrenuoufly fupported it, had in contem- 
 plation the fubverfion of the Government, much lefs were compaf- 
 fing the Death of the King. The Duke of Richmond was a man 
 of great fortune, of the higheft rank, and it was not to. be ima- 
 gined
 
 ; ( .'75 J 
 
 giscd, that by contending for Dniverfal Suffrage an'd Annual Elec- 
 tion, he meant to fubvcrt the Government, and ftrip himfclf of hii 
 own honours. TL* Duke of Richmond was not only a man of high 
 rank, hut wrll known.to be a man of extenfive reading and deep re- 
 flection. The plan he propofed as the only adequate plan for the 
 Reform of Parliament, was not the offspring ot rafhnefs or folly, 
 but of information and reflection. The Duke of Richmond faid 
 what he (Mr. Erfldne) fliould be ready on all occafions to fay and 
 he cared not how many of fuch miferable fpies as had been brought 
 forward to give evidence on this trial, v/ere prefcr.t to take down, 
 his words, or, as was more commonly their pi a&ice, to report what 
 they thought fie to underftand by his words, without taking them 
 downthat if the reprefentation of the People in Parliament was 
 not reformed, if theabufes that had crept into it xvere not corrected, 
 abufe accumulating upon abufe, Tnuft inevitably lead to a Revolu- 
 tion. '1 he Duke of Richmond publifhed his plan in 1782. The 
 plan was addreffed to Colonel Sharman, and propofed appointing 
 Delegates by Aifemblies of the People, no matter whether ftykd 
 Conftituiional or Correfponding, or any other Societies, to meet in t 
 a general Convention. The terms, Delegates and Convention were 
 therefore, no new inventions, no imitations of a French Model,- hue 
 the natural growth of our own foil. When the Convention met at 
 Edinburgh, although many imprudent fpeeches were made in it, 
 fpeeches which he had no inclination, and which the defence of his 
 Client certainly did not call upon him to jultify, the declared inten- 
 tion of thofe who compofed it, was to obtain what they, following 
 high, and unfufpefHng authorities, we're taught to believe the un- 
 alienable Right of the People. A free and faif Reprefentation in 
 the Commons Houfe of Parliament was the iinalier.able Right of the 
 People. He did not mean to itate this as a right to be recognifed in 
 a Court of juftice, in oppofition to pofuive law, by which Courts of 
 Juftice could alone be guided, but as a right not of new imagination, 
 fandioned by the molt unimpeachable authorities, and in profccut- 
 ing which \ry legal means no man incurred either guilt or cenfare. 
 On this right was founded the right of his Majefty to the Throne, as : 
 he himfelf had maintained in Parliament, in oppofition to the then 
 newly adopted tenets of Mr. Burke" Ot Mr. Burke," faid Mr. 
 Erfkine, * J fpeak not to blame. He poffeffes a mind enriched with 
 the greateft variety of knowledge, the fined imagination the rr.oft 
 powerful and fafcina; ing eloquence, the moft extenfive acquaintance 
 with the hiftory of the Lri:iih Constitution. He is now buffering 
 under a domcftic misfortune, which every man who fynipi.hizcs in 
 the feelings of another, muft deplcr. , I allude not to his change of 
 political opinion as afuult: that change, I think, is to be liberally 
 interpreted. I Jpeak not he;e to bLme any man. 1 fpeak to rccora' 
 mend Charity among men, for ths opinions of one another, to con* 
 tiliate all hearts in favour of our common Country, and by a fair, 
 clear and unprejudiced fpplicacion of she Laws of that Country, to 
 
 Indytt
 
 al! to-purfue the cwnmoft-intereft, unter rifted 3 by armed Aflb- 
 clarions on the one hand, or Courts of Juftice on the other." The 
 Counfe! forrhe Profcctition mull prove the intension charged in the 
 indifttnent, and that fatisfadtorilv not by proof of furmife and 
 conjecture. To illuftrate this he quoted thepaflage in Chief Juftice 
 Eyre's charge to the Grand Jury, " Whether this be a veil under 
 which Treafon is concealed, &c."-<-He had no doubt but that when 
 this humane language was held, the Judge was unacquainted with the 
 whole of the cafe ; but it was fufficient to (hew that on the furface 
 of it his Client, and thofe with whom he was im plica-ted, were not 
 traitors. He next quoted a paflage from Holt, importing that 
 forced or llrained conftruclions are not to be put upon men's words 
 or aclicns> but that the intention of them is to be tried and made 
 out by clear and palpable evidence. Now let the intentions of the 
 Prifoner and his Allbciates be tried by this criterion. Were they 
 the firft to take up the doftrines now charged upon them as proofs 
 of a treafonable purpofe? 
 
 The firft witnefs from Sheffield faid that he afted upon thefe doc- 
 trines as the - Duke of Richmond had done, whom he never ima- 
 gined to have any intention of fubverting the Government, or com- 
 pafling the death of the -King. He did not mean to fay that one 
 man's having committed a crime with impunity would juftify anq? 
 ther in committing a like offence; but that if 'one man had circu- 
 lated particular opinion?, without ever being accufed or even fuf- 
 peeled of evil intention, the circulation of the fame opinions by 
 other men was not to be held as evidence of evil intention. To 
 whom did the Duke of Richmond tranfmit and recommend hi* 
 phn? To Societies provided with half a dozen pikes ? No ; to Co- 
 lontl Sharman, at the head of 10.000 men, armed and in military ar- 
 ray : to men not commiflioned by the King: to the Volunteers of 
 Ireland, to whofe exertions it was owing that his Majefty now en- 
 joyed the Crown of Ireland. Thefe men, fo armed and arrayed, 
 held a Con\ention, not fecretly, but in the face of day. By the 
 authority of the King ? No. By the authority of the Lord Lieute- 
 nant ? No. By the authority of circular Letters; and fo far was 
 this from being fligmatized as Treafon, that their demands were 
 complied with wifely and properly complied with for to grant the 
 People their Rights was the fu reft way to harmonize their mindsand 
 attach their affections to the Government; Of all the Witnefles 
 called on the part of the profecution, was there a man, except the 
 Spies, who laid that their intention was any other than a Reform of 
 Parliament by legal and Conftitutional means ? If the Spies were not 
 to be believed, in contraction to all the other Witnefles, the 
 Court and the Jury were mif-fpending their time; they might clofe 
 th proceedings ar once, and go home. All but the Spies faid, that they 
 weuld have renounced the Societies with indignation, if they had 
 believed there was any intention of depofing or killing the King. 
 How could the poor Prifoner at the Bar hate the King, from whom 
 
 it
 
 L *77 ] 
 
 it was impoffible he could ever have received an injury ? Was not the 
 character of his Majefty fuch as to conciliate the love and affection 
 of his fubjedts ? Did he not confide fo much in that affection as daily 
 to ride abroad among them, without the parade of guards or atten- 
 dants ? Where, then, was the ground of this black fufpicicn, as un- 
 worthy of the King, as unmerited by his People, The minds of 
 the men who compoled thofe obnoxious Societies were irritated into 
 intemperance hy the reprefentations of thofe who were now his 
 Majelty'sMinillers, of the abufes flowing from the decay of Repie- 
 {filiation and the confequent corruption of Parliament ; and, if the 
 prifoner at the F;ir (hou'.d he hanged, while the Duke of Richmond 
 xvas called to a feat in the Cabinet, he fhould fay 
 
 Plate fin with gold, 
 
 " And ihe ftrong lance of Juftice hurdefs breaks ; 
 " Arm it in rags, a pigmy flraw doth pierce it." 
 
 He fhould fay, that, with refpeft to the protection of known law, 
 we were in as bad a ftate as the People of France, where there was 
 mow no law: but there too, he had no doubt, the People would ye: 
 claim and obtain law, as the molt valuable of their rights* In 1782, 
 during the difallrous period of a War, purfued with as ill fuccefs as 
 the principles upon which it was undertaken were bad ; when increafe 
 of taxes and decline of commerce had generated difcontent lr. every 
 corner of the Country, and turned the minds of merj to no mild 
 fcrutiny of the defects of Government, the Dake of Richmond's 
 plan of Reform was publifhed, and Conventions were held, which 
 even arrogated the controul of the expenditure of public money, 
 a function which had ever been underftoodto belong exclufively to 
 Parliament. Here was a direct ufurpation of the authority of Par- 
 liament which his Clients were charged only with intending, - 
 " Let us hear," faid Mr. E.-fkine, " Mr. Burke, on the nature 
 and character of the Houfe of Commons, not with regard to irs 
 legal form and power, but to its fpirit, and to the purpofes it is meant 
 to anfwer in the Conftitution. The Houfe of Commons was fup- 
 pofed originally to be no part cf thtjianding Government of this Coun- 
 try ; but was confidered as a controul iiTuing immediately from the 
 people, and fpeedily to be rcfolveJ into the mafs from whence it 
 arofe. In this lefpect it was in the higher part of Govern menc 
 what juries are in the lower. The capacity of a Magiftrate being 
 tranfitory, and that of a Citizen permanent. (Citizen! It would he 
 as dangerous now to mention the word Citizen, as to mention the 
 word pikes.) >The latter capacity, it was hoped would of courfe 
 preponderate in all difcufiions, not only between the people, and 
 the fleeting authority of the Houfe of Commons itfelf. It was 
 It vas hoped that being of a middle nature between fubjeft and 
 government, they would feel with a more tender and nearer in. 
 rereit, every thing that concerned the people, than the other remoter 
 
 Z and
 
 anJ more permanent parts of the legiflature. Whatever alteration 
 time and the p.eceflary accommodation of bufinefs may have intro- 
 duced, //;> cbarader can never bifiiftaincd, unlefs the Houfe of Commons 
 jkall be made to bear the ft amp of the atlual Jlfpcfit:oHs of the People at 
 large- Ic would (among public misfortunes) he an evil more natural 
 and tole'nble, that the Houfe of Commons ihould be infefted with 
 every epidemical phrenzy of the people, as this would indicate fome 
 confanguinity, fome fympathy of nature with their conftituents, than 
 that they fhould in all cafes be wholly untouched by the opinions and 
 feelings of the people out of doors. By this want of fympathy they 
 would Cfcfe to bt nn Houfe of Cunmons." IVlr. Burke goes on to date, 
 that " The virtue, fpirit, and eflence of the Houle of Commons 
 confifls in its being the exprefi image of tbc feelings oftbf nation. It was 
 not inftit-uted to be a controul upon the People, as oflate it has been 
 taught, by a doclrine of the molt pernicious tendency, but as a con- 
 troul for the People." Thus we fee that the true intent of the Houfe 
 oi Commons is, not to aft as a controul upon the People ; the King 
 and the Houfe of Lords are the conftitutional controul, and the Com- 
 mons the voice and organ of the People. But how are they this 
 organ, if they are not chofcn by the People, which they now no- 
 torioufly are not. To be convinced of this, it is only nereffary to 
 look at the Report of the Society of the Friends of the People, which 
 they offered to fubftantiate by evidence at the Bar of the Houfe of 
 Commons, and which to this hour ftands uncontroverted. Let us 
 hear Mr. Burke on the Houfe of Commons as it is now conftituted. 
 " An addreffing Houfe of Commons and a petitioning Nation; an 
 Houfe of Commons full of confidence, when the nation is plunged 
 in defpair; in the utmoft harmony with Minifters, whom the People 
 regard with the utmoft abhorrence; who vote thanks, when the 
 public opinion calls upon them for impeachments; who are eager 
 to grant when the general voice demands account; ivbo in all dif- 
 putei between the People and Admiiiiftraticn, prefume again/I the People ; 
 who punijh their diforders, but r?fr<fe even to enquire into the provocations 
 t'j them; this is an unnatural, a monjlrous Jtate of things in this Con- 
 Jiitulion. 
 
 <f Such an AfTembly may be a great, wife, awful Senate; but it 
 is not to any popular purpofe an Houfe of Commons." This, he 
 fays, in hi* Thoughts on the Caufe of the Prefent iDifcontems, 
 coolly, foberly and deliberately written during the American war; 
 and the word prefect will as well apply to this time as to that. In 
 another part of the fame publication he fays " It muft always be 
 the wifh of an unconstitutional Statefman, that an Houfe of Com- 
 mons who are entirely dependent upon him, fhould have every 
 Right of the People entirely dependent upon their pleafiire. For it 
 was foon discovered that the forms of a free,, and the ends of an ar 
 bitrary Government, were things not altogether incompatible. The 
 power of the Crown, almoft dead and rotten as Prerogative, has 
 grown up a-new, with much more ftrength and far lefs odium, 
 
 under
 
 [ i?9 3 
 
 under the name of Influence. An influence which operated without 
 noife and violence ; which converted the very anta^ouilt into the 
 inftrument of power ; which contained in itfclf a perpetual principle 
 of growth and renovation: and which the diitrcfles and the profpe- 
 rity of t'ie Country equally tended to augment, was an admirable fab- 
 ftitutefor a Prerogative, that being only she offspring of antiquated 
 prejudices, had moulded in its original ftamina irrefifiible principles 
 of decay and difTolution." " Parliament was indeed the great ob- 
 je& of all thefe politics, the end at which they aimed, as well as the 
 inftrument. by which they were to operate. But before Parliament 
 could be made fubfervient to a fyftem, by which it was to be da- 
 graded from the dignity of a national council, into a mere member 
 of the Court, it muft be greatly changed from its original character." 
 Remark that Mr. Burke here fays, not the Houfe of Common?, 
 but Parliament. Who t'oes this? Not a poor fhoe-maker, like the 
 Prifoner at the bar, but a Member of the Houfe of Commons, a 
 man well verfed both in political and philological di.tinctiors: yei it 
 is evident thathemesnb the Houfe of Commons, and therefore it is 
 an abufe of. words to fay rhac when the word Parliament occurs in the 
 proceedings of the Societies, any thing ,is meant by it but the Hortfe 
 of Commons. So far is the Prifoner from being confcious of evil 
 intention, fo far from imagining he is engaged in a copfpiracy" to 
 fubvert the Conftitution, that he writes a letter to the molt emi- 
 nent and able defender of the Conftitution, a Member of Pa'rlia- 
 ment and a Privy Counfellor (Mr. Fox), defiring him to prefent the 
 Petition of the Society to the Houfe of Commons. The anfwer to 
 that letter, although ftating tlut Mr. Fox is an avowed enemy to 
 Univerfal Suffrage, he preferves among his papers, and it has been 
 read to you as evidence in fupport of the profecution. He writes alfi 
 to the Society of the Friends of the People, whofe fole object he 
 knows to be a Reform of the Reprefentation in the Commons' Houfe 
 of Parliament. They alfo return an anfwer, never once fufpecting 
 that the object of the Correfponding Society is any thing but a Re- 
 form of Parliament, although they mfapprove of their mode of pur- 
 fuing that object. Then come the Crown Lawyers, and fay, we 
 underfland better what is meant by thefe letters than thoie who write 
 them, or thofe to whom they are written ; you lay they mean only 
 Parliamentary Reform, we, the interpreters of your moft fecret 
 thoughts, tell you that they mean fubverring the whole frame of the 
 Government, and deftroying the King. Mr. Erfkine again referred 
 to a paffage from Mr. Burke, importing tint Minillers had made a 
 lodgment in Parliament, that by laying hold of Parliament icfelf they 
 had the power of obtaining their object in all cafes, and upon all oc- 
 cafions. The proportion contained in this paffage was unqualified; 
 it was not reftricted to this or that occafion, but extended to all occa- 
 fions; it afferted that the controul of the people over the Executive 
 Power was wholly and abfolutely loft. Not fo, faid the Defendants; 
 they faid nothing was loft but the controul of the People in the Houfe 
 
 Z 2 Of
 
 of Commons. Would any man ftand up and fay hedifbelieved this? 
 if he did, nobody would believe him. The Counfel for the Profe- 
 rution contended, (hat to attack, the Parliament was, to attack the 
 King, becaule the King was an effemial part of Parliament. B) no 
 mean?. Who, in talking of Parliament, in common rceeptation, was 
 fuppofed to mean the King ? When thefe Societies attacked what they 
 thought the abufes of Parliament; they meant what thofe who went 
 before them had meant the abufes in the reprefeniation, which 
 migh: all be corrected without trenching in theleafton the natural or 
 political exiflence of the King. Bur, ic was faid, they talked of re- 
 forming Parliament by exciting the People. Mr. iJurke had faid 
 nrfore them, that no remedy for the dillemper of Parliament c-juld 
 be expected to be begun in Parliament; and that the People mud he 
 excited to meet in Counties and in Corporations, and make out, if 
 they could, lifts of thofe who voted, and on what fide; in fhort, that, 
 to obtain any correction of the ab'ufts in the Houfe of Commons^ the 
 impu.lfe rrufl COT.C from the People. After a petition for Reform, 
 In 1 780, had been rejected, the Duke of Richmond wrote in a manner 
 iruth frronger than thofe who were nowaccufed of confpiring to lay 
 hold of the Parliament by violence He wrote, that the lel v Reform 
 had been tried and failed ; that not one profelyte had been gained ; 
 that the weight of corruption was fuch as to bear down every rhing; 
 that he had no hopes of Reform from the Houfe of Commons j thar 
 Rehrm rr.uft come from the People thernfehes; and that they ought 
 to meet more numeronfly than ever to claim their undeniable rights, 
 Univctf.il Sufferage and Annual Elections. How were the People to 
 8 (Ten thefe rights after Parliament had refufcd to grant them r In this 
 manner, the perfons no'.v under profecution had done, and profefled 
 to do not by rebellion, but by collecting ajid bringing before Par- 
 Jiament, the weight and influence of collective opinion. It was faid 
 that this war againft the State had amounted to Rebellion The afTer- 
 tion was unfounded What was the Staie ? The State was the Body 
 nf the People, with their Sovereign at their head ; nothing was Re- 
 bellion that had not for its objedt the deflruclion or enilavjng of the 
 People and their Sovereign fo connected, and he trufled he (hould 
 revcr hear again thar the People all meeting,, muft mean to depofe , 
 the King that the King Rood only fupported by the few who called 
 themfelves the King's friends, and branded all otheis with the name 
 of Demociats, or Jacobins, or whatever elfe was the nickna-re of the 
 day. It was clear from the beginning to the end, that the Societies 
 with which the Prifoner was connected fpoke only of ;he lleprefenta- 
 tion in the Houfe of Commons; and he would maintain as they did, 
 that they had a right to do'fo; and he knew that if the People were 
 fo met, they would be fur the continuance of the Crown. It was 
 their inheritance -what a dangerous principle it would be for to lay 
 riown, that if the People were coiiefted together, the neccflary con- 
 fequence mull be the rleftrudlion of the King? The King's protection 
 Itood on the love of" the People colleft iveJy, ^ot en the adherence of 
 
 this
 
 [ i8i J 
 
 tins or that defcription of men, and to fay otherwife was a lifcel bo'fc 
 on King and People. He WP< r orry tc< hear any man called a traitor 
 for taking of the Rights of Man. The Duke of Richmond had long 
 fincefaid that they were the foundation of all legitimate government. 
 Becaufemen profefiing, but abufing the fj.rr.efentimems, had deftroyed 
 every thing in Frai.ce, it ought m to He fa:' cried upon thePrifoner, 
 that he, profefllng tt> claim the Rights of Man, meant aii'o todeflroy 
 every thing in Fngland. Before going into the Duke of Richmond's 
 definition of the Righrs of Man, he would mention one more in his 
 recollection, becaule it arcfe out of a difct.'ffion, in which it was his 
 fortune to bear a part. In the debates upon the memorable India 
 Kill, one of the moft popular topics of declamation againit it was, 
 its being an attack upon the chartered Rights of .VJen. Mr. Burke 
 k>ok fire at the expreffion. He faid he did not know wha was meant 
 by the chartered Rights of Men. He feared there was fomethirg in 
 this more than was indicated by the affectation of the phrafe. For 
 what end, but the end of the moment, was the word c I. artered in- 
 troduced, for the Rights of Mankind were founded in nature, and 
 needed no charter to give them^fanclion. Chartered Rights he had 
 alwaj s underftcod to oe matter of compaft, and to be f'oneited by 
 breach of compact; but the natural Rights of Man were facred, and 
 could neither be lawfully forfeited nor infringed. let thofe who 
 call themfelves die champions of the authority of the Crown, take 
 care that they do not pull down what they profefs to fupport. Let 
 them beware of weakening his Majefty's Rights, by the very means 
 they adopted to confirm them. The ancient Kings of this country 
 abufcd their government by cruel and infamous trials ; by more cruel 
 and infamous ptinifhment, by packing Juries, by arbitrary imprifon- 
 ments, bv fcandalous abufe of 1 ;w, by depriving the People of armsj 
 thus not only their Government but their pe;fons became oHicus; 
 they dreaded to aflemble the People; and when King William iflued 
 his writs calling the People to meet, they did no: mee; , bur had they 
 met, the general confent of the people would have been given to his 
 acceffion. He recognized their rights under a Law which all knew 
 and all revered the BiU of Right.- Rights which they always had; 
 and here began the miffhief in confequence of which the Court was 
 now fitting. The denial of that proportion brought Mr. Paine into 
 this country. But for this denial Mr. Paine never would h ive been 
 an author amongfl ns. Why came Mr. Paint here as an author ? To 
 anfw r Mr. Burke, who denied the King's right to the Throne by 
 denying the right of the People to alter Hon. The French 
 
 had y>u!led down a fyftem of corruption and tyrnnnv, fo enfeebled by 
 its own inherent defeats, that it was ready to fall of its own accord. 
 Mr. Burke denied their ripht 10 do this. Mr Piine wro;e an an- 
 fwer, and as a RepubHca.., threw in much fluff about Monarchy, 
 which had nothing to do with the main question. The fiifl part of 
 the Rights of M^n was applicable only to France. But a book, 
 called an Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, nppli^d it to the 
 
 Government
 
 t 8a ] 
 
 Government of this country. Mr. Paine arrived, and notwith- 
 ftanding his firft intentions, this attack exafperated his fpirit, and he 
 wrote a fecond part to his Rights of Man, in which he vindicated 
 the Rights of the People in this or any other country to change their 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid he would vindicate, in prefence of as many fpies 
 as could be collected, the Right of the People to oppofe Dcfpotic 
 power, and to change the form of their government, when that form 
 was radically and eflentiallv bad. He had oppofed, and would al- 
 ways oppofe, the Right of Defpots to prevent any People from form- 
 ing a Government for themfelves, of the fweet or bitter fruits of 
 which they themfelves muft ear. If the People of France were to 
 fay to the People of England, " You (hall have a Republican form 
 of Government," the People of England would fay, '' No ; we have 
 already chofen our fofm of Government, a mixed form, a limited 
 Monarchy, which we approve, and if we did Rot, we would re- 
 ceive a form of Government from no power on Earth but our own." 
 The People of England have a right to change their Government if 
 they pleafe ; they will nor, if you ufe them well ; but it is to the 
 denial of this principle all the calamities of thefe trials are to be 
 imputed. 
 
 The Duke nf Richmond's plan proceeded on the Rights of Man. 
 His Grace, however, had not the merit of being the inventor. He 
 adopted the ideas of Mr. Locke; who maintained the principle of 
 " Salus populi,fuprema lexe/?,"nnd fo did Mr.Yorke, in his fpeech deli- 
 vered on the Caftle Hill, Sheffield. Mr. Yorke, indeed, had hardly 
 the merit of adopting, for he recited what Locke had written al- 
 moft verbatim. Mr. Erikine read the Duke of Richmond's Letter 
 to the Sheriff of .Suflex, in 1780, in which he obferved there was 
 much good fenfe, although he could not agree to the whole. It 
 concluded with aflerting " that the people have rights, know they 
 have rights, and will after- and obtain them." How obtain them ? 
 by peaceable means, which was all that the prifoner had attempted. 
 If they libelled Government, if they refifted the Magiftrate in the 
 due execution of his doty, if they committed any legal offence, 
 they were amenable to legal punifhmenr. But when men were 
 confidering on Conftitutional means of effecting a purpofe, they 
 could not be found guilty of the crime charged in the Indictment. 
 Let no worfe motives be imputed to the Prifoner than to fo many 
 ethers who had purfued the fame objeft, much lefs the higheft of 
 all crimes, the crime of Treaf-.n. Suppofe thefe Societies, which 
 they never did, had refolved to petition Parliament no more. Was 
 there no way for the people to bring about a Reform in Parliament 
 by peaceable means ? The Attorney General feerr.ed to think that 
 Parliament was a part of the permanent Government, forgetting 
 that it died a Conftitutional death at certain periods, and that there 
 was no neceffity for reviving it in,ths fame form. A vorer had a 
 right to fay, " I will vote for no Parliament that is difpofed to 
 
 red
 
 refift ray rights ; I will vote for none who will not call us, the 
 People, their Conilituents ; I will vote for none who will reject 
 ur petitions; I will not arm a few individuals with power to 
 colled taxes, to p?.fs coercive laws, and to b ufed onl,y againft 
 ourfclves. Such are not the true Houfe of Commons of Great 
 Britain. I will oppofe fuch an Houfe of Commons, not by tumult 
 and infurreclion, but by concurring in the appointment of Dele- 
 gates to confider how my rights may be fupported." Such language 
 the People of this country had a right to hold ; and how were they 
 to ai't upon it? They might petition the King. They might give 
 weight to their Petition by mewing that it had the fanclion of the 
 public opinion. To collect this opinion they might fay, " We will 
 not affemble in numbers, for that might give rife to tumult; but we 
 will affemble in our refpecKve neighbourhoods, and appoint Dele- 
 gates with inilructions yj confer with other Delegates; and thus 
 without dauger or inconvenience, we fhall colieft the public fenti- 
 mear, and carry it to that place where we know it will be treated 
 with refpedr. In this way we fhall obtain our imprefcriptabte 
 Rights.*' This they muft do, bccaufe a Court of JuiHce could not 
 give them their imprefcriptable Rights, confidently with the admi- 
 niftration of the law ; but a Court of Juflice could do that which it 
 was called upon to do in this cafe; it would not on any pre- 
 fumption of evil intention punifh any man for legal acts done in pur- 
 fuit of thefc Rights. The Attorney General feemed to think that 
 petitioning the King on the fubjecl of Parliamentary Reform, was 
 to afk him to dot hat which his coronation oath forbade him to do, 
 and confequently could only rr.ean to compel him by force. Mr. 
 Krflcine faid, he did not underftand what was meant by this, 
 He never heard it argued that, but for the articles of Union with 
 Scotland, the King might not alter the compofition of the Houfe 
 of Commons, as far as depended on calling in new places and 
 perfons to elect, without the confent of the Houfe of Commons. 
 This was the opinion of Mr. Locke, a man inferior to none his 
 country ever produced, except Sir Kaac Newton. 
 
 Mr. Erskine here quoted the opinion of Locke upon this fubjeffr, 
 from his Treatife on Government, B. II. chap, xiii. fee. 157 158, 
 This book was written in anfwer to the Jacobites, who denied ihe 
 right of King William to the Throne; and when Dr. Sacheverell 
 attempted to refute the doctrines it contained, by refurting to the 
 exploded doctrines of Divine Hereditary Right and Non-reliil^nce, 
 he was impeached by the Commons, and found guilty by the- Lords. 
 
 Mr. Erikine then proceeded to recapitulate the evidence, obferv- 
 ing, that he had been obliged to omit many and important topics of 
 general defence, in order to apply his attention to difembmilmg the 
 chaos which he had had no time to coniicier but by the indulgence 
 give--' him by the Court and the Jury. The original Addrefs cf the 
 Correfponding Society they would not have pub!i(hed, had they 
 thought it criminal. They not only publilhed it, but they fern it as 
 
 a circular
 
 a circular letter by poft, addreffed to various perfons, and even a 
 copy to the Secretary of Stare. On the tremendous evidence ad- 
 duced in this trial, he obferved that a fong found among Hardy's 
 Y" - -ad been produced againft him, without the lhadow of proof 
 that it had been written, publifhed, or even approved by him. He 
 had lece'.wd it, as many things were received by men of ail de- 
 licriptions in :his town, without knowing whence it came. It had 
 been perhap* dropt down his area. If fuch evidence were held fuf- 
 fi-.-ient r> affc-ft a man's life, he (Mr. Erlkine), who received and 
 read papers of all forts, bad probably now in his houfe evidence 
 fufticient to hang him and his whole family. The Addrcfs of the 
 "Society was founded on the Duke cf Richmond's letter to Colonel 
 Sharman, containing a plan, upon which men of high rank fat s 
 Delegates in the dry of London, with Aldermen of the city of 
 London, A little time before the Convention met at Edinburgh, a 
 Convention of Delegates from the Counties of Scotland mer, of 
 which the Chief Baron of his Majelly's Exchequer in Scotland was 
 Chairman, and the Lord Advocate, the Dean of Faculty, and Sir 
 Thomas Dundas, now Lord Dundas, fat as Members. An appli- 
 cation had been previously made to Parliament^ for a Reform in 
 the mode of electing Members for the counties, and rejected. What 
 did this meeting of Delegates according to their own advercifement? 
 They met for the purpofc of altering and amending the Law ; they 
 agreed upon certain heads, and refolved to fend them, where? To 
 Parliament ? No ; but to tne feverai counties in Scotland to collect 
 opinions and fignatures. Was this Meeting called treafonable ? 
 No ; it would have been called fcandalous to impute treafonable 
 motives to any man who attended ir, The objeft of the Corref- 
 ponding Society on the firlt piece of evidence, viz. their own Ad- 
 drefs, was Reform of Parliament, by legal means. Would the Jury 
 impute to his Client, againft whom not a contumelious word re- 
 fpccling goveinment had been proved, the Shocking crime cf Trea- 
 fon for fupporting a meafure, finftioned by fo many and fo recent 
 authorities ? Ler them read the lines prefixed to the Addrefs of the 
 Correfponding Society, and fee if they could find any thing in their 
 iubfequent proceedings to match them. 
 
 " On Virtue can alone my kingdom (land; 
 For, loft this focial cement of mankind, 
 The greateft Empire by fcarce felt degrees 
 Will moulder loofe away, till, unfuftained, 
 They prone at laft to ruin rufh, 
 Unbleft by virtue, Government a league 
 Becomes, a circling junto of the great, 
 To rob by law ; Religion mild, a yoke 
 To tame the ftooping foul, a trick of ftate 
 To mark their rapine, and to fliare the prey. 
 What are without it fenates. but a face 
 
 Of
 
 ' ( 1*5 ) 
 
 Of confutation deep, and reafon free, 
 
 While the determined voice and hearr are fold ? 
 
 What boafted freedom but a (bending name? 
 
 And what election, but a maiket vile 
 
 Of flaves ielf-barter'd? Virtye ! without thee 
 
 There is no ruling eye, no nerve in dates; 
 
 War has no vigour, and nof.fety peace; 
 
 Even juftice warps to party, laws opprefs, 
 
 Their weak authority process no more, 
 
 Firft broke the balance, and then Icorus the fword. 
 
 Thus nations fink, fociety difiblves ; 
 
 Rapine and guile, and violence break loofe, 
 
 Confunding life, and turning life to gall; 
 
 Man hates the face of man, and Indian woods 
 
 Hide in their favage haunts no beaft fo fell." 
 
 Yet thefe Verfes were written by Thomfon, under the roof of 
 Lord Littleton, under the protection of the Prince of Wales, who 
 perhaps thought that the Rights of the People were the furefr gua- 
 rantee of his own Rights. By a man who had ftudied and under- 
 ftood the Britifh Conftitution, who venerated liberty but loved or- 
 der by a man whofe works had been the delight of a nation, and to 
 whofe memory a monument was now creeling. If the ohjecls of the 
 Societies were treafonable, then every man who had been a Member 
 of any one of them was guilty of Treafon, and he held his life as 
 tenant at will of the Attorney General. Of the Convention either 
 held or propofed, the Attorney General imputed the whole original 
 fin to the London Correfponding Society. The contrary, however, 
 was the fad. A Convention of Delegates from the Scot's counties 
 had been held as above-mentioned at Edinburgh; and the Societies 
 in Scotland, on the ulual principle of national vanity, relolved to 
 imitate the example. They agreed on a Convention of their own, 
 and invited the London Societies to fend Delegates to it. Some of 
 them fent Delegates, whole inttruclions were that they fhould con- 
 cur in all Conftituiional acls for a Reform in the Reprefentation of 
 the People. Every man was bound by the acls of his agent within 
 the limits of his agency ; but if an agent, fent to buy horfes, fhould 
 think fit to tteal horfes or commit treafon, his employer would be 
 amenable neither for the Felony nor the Treafon. By the fame rule, 
 no acls concurred in by thofe Delegates which were not within the 
 letter of their inltruclions, could arr'ecl the Societies by \vhicn they 
 were fen u Mr. Er&ine arranged, and commented upon the whole 
 of the evidence in a maltcrly manner, illullrating every objection he 
 took to it by tiie moft appofite and pointed remarks. He warned 
 the Jury againll giving their fandion to conllruclive Treafons, and 
 repeated Dr. John fan's remark on the acquittal of Lord George 
 Gordon >c I hate Lord George Gordon, but I am glad he is ac- 
 quitted, becaufe I love my country, and love myfclf." He remarked 
 
 A a with
 
 With particular Severity on the attempt to implicate H^rdy in ^t 
 charge of providing arms, on no he tier evidence ban htxaufe 3 man 
 t Sheffield had -vrm^r. a letter to him, otferin- :o make pike.-, and 
 defiring him to forward aa th r letter of the fame icnour to Nor- 
 wich j although it clearly appeared that Hardy had never ;caid the 
 letter addreflxd tohi.alelf to any body, nor forwarded r] j iettt - to 
 J^orwichj and on the Hill more atrocious attempt to iuipiic*te him 
 in the oufinefs of W.iu a' Ed:nbu.^'a, from the mere circumftar.ee 
 of Watt's having written a letter on the fu'nje.it to Hardy, with 
 whom he had never correiponded before, and fro;n whom he had 
 teceived no anlwer to his letter, lffucne.ider.ee were to be tolerated, 
 the moil innecent, the moft meritorious man Jiving might be ftript 
 of his fortune, reputation, and li:\-, by any ruffian who chofe to 
 addrefs a treasonable letter to him. and get it conveyed into his 
 houfe. If the witneffes for u.e Crown, not fuies by profeffion, were 
 worthy c/f credit, then the p-ifoner w,is innocent it they were nor, 
 then the tefiimony of the fpies, admitted on Al hands to be infuffi- 
 eient ofitfclf, was left totally dcilitute or'fupport. One or other fide 
 of tho altrrrative mitft he taken. It was impoilible to fay that the 
 witr.e.its for the Crown were to he believed where their teftimony 
 made againft the Prifoner, and <iift<elieved where it made for him. 
 If tne u-iiiaiony of the Spies could be fupponed by other Witnelfes, 
 whcfe evidence would n>t prove at the fame time that the Prifoner 
 never harboured the treafonable intention imputed to him, why were 
 they not produced ?- For this real on only, that out of more than 
 4Qoco Hicmbers of thr feveral Societies, not one could be found. 
 Qn the character cf Spies, having no eloquence of his own, he 
 would avail himfelf ot the eloquence of a writer who had much 
 (Mr. Burke). 
 
 " A Mercenary Informer knows no oidinftion. Under fuch a 
 fyflem, the obnoxious people are ilaves, not only to the Govern- 
 ment, but they live at the mercy of every individual ; they are at 
 once the Haves of the whole community, and of every part of it ; 
 and the word and rnoit unaierciiui men are thofe on whofe goodnef? 
 they ir.oR depend. 
 
 " In this iituiuion men not only (Ijrink from the fro\yns of a fiern 
 Magistrate ; bat are obliged to fiy from their very I'pecies. The feeds 
 of dcitru^tiop are fown in civil interccurfe and in fbciai habitudes, 
 'Hie blood of wholcfome kindred is infefted. Their tables and 
 beds arefurrounded with fnates. Ail the means given by Providence 
 to nvike liiefafe and comfortable, are perverted into infcrumentsof 
 terror and tormenr. This fpecies of univerfal fnbfcrviency, that 
 rnak.es the very fervant who waits behind your cha.ir the arbiter of 
 
 .r life and fortune, has fuch a tendency to degrade and abafe man- 
 kind, and to deprive them of that affured ar.d Uhera! itate of mind, 
 which alone can make us what we ought 10 be, that I vow to 
 God I would feoner bring rr.yfrlf to put a man to immediate 
 for opinions I tiiflikedj and loto get rid cf the men and his 
 
 opinior.s
 
 c % i 
 
 opinions at once, than to fret him with a feverifh being, tainted 
 with the jail-dittemper of a contagious fervhude, to keep him 
 above ground, an animated mafs of putrefaction, corrupted him- 
 felf, and corrupting all about him." 
 
 My whole argument, therefore, fnys Mr. Erficine, afTertr, no more 
 than this, Th.u before the crime of cojupafling the King's death 
 can be found by you, the Jnry, whofe province it is to judge of" 
 its txiftence U muft be believed ly yoti to hate exifted in point 
 of fart. 
 
 Before you can adjudge a FACT, you tnuft believe it Not fuf- 
 pecl it, cr iaiagine it, or fancy it BUT BELIEVE IT and it is 
 impofiible to imprefs the human mind u-J.h fuch a reafouaiile and 
 certain belief, as ii neceflary to be imprefled, before a chriitian 
 man can a'jttdge his neighbour to the finalleft penalty, much 
 lefs to pains of death, without hav'n^ fuch evidence as a reafon- 
 able mind will accept of, as the infalli'"!-- telt of truth. And what 
 is ihat evidence ? Neither more or lefs than that which the con- 
 ftitution has eitablifhed in the Courts for the general admiflion of 
 juftice, namely, that the evidence convinces the Jury beyond all 
 reafonahle doubr, that the cri.ninal intention conlHtuting the crime 
 exifted in the mind of the man upon trial, and was the main, fpring 
 of his conduct. The Rules of Evidence, as they are fettled by law, 
 and adopted in its general adminiftration, are not to be over-ruled, 
 or tampered with. They are founded in the chari;ies of Religion 
 in the philofophy of Nature in the truths of Hiftury, and in the 
 experience of common life. And whoever ventures rafhly to depart 
 from them, let him rememVer that it will be meted to him in 
 the fame meafure, and both God and man will judge him ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 Gentlemen, thefe are arguments addrefled to your reafons and 
 confciences, not to be (haken in upright minds by way of pre- 
 cedent, for no precedents can fanftify injuftice; If they could, 
 every human rilit would long ago have been extinft upon the 
 earth. 
 
 If the State Trials, in a bad hour, are to be fearched for pre- 
 cedents, what murders may you not commit; what law of hu- 
 manity may you not trample upon ; what rule of juiticc may you 
 not violate ; and what maxim of wife policy may you not abro- 
 gate and confound ? 
 
 If precedents in bad times are to be implicitly followed, why 
 fhould we have heard any evidence at all ? you might have con- 
 vicled without any evidence, for maay have been fo convicted in 
 this manner, murdered even by Acls of Parliament. 
 
 If precedents, in bad times, are to be followed, why (bould 
 the Lords and Commons have inveiligated thefe charges, &c, 
 and the Crown have put them into this courfe of judicial trial, 
 fmce without fuch a trial, and even after an acquittal uprh ene 
 thfy might have attainted *!1 their Prifccers by Aft of Psrlia! 
 
 A a. z rbent
 
 L 'SB ] 
 
 roent ? They did fo in the cafe rjf Lord Strafford. There are pre- 
 cedents, therefore, for all fuch things; But fiuh precedents as could 
 not for a moment furvive the time;, of madnefs and dirtraclion which 
 t?avc them birth, and which, as foon as the fpurs of the oecafions. 
 were blunted, were repealed and execrated even by Parliaments; 
 which, little as I may think of the prefent, are not to be compared 
 with it. Parliaments fitting in the darknefs of former limes in the 
 Night of Freedom, before the principles of Government were de- 
 veloped, and before the Confutation became fixed. 
 
 The laft of thefe precedents, as I before ftated to you, and all 
 the proceedings upon it,' were ordered to be taken off the file and 
 burnt, to the intent that the fame might no longer be vifible in after 
 ages ; an order, dictated no doubt by a pious tendernefs for Na- 
 tional honour, and meant as a charitable covering for the crimes 
 of our Fathers : But it was a fin againft pofterity, it was a Trea- 
 fon againft Society for inftead of commanding them to be burnt, 
 they mould rather have directed them to be blazoned in large 
 letters upoa the walls of our Courts of Juftice, that like the cha- 
 racters decyphered by the Prophet of God to the Eaftern tyrant, 
 they might enlarge and blacken in your fights, to terrify you from 
 acts of injustice. 
 
 In times when the whole habitable earth is in a ftate of change and 
 fluctuation, when deferts areftartingup into civilized Empires around 
 you, and when men, no longer flaves to the prejudices of particular 
 countries, much lefs to the abufes of particular Governments, enlift 
 themiejves like the citizens of an enlightened world into whatever 
 communities (hall beft protcl their civil liberties, it never ean be 
 for the advantage of this country to prove that the drift unextended 
 letter of our law is no certain fecurity to its inhabitants. On the 
 contrary, when fo dangerous a lure is held out to emigration, it 
 will be found to be the wifett policy of Great Britain to let up her 
 happy Conftituiion, the ftrict letter of her guardian laws, and the 
 proud condition of equal freedom, which her higheft and loweft fub- 
 jects ought equally to eHjoy. It will be her wifeft policy to fet up 
 thefe firft. of human bleffings againft thofe charms of change and no- 
 velty which the varying condition of the world is hourly holding out, 
 and which may deeply affect the population and prosperity of our 
 country. In times when the fubordination to authority is laid to be 
 every where but too little felt, it would be found to be the wifeft 
 policy of Great Britain to inftil into the governed an almoft fuper- 
 iliticus reverence for the ftrict fecurity of the laws, which from their 
 equal adminillration can feldom work injultice, and which, from 
 the reverence growing out of their mildnefs and amiquity> acquire a 
 ftability in the habits and affections of men far beyond the force of 
 civil obligation; whereas fevere penalties and arbitrary conftruction 
 of laws intended for eafe and protection, lay the foundations of 
 alienation from Government, which, at all times is dangerous, but 
 at this time is certain and fudden ruin. Cultivate the old maxinj of 
 
 the
 
 the Church, fnrjum co>-Ja ; look to the hearts of all your fubjecls, 
 and do not entertain fo flupid an imagination as that in days like 
 thefe, a country can be preferred by corrupting one half of the Peo- 
 ple 10 defame, bully, and perfecute the oilier. At a time when 
 England may be put to great difficulties to fupport herfclf, even when 
 the whole nation draws together with one heart and accord, is it 
 wife at fuch a time to fet up Lawyers to tell us that every man who 
 fees and feels, and is determined to aflift in removing the corruptions 
 which are the parents of thefe calamities, are traitors to the Sove- 
 reign, and plotters of his death? Gentlemen, if this doctrine is 
 eftribjiflicd by your verdict, you do not leave your Sovereign, the 
 King, on half his fubjeJls; and although you may, in the ordinary 
 oouife of things, keep the pence in England upon thefe principles, 
 by armed aiibciations, and the terrors of legal tribunals, yet, if ever 
 the independence of the Nation were ailaiied by foreign force, in 
 one hour would defolation come upon you. Look to the fruit of 
 thefe miferable factions and divifions in Brabant! If the late Empe- 
 ipr Jofeph had given to his fubjeih fully, and at once, the Joyeuft 
 Entree, their ancient Conflitution, derived from the good Duke of 
 Burgundy, to obtain which, I remember the fame movements as in 
 this country for the Reform of Parliament, they would I know 
 what I fay it is not what I have heard or read of I have feen the 
 procefs of the thing of which I am fpeaking they would have rilen 
 in a mafs to maintain their own liberties, and their Prince's throne, 
 thus interwoven together; and ihe French, like the Giants of An- 
 tiquity (and they are indeed the Giants of modern times), when 
 they attempted Heaven, would have been rolled and trampled in the 
 mire of their ambition. But inflead of this conceflion in due time, 
 the Pruffian army marched into Brabant, and all was peace but U 
 was fuch a peace as there is in Vefuvius or /Etna before they vsmit 
 forth their lava, and roll their conflagrations over the devoted habi- 
 tations of men! When the French approached, ihe fatal effefts were 
 feen of a Government of constraint and terror; the well-affecled were 
 dif-fpirited, and the irritated were inflamed into fury. At that mo- 
 ment the Archduchefs fled from EruUeh. and the Duke of Saxe 
 Tefchcn was fent to offer them the Jsytuje /;/>. But the feafoa 
 of conceiTion was part away; and the Throne of Brabant has departed 
 from the Houfe of Auftria I fear, for ever! In the fame way, a far 
 more important and fplendid Throne departed from his Majefty's 
 illufhious Houfe. I will not give you my oun words; 1 wiil again 
 refer to the almolt divine and immortal oration of Mr. Uurke: 
 
 ' For that fc'rvice, for all fcrvice, whether of revenue, trade, or 
 empire, my trnft is in her intereft in the Britifh Conftifution. My 
 hold of the Colonies is in the clofe aJFeftion wiiu:h grow> fron 
 mon names, from Jcindred blood, from fimilar privileges, arid equal 
 protection. As long as you have the wiidom to keep the Ibvcreign 
 authority of this country as the fandluary of Liberty, the facred tem- 
 ple conlecrated to our common fai;h, wherever the chofen lace and 
 
 fons
 
 forts of Ehglanci worfhip Freedom, they will turn their faces rewards 
 ?ou. The more ardently they love Liberty, the more pcifeft will 
 be t^eir obedience. Slavery they can have any where. It is a weed 
 tha^ grows in every foil. They may have it from Spain ; they may 
 have it from Fruflia: but, until you become loft to all feeling of your 
 true iriterellind your national dignity, Freedom they can have from 
 none but you. It is the fpirit of theEnglilh Conflitution which per- 
 vades, fleds, uhiies, invigorates, vivifies every part of the Empire, 
 even down to 'he minutell Member. Js it not the fame virtue which 
 Joes every thing for us here in England ? Do you imagine that it is 
 tile Land-tax Act which raifes vonr Revenue; that it is the annual 
 vote in the Committee of Supply which gives you your Army? or 
 that it is the Mutiny Bill which infpires it with bravery and difci- 
 pline? No! fureiy no! It is the love of the People it is their at- 
 tachment to fheir Government, from the fenfe of ihe deep (lake they 
 have in fuch a glorious inftitution, which gives you your army and 
 your navy, and infufes into both that liberal obedience, without which 
 your army would be a bale rabble, and yoar'navy nothing but rotten 
 timber." Such was the language of that fublime writer, whofe 
 opinions, if they had been followed, would have done more than 
 ntvgd you America; it would have faved you the affections and the 
 jklmiranon of mankind. Inftead of this you were mad to perfevere 
 in that :iortib!e contelt, to procure the means of extending that 
 corruption at home, over (hofe whom Mr. Tooke is reprefented 
 to have called the Skip Jack Nobility, and in fo doing you loft 
 the Colonies for ever. 
 
 My wiih and my recommendation is hot to conjure up a fpirit 
 among us to deftroy ourfelves, by bringing on the tyranny of a 
 French tribunal, where an accufation is enough to bring its ob- 
 jtct. to the guillotine. Let us keep to the old and venerable rules 
 and laws of our forefathers; and let a Jury of the country feel 
 ihe duty they owe ihe public, to themfelves, to potlericy, and 
 fo God, to prefcrve by law the life cf a man who only afks it 
 of them on the terms they would, in their turn, a(k their own. 
 I flvill now conclude with a fervent wiih and a fond hope, that 
 it may picafe God, who guides the world, moulds governments 
 at his will, and who governs us all in jultice and in mercy; from 
 whole care and bounty has arifen the profperity and glory of this 
 happy Ifland, to enlighten and direct your minds! To your care 
 I now commit my client, without fear, being confident that you 
 will do him juftice. 
 
 WITNESSES CALLED IN DEFFNCE. 
 
 The Court and jury retumed into Court at nine, and, after being 
 called over, Mr. Erfkine called 
 
 LORIMOND GODDARD. 
 
 Q^. Are you a Member of the Correfponding Society ? A. Yes, 
 I entered into it about two years fince, and withdrew n>y name after 
 Mf. Mardv was apprehended. 
 
 Q.. Did
 
 Q^ Did you frequent the fame Divifion? -A.. Yes, frequently. 
 
 Q^ What was his cor.duft ? A. The moft orderly and peaceable, 
 He even requeued tha: no perfon \vould bring a flick, lell it might 
 be conftrucd into an offenfue weapon. 
 
 Q^ What was his objecl, 23 it appeared to you ? A. A Parliamen- 
 tary Reform in the Houfe cf Common*. 
 
 <^ Did it appear to you that he wiihed to dethrone the King?: 
 A. Certainly nor. 
 
 Q. IVi you ever hear him argue that the Hcufe of Peers was 4 
 lifelefs body, and ought to he aholifhed? A. No. His difcourfe, 
 when he did fpesk, (which was fcl.lom) was confined entirely to the 
 rnear.i of reforming the Houfe of Commons. 
 
 Qj What was his general cha rafter? A. So far asl know or have 
 heard, perfectly harrnlefs and honcih 
 
 Crofs-exarrined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
 
 0. You fay thit you have frequently converged with him on polj. 
 tical fa bj eels? \. Yes ; and, as I faid before, I thought his fenti- 
 menrs '-ere 'lii^.'y uicndly to r!ie principles of the Conftitution. 
 
 Q. VVa-, y.ju at the meeiing at the Globe ? A. \es. 
 
 Q^ Did you fee the Rciclutrons entered into ? A. Yes, (thepapff 
 fhewn) and thp wicnefs b<i^ved IL was corject. 
 
 Q. Was you at the great meeting at the Crown and Anchor? 
 A. i e$. 
 
 Q^. Did you not hear feveral fongs at thefe meetings? A. Yes. 
 I have hezrd many fongs after dinner, but I do not lecolleft t'r.e 
 content;.. 
 
 Q._ Perhaps I may refrefh your memory. Was there no: one fur.g 
 which began with the following words: 
 
 " Plant, plant the tree, 
 
 " Fair Freedom's tree, 
 
 " 'Midlt blood and wounds and {laughter." 
 
 A. No. I do not recolleft any fuch words being fung ; anJ if 
 they were, you feern to be much better acquainted wjth rhe fong than 
 I am. (A laugh.) 
 
 COURT. This levity is highly reprehenfiMe, and, indeed, cri- 
 minal. It is offending the dignity and foiemnity of the Cm r 
 Officers, if you fee any perfon guilty of fuch grofs indecency, I di- 
 rect you. tu take hi;n into cu,f\ody immediately. The Crier calies} 
 filence. 
 
 Q. Wa; you at the meeting at Chalk Farm? A. I was, and; every 
 thing was peaceably conducted. 
 
 Q^ What was the intention of that meeting r A. I underfloqd, i\ 
 was to eleft frefh Delegates ; but the meeting was difperfed. 
 
 Q. Do you not know that a circular letter was i'ent by the pri- 
 foner into Scotland, and feverJ parts of England, containing in- 

 
 ["iga ] 
 
 ftrucYions for aflembling a Convention at Edinburgh? A. I have 
 heard, but I never faw thofe inftrutfHons. 
 
 Q^ Do you know the faft ? A. I know that Margaret and Ge- 
 rald were deputed to be the Delegates from the Correfponding Soci- 
 ety to the Convention, and therefore I cannot doubt the fad. 
 
 'Q. Do you know Mr. Ttfelwall ? A. Yes. 
 
 Q^ Then you have feen feveral of his Conftitutional fongs ? 
 - A. 1 have had feveral cf them in my pofleffion, but I cannot recol* 
 left the particular words of either of them. 
 
 Q Did Mr. Hardy vifit Margarot whilft on board the tranfport 
 fliip ? A. I have heard that he did, but it was after the vifit had 
 taken place. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. GIBBS. 
 
 Q. You pefitively fwear that during all your communication with 
 the prifonef, you never heard or underftood that his views extended 
 beyond a Reform in the Commons Houfe of Parliament ? 'A. I do 
 pod tively fwear fo. 
 
 Q^ What was that Reform? A. I always underftood it to be ac- 
 cording to the plan laid down by the Duke of Richmond annual 
 elections and univerfal fuffrage. 
 
 Francis Dowling, of New-ftreet, Covent-Gardcn, examined by 
 Mr. GIBBS. 
 
 Q-_ What are you ? A. I am a trufs-maker. 
 
 Q^ Was you a Member of the Society in queftion ? A. I was 
 amongft the earlieft Members, and belonged to Divifion, No. 2. 
 
 Q. You know Mr. Hardy,, and what were his public principles ? * 
 A. As far as I could learn, fimply to effeft a Reform in the Repre- 
 fentation in the Houfe of Commons. 
 
 Q. Did he wifh to effeft this Reform by open force, or by over- 
 awing the Parliament ? A: By no means; his views, as far as I 
 could learn, were to obtain the fenfe of the whole nation by means 
 of a Convention, and if it fhould be found to be in favour ot the 
 meafure. then to apply by petition to the three branches of the Le- 
 giflature. 
 
 Q^ Did it appear to you that he intended to abridge the King of 
 his authority r A. I never heard the moft dillant hint of fuch an 
 intention. 
 
 Q^ Or to abolifh the Houfe of Lords ? A. No, never. 
 
 Q^ Dt you know what character hebear;-? A. i have always 
 heard that he was a peaceable and orderly man, and rather inclined 
 to a religious turn of mind. 
 
 Crols-examined by the ATTORKEY-GENERAL. 
 
 With refped to the Meetings and Refolutions at the Globe Ta- 
 vern, Chalk Farm, &c. his anfwers were very ftmijar to thofe given 
 by the laft witnefs, and therefore need no repetition. 
 
 Q^ Do you know Frankiow, of Lambeth Walk ? A. I do. 
 
 Q^ Was not a Club' formed at his hotife, called the Loyal Lxm- 
 beth Aflbciation ? A. I have heard there was. 
 
 ave
 
 C 193 ] 
 
 Q. Have you heard the members of" this cjubexercifed th/jm- 
 fclves with mufquets I 
 ' A. I have heard fo, but I do not know the fact. 
 
 Q. Have you ever feen a letter from Sheffield, ordering pikes 
 to be made ? 
 A I never did. 
 
 Q. Why, did you not know Edwards, one of the delegates, 
 and Hilliard r 
 
 A. Yes, but I never faw them have any pikes. 
 CX Was you at Robins's cofFee-houfe when Mr. Yorke took 
 his leave ? 
 A. I was not. 
 Q. Have you feen a hand-bill like this, beginning, "Speedily 
 
 >vill be performed a Farce, or, G 's Head in a Bafket ?" 
 
 (the hand-bill .hewn). 
 
 A. No, I never faw or heard of fuch a hand-bill until this 
 time. 
 
 Q. Or this hand-bill r (the bill fhewn) " The Inns tell ns 
 we are in danger from an invafion 'of the French. The Outs 
 tell us that we are in danger from the Heffians and Hanoverians. 
 In either cafe, we fhould arm ourfelves ; get armsfand learn how 
 to ufe them," 
 A. I never faw this bill. 
 
 Q. Have you not heard that a bill-flicker was employed to 
 flick bills in the night r 
 
 A. I have heard that a perfon was to be paid for that ptirpofe. 
 Q. You admit you were at Chalk Farm, do you know what 
 were the refolutions entered into at that meeting? 
 A. I do not recolledt. 
 CK Did you vote for them ? 
 A. Ye?, 1 did. 
 
 Q^ What did you vote for refolutions which you did not un- 
 derltand or hear r 
 
 A. I voted for them on account of the good opinion I enter- 
 tained of the perfons who drew them up and propofed them. 
 Q_ Who were thofe perfo; x 
 
 A. I underftood Martin, Thelwall, and Lovett. 
 Q.^ Did you fee a paper purporting to recommend that no 
 more petitions fhould be prefcntfd, as it would be ufelefs ? 
 A. No, I never faw fuch a paper. 
 
 <^X Alexander Wills examined by Mr. Erfkine. This witnefs 
 was a member of the Correfponding Society, and likewife of the 
 Conft'mitional Society. He gave a fimilar teftimony with the 
 other witnefles of the views and drift of the prifoner Hardy and 
 the other members of the fociety, that a parliamentary reform in 
 the Houfe of Commons was their fole objedl ; that at fuch of 
 
 B b their
 
 [ 194 ] 
 
 'their meetings as he had attended, he never heard any thing de- 
 rogatory to the King, but on the co'ntrary, the utmoft refpefi 
 and honour; that it was never intended to overawe parliament, 
 but to obtain a reform through the King and Parliament. . 
 
 CX What chara&er does the prifoner bear ? 
 
 A. I always underftood his chara&er was without reproach*. 
 
 Grofs-examined by Mr. Bower. 
 
 Q^ What are you ? 
 
 A. A dancing-mafler. 
 
 CX What impelled you to become a member f 
 
 A. I heard there was fome clever perfons belonging to it, and- 
 not having the hoaour of hearing the debates in the Houfe of 
 Commons, I thought I fhould hear fome good fpeeches. 
 
 Mr. Bower, questioned him refpeUng the Chalk Farm bufi- 
 nefs, the refolutions, hand-bills, &c. all of which he was un- 
 acquainted with. 
 
 Q. Do you know any thing about hand-bills r 
 
 A. I recollect that a fubfcription was made for a bill-fticker 
 who was imprifoned. 
 
 CK What was his name ? 
 
 A. I think it was Carter. 
 
 William Sabine, a member of the fociety, was next called. 
 This witnefs gave the fame account ol the principles of the Cor- 
 refponciing Society which all the other witnetfes did. 
 
 Q. Did you ever fee the' prifoner produce a letter from Shef- 
 field at any of the meetings, purporting to be an anfwer from 
 that town refpeting any orders for the rnanufa&ory of pikes ? 
 
 A. No; the prifoner never produced fuch a letter to me, or 
 to any other perfon in my prefence. 
 
 Q. How long have you known Mr. Hardy, and what is his 
 character ? 
 
 A. I have known him twenty years ; I never heard any other- 
 wife than that he was an orderly, qniot, peaceable man, a good 
 friend and a good neighbour, for any tiling I ever heard. 
 
 Q. Is that his general character ? 
 
 A. 1 always u nderitood it was fo. 
 
 Mr. Law crofs-examined the evidence. 
 
 Q. What are you ? 
 
 A. An independent man ; I employ my property fometimes 
 in the Stocks, fometimes in purchafmg lands, &c. as it beft fuits 
 me. A relative, named Hunter, introduced me into the fociety. 
 
 Q^ Was you at the meeting the 2d of May, when Mr. Whar- 
 ton was in the chair ? 
 
 A. No. I never attended any mjeting of the Conftitutional 
 Society. 
 
 Q., Was
 
 [ 195 ] 
 
 Q^ Was you at the anniverfary dinner at the Globe Tavern ? 
 
 A. Yes, I was. 
 
 Qi Was you at the meeting at Chalk Farm ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q^ Then you are acquainted with the refolutions entered into 
 at thofe meetings ? 
 
 A. I am not. I heard them read, but I did not attend to 
 them. 
 
 Q. Why ? 
 
 A. I have an habitual inattentivenefs about me, and always 
 had. 
 
 Q^ Where did you go after the meeting at Chalk Farm ? 
 
 A. I went with Mr. Lovett, the Chairman, and other mem- 
 bers, to No. 3, in Compton-ftreet, Soho, where we all flipped. 
 
 Q. Have you cverfeeu the prifoner produce a letter from Shef- 
 field, refpecting pikes ? 
 
 A. No, I never have. 
 
 Q^ Did you hear any fongs fungat any of the dinners ? 
 
 A. Yes, feveral. 
 
 Q^ Of what tendency were they ; were they feditious ? 
 
 A. I do not recollect any thing about them. 
 
 Q^ You ftateyourfelfto be a man of property ; pray was you 
 ever inbufinefs? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What was it ? 
 
 A. I cannot now exactly recollect. 
 
 Q. Try. Upon the queftion bejng repeatedly put, the pri- 
 foner faid he was a perfumer and hair-dreiFer, about twelve years 
 ago. 
 
 Alexander Frafer, examined by Mr. Gibbs. 
 
 Q. Whatareyou, Sir? 
 
 A. A taylor. I became a member of the Correfponding So* 
 ciety in April 1793. 
 
 Q^ While you was a member, what were the views of the 
 fociety ? 
 
 A. Qur only object, at lead as it appeared to me, was to ob- 
 tain a Reform in the Houfe of Commons, by a full and fair re- 
 prefcntation of the people of Great Britain in that Houfe. 
 
 Q. Did you at any time collect from the members that they 
 entertained a project to effect a Reform by force of arms ? 
 
 A. No, by no means whatever. 
 
 Q. How long have you known the prifoner; and what is his 
 character ? 
 
 A. J have known him many years, and I neither know nor 
 ever heard but that his character was unblemished, both as a 
 tradefman and a moral man. 
 
 Bb 2 Here
 
 Here were a few crofs queftions put, of no importance. 
 
 Thus far the evidence went to eftablim the views of the So- 
 ciety, and to wipe away any impreflion which might have been 
 made on the charge of any defign to attack the King or Confti- 
 tution. 
 
 The next head confided of evidence to the priforicr's chara&er. 
 
 William Barkky. 
 
 Q. What are you ? 
 
 A. I am a (hoemaker. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prifoner at the bar, and what is his 
 character ? 
 
 A. I have known him thirty years. He lived as forman with 
 me feven years ; he has quitted me about three years. He was 
 a faithful fervant, and, as a man, I know hmi to be peaceable, 
 quiet, and orderly. 
 
 Q^ Are you a member? 
 
 A. No, I was never admitted into any political fociety. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Oliver, a DifTenting Minifter. I hav 
 known Mr. Hardy three or four years, during ^which time I 
 have been intimate with him. 
 
 Q. Did you ever hear him fpeak about the focieties to effect a 
 parliamentary reform ? A. I have feveral times heard him fay, 
 when the fociety has been the topic of difcourfe, that their ob- 
 jedl was to obtain a reform in a peaceable and legal way, upon 
 <he plan laid do^n by the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt in 
 the year 1782. *1 have feei the prifoner in his own houfefince 
 the report of the committee was made to the Houfe of Com- 
 mons. 
 
 Lord .Prefident. I defire the witnefs will recolled-l himfelf. 
 " I beg your lordmip's pardon, I feel-myfelf in an error, but I 
 allure his lordfhip that it was not an intentional error." 
 
 Lord Prefident. I apprehend not. Goon. I believe it was 
 in May or June when I faw him laft ; and he then in a ronver- 
 fation avowed the fame views and principles, from which he had 
 at no time varied in the ccuvfe of many other converfations. 
 
 Q. Are you a member of the CorreTponding or the ConfHtu- 
 tional Society ? 
 
 A. No, I have divine fervice to perform, and four fcrmons 
 to deliver every Lord's day ; I therefore cannot dedicate any 
 time to ftudy politics. 
 
 CK What is the character of the prifoner ? 
 
 A. I really and confcientioufly believe that he is a man who 
 fears God, honours the King, loves his fellow- creatures. 
 
 Danniel Steward, fccretary to the committee of the Friends 
 of the People, examined bv Mr. Gibbs. 
 
 Q. Do
 
 CX Do you know the prifoner, Hardy ? 
 
 A. Yes. I have feen him feveral years fince, but never con- 
 verfed with him until December 1792, which, was in confe- 
 quence of a letter fent by him to the fociety of the Friends of 
 the People, to which I wrote an anfvver, under the directions of 
 the committee, and carried it to the pcifoner's houfe. From 
 that time there arofe an intimacy, and I ufed to call upon him 
 three or four timss in a week, and fcarceiy ever lefs than twice. 
 
 Q.. What was your converfation refpeiting a reform r 
 
 A. Whenever we converfed, the prifoner always faid, that the 
 object was folely to reform the reprefentation in the Houfe ot 
 Commons. For that purpofe he continued to inform the people 
 at large of the bad (late of repre fen ration, under the hopes of 
 obtaining their fignatures to petitions which were to be prefented 
 to each branch of the legiflature, in order to obtain redrefs. 
 
 Q; Did you ever hear him fay that it was his intention, or 
 that of any other perfon, to obtain this reform by force ? 
 
 A. Never ; and from the implicit confidence he placed in me, 
 I think it is hardly poifible but I muil have known it, if fuch 
 had really been the cafe. 
 
 Q. Did you agree to the fame plan with the prifoner ? 
 
 A. No, we differed widely in our opinion, not on the neceffity 
 of bringing the meafure about, but on the mode of effecting it. 
 Hardy infilled that the Duke of Richmond's plan was the belt, 
 and that any thing fliort of that would be of no avail, as it would 
 not be a radical cure for the corruption which had, from time to 
 time, crept into the reprefentation of the people; whereas, my 
 opinion was contrary, as I thought that universal fufFrage would 
 be too extenfive, and that an annual election was too (hurt a pe- 
 riod. I rather inclined to the Conllitution eftablimed at the Re- 
 volution in 1788, with an extenfion to all taxable people who 
 bore the burthens of the ftate. 
 
 Q; What is his churader ? 
 
 A. A harmlefs peaceable man, of fober converfation, amiable 
 manners, and good morals. 
 
 John Carr, a very refpe<Elablc fchoolmafter. I have knowij 
 the prifoner twenty years ; he has always been a man of a re- 
 markably peaceable difpofition, and of the bell character. 
 
 Three other witneifes gave the fame kind 01 teftimony. 
 
 John Stevenfon, a coal- merchant. I have known him nine 
 years; he was always peaceable, and as a moral man I do not 
 know his fuperior. 
 
 Peter Macbean, a ftioemaker. I have known the prifoner 
 feventeen years, and he has always bore an amiable character, 
 fcoth civil and religious. 
 
 Crofc
 
 C '9* 3 
 
 Crofs-examined by Mr. Garrow: 
 
 Q. Are you a member of the Correfponding Society ? 
 
 A. Yes, and was a member at it's firft institution. I conti- 
 nued to be a member for two years, and ufed to attend the Di- 
 vifion No. 8. 
 
 Q. Did you not fubfcribe for Mr. Paine's works ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q^ Did the Divifion which you belonged to enter into a fub- 
 fcription for thofe works ? 
 
 A. Not that I know of. 
 
 Q. Recoiled. Did you never hear fo ? 
 
 A. No, 1 cannot charge my memory with any fuch circum- 
 ftance. 
 
 Q. You fay that you, was one of the firft members ; where was 
 it then held r 
 
 A, In Exeter Street. 
 
 Q^ How many members had you, and who was in the chair? 
 
 A. Margarot was in the chair at the meeting which I attend- 
 ed ; and I believe there were thirty or forty members prefent. 
 
 Q. Who drew up the original laws of the fociety ? 
 
 A. I am not certain whether it was Mr. Margarot, or whether 
 they were fettled in a committee. 
 
 Alexander Gordon, a cordwainer, I have known the prifoner 
 twenty yeais, during which time he has borne an excellent charac- 
 ter fur peaceable behaviour, honefty and induftry. 
 
 John Boak, cabinet-maker. pi have known him ten years. He 
 w iu>, during that time, a peaceable ; cjuiet honeft man. ' 
 
 Croft examined by Mr. Bozaer. 
 
 Q. Was you a member of the fociety ? 
 
 A. Yes; but I have quitted two years. 
 
 Matthew Dickey I have known the prifoner five years, and 
 have always underdood him to bear an excellent character, parti- 
 cularly peaceably and orderly. 
 
 Mr. Gibbs My Lord, we have not gone through half of the 
 evidence for the prifoner ; and as my learned friend, Mr. Erfldne^ 
 has by his great exertions indured fuch faiigue, I trufl the Court 
 will indulge us with an adjournment. 
 
 Lord Prefident. The Court is very defirous to make^ll the pro- 
 grefs poflible. This feems to be a duty both with refpecl to the 
 Jury and the prifoner. I therefore hoped and expected that the 
 evidence to character might have been finilhed to night, that the 
 Attorney General might reply on Monday. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. If your Lordfhip fhould direct that we fhall pro- 
 r"ed, I apprehend that we (ball enter into evidence which may be 
 c'jefted to. In that cafe, in my prefent exhaufted ftate, I cannot 
 poflibly take that active part which may be neceffary to fupport th* 
 vidence which I mean to bring forward. I therefore rely upon 
 
 the
 
 L 99 3 
 
 the candour of the Attorney General, and the indulgence of the 
 Court to adjourn. 
 
 Sir John Scott gave his aflTent. 
 
 The Court at one o'clock yefterday morning adjourned to this, 
 morning at feven. 
 
 After the adjournment, a miftaken perfon, ran down to the gate, 
 and called out, " An acquittal, an acquittal," upon which a nume- 
 rous aflemblage of people, affcmbled in the Old Bailey, burft into a 
 loud huzza ! 
 
 The court was ftruck very much ; the avenues were cleared, and 
 the people were quickly undeceived. In about three minutes, a^ 
 ftill louder huzza was repeated, feveral times. The (henffs were 
 direcied to enquire into the caufe, and upon their return reported 
 that Mr. Erflune had that moment entered into his carriage, arid 
 the populace had welcomed him with their gratulations. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Grey were likewife applauded. The 
 populace proceeded to take out the horfes from Mr. Erfkine's car- 
 riage. He remonftrated with and earneftly defired them to defilt, 
 but in vain, for they effefted their purpofe, and drew him in his 
 carriage to Serjeant's- Inn, with continued fliouls of triumph. 
 When he alighted, he addrefled the great body of people, defiring 
 them to be peaceable, and to return to their homes; not doubting 
 but the laws of their country would proteft innocence, and difpcnfe 
 equal juftice to every man. The populace gave him three cheers, 
 and departed quietly. 
 
 Monday, November 3. 
 
 The Court fat at half paft eight in the morning, and proceeded 
 on the evidence for thj ptifoner. 
 
 Mr. Erlkine ftated, thdt he meant to call a witnefs to prove, 
 that a letter, which had been given in evidence on t,he part of the 
 profecution, written by one Davidfon, who had refided iit Shef-- 
 ncld, to the Secretary of the iMorwich Patriotic Societies, and en- 
 clofed in another which was lent to Hardy, was found in Hardy's 
 pofTellion, unopened, at the time he was taken in cudody. 
 
 That luch was Accordingly proved ; and Chief Juftice Eyre ob- 
 feived, that Hardy had no right to open the letter that was en- 
 clofed for the Secretary at Norwich ; but \\ hat-conflitutcd the 
 weight of the proof in favour of Hardy was, that he had not lent 
 that letter to Norwich. 
 
 David Martin (aid, he was an engraver, and lived at Sheffield. 
 He had refided there about twelve years, and cajried on trade, 
 lie had become a member of the Sheffield Society within three 
 months of it'.s commencement, and h?.d continued to be a mem- 
 ber till the time that Carnage and others had been taken up by Go- 
 "vernment. He faid, his ohjeci was to obtain a reform in the Co-u- 
 nions Houfe of Parliament, by legal and conilitutional means ; and 
 
 fro.u
 
 200 J 
 
 from all that he obferved, heard, and faw, in the courfe of his' 
 attendance on that fociety, he had no reafon to fuppofe their views 
 were different from his. He had not the moft diftant idea that the 
 fociefy meant to attack the Government by an armed force. He 
 \vas a member at the time that they fent a delegate to the Conven- 
 tion that affembled in Edinburgh. The objecl of the Sheffield fo- 
 ciety. in fending their delegate was, in order to co-operate with 
 the other delegates from the different Societies, to produce the end 
 he had already mentioned, namely, a Reform in Parliament. Af- 
 ter the petition, figned by a few individuals, for a Parliamentary 
 Reform, which had been prefented by Mr. Grey, had been re- 
 jcfted. they thought the general fentiments of the people, as far 
 as they could be collected, wou!d make an impreflion on the 
 llouTe, and induce them in their juflice to grant the prayer of the 
 petition. If he had imagined that thofe gentlemen, who had been 
 delegated from different focieties, had been to conftitute a Conven- 
 tion at Edinburgh, for the purpofe of devifmg the meamby which 
 the Parliament fhould be forced to grant a parliamentary Reform, 
 he fhould not have continued a member of the foci' fy. He did 
 not think it was the intention of the fociety to affect the King in 
 his perfon, his ftate, rule, or government, in this kingdom. There 
 was no intention to touch the Houfe of Lords. He was at Caflle- 
 hill wharf Mr. Yorke made a fpeech there. 
 
 On his crofs-examination, he faid, the perfons who principally 
 managed the bulinefs of the fnciety, where a committee. He knew 
 a perfon of the name of Gales. He faid, he (the witnefs) was an 
 affociated member of the London Conftilutional Society, in March 
 1 792. He knew the proceedings of the Britifh Convention, which 
 was held at Edinburgh, as they appeared in the Gazetteer. He 
 did not altogether approve of the proceedings of the Convention, 
 particularly that part relating to a fecret committee. They had no 
 fecret Committee at Sheffield. He did not hear that a refolution 
 had been voted at CafUe-hill, not to petition the Houfe of Com- 
 mons. There was a great number of people aflembled there, and 
 he flood at the outfide of them; and did not hear it; but, if he had 
 heard it, he might perhaps have approved of it. He knew Mr. 
 Yorke. He believed he was not a Sheffield man, but he did not 
 know what brought him to Sheffield. He had frequently heard 
 him, both in public and in private, though he could not fay he was 
 very intimate with him, or that he entertained exaftly the fame 
 opinions on Parliamentary Reform. He could not recolleft the 
 fpecific differences between him and Mr. Yorke. He faid, he did 
 not know who was the editor of the Patriot, though he had heard 
 that it was Mr. Campbell Brown, their delegate to the" Scottifh 
 Convention. He thought Mr. Brown was a peaceable, well-dif- 
 pofed man. Letters had occafionallv paffed between their Society 
 and the Society of Stockport, and he believed they were affociated 
 for the fame peaceable purpoies with themfelves. He knew that a 
 motion wa> made on Caflle-hill, to addrefs the Houfe of Com- 
 mons ;
 
 t *6i I 
 
 ftmns '; but he did not know it was made, by contrivance, td be 
 negatived. 
 
 On re-examination, he faid, that whatever Mr. Campbell might 
 do, while he attended the Bntifh Convention at Edinburgh, the 
 fociety gave him no power to aft but by legal and conftitutional 
 means. He for one would not have confented to fend him to 
 Edinburgh, if he bad conceived that he would have tranfgreffed 
 the bounds of the law. The proceedings at Caflle-hill, and Mr. 
 Yorke's fpeech were pyblifhed, and the witnefs faid he had lead 
 the fpeech after it was pubiifhed. 
 
 Edward Oakes Examined. 
 
 He had been a member of the Coi refponding Society of Sheffield, 
 fmce the year 1791. Their objeft was Parliamentary Reform by 
 peaceable means, and no other; and it was with this view that they 
 lent delegates to Scotland. They had no defign whatever againft the 
 King, or the government of the Country. They had no idea of at- 
 tacking it, and this he f\vore with a very folemn degree ofearneft- 
 nefs. He never heard of any proposition for making pikes till they 
 Lad been threatened and attacked by the oppolite party, and 
 complaints made of it in the fociety. Being alked what he meant 
 by the oppofite party? He faid fome individuals in the town, and 
 not the Government or magiftrates. 
 
 Crofs Examined. 
 
 He did not know that the Sheffield Society was aflbciated with 
 that of Lonolon. Was prefent when they refolved not to petition 
 Failiament any more, rinding their former petitions, had been re- 
 jected; but believes it was their intention to petition his Majefty* 
 He did not know of the letter of the 14th of March 1792, refpecl- 
 ing tbe Rights of Man, though he had entered the fociety in the 
 year 79 . But to account for this, he faid, that they entrufledjthe 
 management of a great part of their affairs to their committee, who 
 were not accuftomed to read all their proceedings to the fociety at 
 Jarge. 
 
 [At this time one of the Sheriffs obferving, or thinking that he 
 oblerved fome noife in the Students gallery, called to tell them that 
 it they did not pay more attention to the Court, he would turn them 
 all ovt. He laid he had his eyes upon them for fome time. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. " Gentlemen this is not the firfl time that 
 this has been rematked to me; and I expect from you an example 
 to be fiiewn of good behaviour to. others. If you do otherwife, 
 you will difgface yourfelves, and greatly infult the Court. 
 
 The witnefs then read aloud the letter which was banded to him, 
 mentioning their forming a corre(pondence with the London Con- 
 ftitutional Society, and alfo the letter from Harrfy, which advifes 
 their didributing themfeivcs into fmall divifions for the more con- 
 venient propagation of their principles. Henever heard this letter 
 communicated to the fociety, but cannot fay tj-at it had not been 
 communicated, as he did not regularly attend at their meetings. 
 Goes not know ISrown the delegate to the Britifh Convention, 
 
 C c and
 
 C 202 J 
 
 and editor of the Patriot ; but read feveral extracts from that publi- 
 cation, as inferted in the Sheffield Regifter. 
 
 He then read the refolutions of the Sheffield Society, offering 
 thanks to Paine for his book of the Rights, of Man, which he faid, 
 were circulated by them through the town and it's neighbourhood^ 
 but that was bejcre the work had been declared to be a libel. He 
 was afked, what was the ufual number of the fociety? He faid it 
 amounted to fome hundreds. Why then did they fay in fome of 
 iheir publications, that their numbers exceeded 2,000? He faid 
 that miflake might eafily be committed, as many perfons attended 
 the meetings who were not regularly admitted members. What 
 were they to have done if Government attacked them ? They 
 would have fubrnitted. 
 
 Daniel Stuart txamined. 
 
 This witnefs who had been examined before, now produced a 
 letter figned, Afton > Sheffield, 1 4th May, 1792. The Society of 
 the Friends of the People had on the 26th of April publifhed. 
 their declaration, and this letter from Afton, Prefident of the Shef- 
 field Society, contained a full approbation of it, and expreffions of 
 attachment to the Conftitution: and propofed that the different 
 Societies fhould fend deputies to London to co-operate in obtaining 
 a Parliamentary Reform. To this the Friends of the People re- 
 turned a civil anfwer, encouraging them to proceed in the fame 
 principles of moderation, obferving that Liberty was in little danger 
 from it's Open and avowed enemies, but may fuffer much from 
 the indifcrerion of it's friends, which their dextrous opponents 
 were careful to avail themfelves of. &c. To this they had a reply 
 from Mr. Afton, greatly approving of the anfwer he had received. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine then read the declaration of the Friends of the Peo- 
 ple, -which appeared at the time in all the newfpapeis, and ob- 
 ierved that the Jury muft perceive by the fignatures annexed to it, 
 that the fubfcribers, though they may poffibly be deceived, could 
 have no defigns againft: the Constitution. He then read over the 
 names of thole Noblemen, Members of Parliament, and other Gen- 
 i r.men, who iigned the Declaration; and produced a fmile in the 
 Court, -by the vivacity with which, on coming to the name of the 
 Hon. Thomas Erfkine, M. P. he faid, " meaning me Gentlemen." 
 
 Mr. Stuart was then crofs-examined by the Attorney-General, 
 lie faid, that on the 24lb of 'May, he took the letter in anfwer to 
 that of Afton to Mr. Gray, at the Houfe of Commons, to be figned 
 'by him as chairman, and fent it ofr by the poft that evening. What 
 was Mr. Afton? A tanner. Was it of his own fancy that he ad- 
 dpelfed him bv the title of Iifq. No, it was at the defireof the Com- 
 mittee. Did the -Committee know Aflon's fituation in life? He 
 believed not at thtt time. Did he not hear of Afton's letter of the 
 26th of May fo the Con ftiiutional Society in London, denouncing 
 r;>i- moderation of the Friends of the People ? 1X0. 
 
 It was then obforved, thai as a letter takes two o-iy.s in it's way 
 Co Sheffield by the poftj this lettw te the Conftitutional Scsiety of 
 
 the
 
 t 203 -J 
 
 the 24th of May muft have been written on the fame day on which 
 he received the letter of the Friends of the People, dated 241)1 of 
 the fame month. 
 
 Did he know that the fociety of Sheffield had twelve members 
 aflociated to the Conftitutional Society of London ? He did not. 
 
 A very refpe&able lift of names had been read, fubfcribers to the 
 declaration of the Friends of the People. How many of thefe had 
 fmce left that Society? About a dozen. Were not fome of that 
 fociety members alfo of the Conftitutional Society? Some of them 
 were then mentioned, and amongft others, we think, Lord John 
 Ruffel, Mr. Dudley North, Mr. Curwen, Dr. Towers, Mr. Cart- 
 wright, Mr. Thorn ("on, Mr. Wharton, &c. 
 
 How long has Mr. Wharton been a member of your fociety ? He 
 belonged to it before I had any connection with it. 
 
 Do you not uiually inquire into the defcription of people before 
 you direft letters to them ? We do. 
 
 Was Lord Daer a member of your fociety ? He is. 
 Did you not know that he was a delegate to the Scotch Con- 
 vention ? Yes. 
 
 Does he ftill remain a member? He does. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. Lord Dare, one of the fons of Lord Selkirk, was 
 known to be a delegate to the Britifh Convention, and no motion 
 has in confequence been made to expel him from the fociety. Is 
 not that fo, Mr. Stuart ? It is. 
 
 The Attorney General preffmg the witnefs with refpecl to the 
 inconfiftency of Afton fending letters of fo different a complexion 
 to the Friends of the People arid the Society for Conftitutional In- 
 formation, apparently on the fame day, 
 
 Mr. Erfkine, in order to conclude an examination which ap- 
 peared to him more tedious than interefting, afked Mr. Stuart, if 
 he ever knew of a man changing from a monarchy-man to a repub- 
 lican in the interval of one poft ? 
 
 The Attorney-General did, that he had better afk him if he 
 knew a man change from a reformer to a traitor in the fame poft. 
 
 The Lord Prefident expreffing his difapprobation of this kind of 
 retort, the examination of Mr. Stuait was for the prefetit clofed. 
 
 Mr. Erikine exprefled his aftoniihment, that his client fhould be 
 debarred the benefit of evidence of this nature, which had never 
 been withheld on any former occafion. One inftance only ex- 
 cepted, the ftate trials did not furnifh a precedent; and when he 
 ftated that the execrable Jeffries fat in judgment on that occafion, it 
 would be fuperfluous to affign any further rcafons. The meafure of 
 julticc ought t6 be the fame in all countries, and to all ptrfou s . 
 
 lie laid, that for fome days pail he law an oppolition brewing 
 which was likely to bring on a debate, owing, in a great degree to 
 the fingular anamoly of the prefent cafe. He then went into argu- 
 ments on the analogies of evidence. The Judges in the Court of 
 King's Bench, on the argument in the cafe of ilult, determined that 
 a publication in the year 1760 was no defence fora fimilar publi- 
 in the year 1794. This, however, as a fuel was charged, 
 Cc a Uid
 
 C 
 
 did not bear upon the prefent cafe. Hardy's accufation was not 
 grounded on any fact, but upon a criminal and treafonable inten- 
 tion of the mind. He had therefore a right to call evidence to his 
 opinions and intentions. 
 
 The crime of Lord George Gordon refted principally upon his 
 intention, and though the proiecution was conducted by lawyers o 
 great experience and ability, they fuffered him (Mr. Erfkine) to call 
 nine or ten witneffes in, on the fubject ot the difpoiition of his 
 inind. 
 
 The next cafe he cited was that of Lord Ruflel, accufed of com- 
 paffing the King's death, being fuffered to give the evidence of Dr. 
 Barnet in favour of his affection to the government. 
 
 Forefeeing an oppofition on this ground, little time as he had for 
 iludy, he touk care to ee prepared upon this fubjcct with cafes from 
 the ftate trials, where the accuied were admitted to build upon the 
 minds of the Court andthejury an intrinsic probability to operate in 
 the way of character. This, however, was not character, though it 
 would carry a greater conviction. For inftance, if a man was ac- 
 cufed on the oaths of nine or ten credible witness of stealing a 
 horfe, his character would not acquit him, becaufe it was more 
 probable that a man of good general character may fteal a hprfe, 
 than that ten honest men fhouid faliely accufe him of it. Character 
 was the flow wide-fp reading circle of opinion, produced by a m^n's 
 general demeanor : for which reafon a witncfs to character was not 
 afked, What does this man ? or. What does that man fay of him? 
 But, from all you know, what is your opinion of him ? 
 
 Henry Cornifh, in the reign Jarnes II. accufed of compaffing 
 the King's death, was fuffered to give evidence of his loyalty. 
 
 John Auften, in the d of William and Mary, was accufed of 
 endeavouring to introduce popery, and was tried before Judge 
 Holt; and that great lawyer did not oppofe his giving evidence to 
 fliew his attachment to the proteftant religion. 
 
 Sir John Frend was acculcd of compaffing the life of the Sove- 
 reign, and was allowed to give evidence to fhew that he exprefled 
 his defire of living peaceably under the government, which, how- 
 ever, he did not like. 
 
 In all thefe cafes it was apparent that general character had no- 
 thing to do in thefe testimonies ; ihe character in fuch situations, 
 which will operate as evidence muft be analogous to the offence. 
 
 In the 8th of William and Mary we find Cook admitted to give 
 fimilar evidence on a fimilar charge. 
 
 Doneily, a waterman, belonging to Queen Anne, was found in 
 the act of pulling down meeting-houfes, which by the statute is 
 made constructive treafon, and evidence was admitted of his c6n- 
 yerfation, to prove him friendly to government. He therefore 
 afked no more now for Hardy, than what was granted to others in 
 fimilar situations before him ; and even without this, he may ftand 
 upon the rules of evidence. 
 
 Mr. Gibbsfaid, it was laid down by Lord Hales, that an action in 
 itfelf indifferentj may, by attending circumltances, be converted into 
 
 an
 
 t 2 5 1 
 
 an overt aft of treafon ; and when the Crown had an opportunity 
 of ranfacking the whole of a man's life and converfation, he fhould 
 at lead have the means of rebutting that evidence by other evi- 
 dence of his former converfation. 
 
 The Attorney-General replied 10 the arguments of the prisoner's 
 Counfel. He laid, that in the cafe of Holt, alluded to by Mr. 
 Erfkine, a new trial had been moved for by him, on the ground 
 that Mr, Juflice Wilfon had refufed to the Jury evidence which 
 ought to have beenadduced. Had any one heard the learned gentle- 
 man that day, he might have left the Court with an opinion unfa- 
 vourable to the reputation of Courts of Jiftice. He hoped that, in 
 the courfe of a trial affe&ing the life of tLr prifoner at the bar, and 
 the life of every man in the country, the learned Counfel would 
 decline making any obfervations on the cliff: rence between a poor 
 fhoemaker and a perion of rank and Jon unc ; or, if he would not 
 decline them, he trufted he would have the goodn,-fs to ftate 
 where, in the couife of the prefcr.t trial, he had feen any fevere or 
 improper conduci on the part of the profecution. The law of Eng- 
 land, like the care of Providence, protected alike the high and the 
 low, the rich and the poor ; and he cor-.fented that he might, from 
 this moment, be confidered a degraded and infamous man, if at any 
 time, during the courfe of the proiecution, he fhould aft, with re - 
 fpeft lo the prifoner at the bar, in any other manner than the law 
 authorifed. If he could be guilty of fuch a crime, he would merit 
 the reproach and execrdtions of every good man, nay, he fhould 
 deferve that death which the prifoner at the bar would mod un- 
 doubtedly luffer, provided he was convifted. 
 
 \Vhen the declarations of Mr. Tooke, in the Conftitutional So- 
 ciety, had been received in evidence, it was becaufe what he had 
 faid there related to the bulinefs of the fociety directly, to the tranf- 
 aQions in which both the focieties ivere concerned. In thecalc of 
 Lord George Gordon, his declarations were facls, and therefore 
 they had been received in evidence. Any thing that Mr. Hardy 
 had faid in any of the focieties, or any where elle, rclpecting the 
 concerns of the Societies, might be heard ; but here was a gentle- 
 man (Mr. Daniel Stuart) who did not belong to any of the iocieties, 
 and who only heard the fentiments of Mr. Hardy in private con- 
 verfation. Such evidence could not be received. If it could be 
 received in favour of the prifoner, it muft alfo, by the rule of law, 
 be received againft him ; and though, in the cafe of the prifoner at 
 the bar, no further evidence could be given on the part of the 
 Crown, it fhould be confidered what this principle might lead to; 
 he fhould confider it his duty to bring that fpecies of evidence for 
 the Crown, in any profecution that he might have occalion to 
 conduci. 
 
 The Solicitor-General faid a few words. In allufion to one of 
 the cafes quoted by Mr. Erfkine, he denied fo:re points which 
 that gentleman had aliened. Mr. Solicitor faid he fuppofed he had 
 pot underftood it. 
 
 Mr. Erfldne. You certainly did not underfland it. 
 
 This
 
 This obfervation, made in a particular tone of voice, nettled Mr, 
 Solicitor. He aiTcited he knew his duty in the civil and criminal 
 Jaw of the country as well as the learned gentleman did, and he was 
 as determined to perform it. He thsn offered a few arguments 
 againft the admiffibiiity of Mr. Stuart's evidence. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine agreed with and lubmitted to the .decifion of rhs 
 Court. He noticed the improper warmth of the Solicitor Ge- 
 neral, to whom he would have been the fcrft to make a proper 
 latisfaftion if he had given offence. From the language that was 
 fpmetitnes made ufe of, even between htmielf and his learned 
 friend, who were on terms of the moft perfect intimacy and friend- 
 fhip, it might be feen how little confidence there was to be placed in 
 words fpoken in heat, whether they were uttered in a Court of 
 Juftice or a divifion of the London Correfponding Society, by Mr, 
 Yorke or Mr. Solicitor-General. 
 
 The Prefident of the Cornmiffion interupted Mr. Erfkine. He 
 mentioned the fituation of the Jury, who were fuffering by every 
 moment's unneceffary delay. 
 
 Mr. Stuart was then afked. by permiffion of the Court, whether 
 Mr. Hardy ever mentioned to him the plan of reform he meant to 
 p urine? 
 
 Mr. Stuart faid, he had always adhered ftri&ly and ftrongly to the 
 plan propofed by the Duke of Richmond. 
 
 Q. Have you had frequent opportunities of converfing with the 
 pritoner? 
 
 A. Very frequent. I never was very much in public company 
 with him ; he (upped with me one night along with another gentle- 
 man; we had a long converfation on the fubjeft of parliamentary 
 reform, and the only point on which we differed was the propriety 
 of univerfal fuffrage. 
 
 Q. What is your opinion of the prifoner's character for fincerity 
 and truth ? 
 
 A. I always thought him to be a civil, honeft, good man. 
 
 Mr. Fergulpn and Mr. Andrew Stirling were next called, to 
 prove the tranfaclions that took place at a meeting held in Scotland, 
 for the reform of the Scotch boroughs. This evidence was ob- 
 jctled to by one of the Grown lawyers. 
 
 The Attorney-General had no objection to confent that it might 
 
 II'- 
 
 be read. 
 
 The Prefident. But the Court has an objeftion to it. The 
 tranfaftions to which thefe gentlemen are called to fpeak have no 
 manner of connection with the fafts alledged againft the prifonerat 
 the bar. Evidence relative to the Jrifh affociations had been re- 
 ceived, becaufc the witneffes hid fpoken with regard to them, and 
 fworn that the reform they intended was the fame with that pro- 
 poled by the Duke of Richmond. 
 
 William Towfnap faid he was a member of the Society at 
 Sheffield, very nearly from the firft to the lafl ; the only objecl; 
 they had in view, was a reform in the Houfe of Commons ; and 
 the way they intended to bring it about was by petition. They 
 
 pro-
 
 proceeded on the plan of the Duke of Richmond ; that was the 
 idea that he formed of the bulinefs ; he had no idea that the ob- 
 ject of the fociety was different from his own ; from the know- 
 ledge he had ot the fociety, he believed they had the fame ends 
 in view that he had, that he folemnly believed to be the general 
 objedl of their fociety. If he had the leaft idea that they intended 
 to fubvert the authority of Government, he fhould not have be- 
 longed to them, or if he difcovered it fince he became a member, 
 he would have withdrawn himfelf. He always underftood from 
 what was faid in their fociety, that delegates where chofen in 
 order to inform the minds of the people, and to draw up fuch 
 papers to be prefented to Government as they thought the mod 
 conducive to bring about a reform in Parliament ; Mr. Brown, 
 their delegate, had no other authority. He faid with regard to 
 the party who oppofed them at Sheffield, he faw people aifemble 
 together, and heard them threaten to affault and infult the 
 focrety; and he heard of an inflammatory letter by one Ruffe!. 
 With regard to the pikes, he (aid he was almoft an entire 
 (banger to that bufinefs; if it had been the object of the fociety 
 to provide arms, he muft have heard of it, for he was in the com- 
 mittee, and it was a queftion never agitated in the committee, to 
 provide arms againft the Government ; he never heard of fuch a 
 thing, either before or fince. He had no idea, for his own part, 
 of any thing but a reform in the Commons Houfe of Parliament, 
 and he really thought and hoped that was the view of the fociety. 
 They had the object of the Duke of Richmond in view, and 
 that was ftated from time to time in the fociety, and a number 
 of his letters to Colonel Sharman had been diflributed among 
 them for the fole purpofe of informing the fociety itfelf of the 
 principles on which they went, and they appeared to him to ad 
 here to the object ftri&ly. 
 
 On his crofs-exami nation he faid, he had continued in the 
 fociety for two or three years. That it was their object all along 
 to petition. That he was at Cattle-hill, at Sheffield, at the time 
 of the meeting there; the propolition for petition Parliament was 
 -negatived ; there was a very large concourfe of people, but he 
 could not fay exactly what was done, for he could not get 
 near enough to hear what was going forward ; he might fee 
 an account of the proceedings afterwards in Gale's paper, he be- 
 lieved the queftion for petitioning Parliament again was carried 
 in the negative; he did not hear any voice in the affirmative, and 
 he had not heard of a fingle individual who had withdrawn hiui- 
 felf, in confequence of the negative to petitioning Parliament. 
 He had fome recollection that the proceedings of the Convention 
 were approved of by their Society. He did not know that the 
 queftion at Caftle-hill was put for the purpofe ot being nega- 
 tived ;
 
 C 208 ] 
 
 tived ; that was a matter which he could not fpeak of. After 
 that propofition was negatived, it was faid to be intended to peti- 
 tion his Majefty. With regard to Mr. Yorke, he faid he had 
 feen him at Sheffield, but never fpoketo him ; he did not know 
 of any pikes being prepared under the direction of Yorke. He 
 faid he had heard that Davidfon had written a letter to Hardy 
 after he had been taken up. He had heard of thofe defending 
 themfelves againft what they called the oppofition party. 
 
 Being examined again by Mr. Erfkine, he faid if their had 
 been a propofition for arming he mutt have heard of it ; there 
 could not be any propofition of that kind; he mud have known 
 it if they had any idea of arming; they muft have had a great 
 number indeed of them. The petition that was negatived at 
 the meeting at Caftle-hill, was the petition of the people of 
 Sheffield. They never negatived the idea of prefenting a peti- 
 tion to Parliament, that might be agreed on by the delegates of 
 the Convention. 
 
 Edward Smith, cutler, in Sheffield, faid he was a member of 
 the fociety ever fmce the year 1791* up to the time when this 
 bufinefs happened ; the object ot the fociety was to obtain a 
 Parliamentary reform upon the plan of the Duke of Richmond 
 and Mr. Pitt. They had perufed the Duke of Richmond's letter 
 to Colonel Sharman, and that contained their object for every 
 thing. When they talked of the Rights of Man, he underltood 
 equal repreftntation in Parliament; they did not mean any thing 
 about France. If other people's object had been different from 
 his, and he had know it, he would not have been in the fociety a 
 fmgle day. He never heard it in the fociety as a thing intended 
 to attack the King or any of his prerogatives, but much the other 
 way. They never wanted to touch the Crown. Their objedts 
 were the glorious advantages we obtained in 1688 ; but he never 
 heard that their object was to be accomplifhed by force. He 
 never heard of arms until a paper was thrown out in the ftreets, 
 and what was publifhed in the Courant, calling upon the people 
 of Sheffield to deftroy thofe whofe opinions were different from 
 themfelves; it was that which produced the arms among fome 
 oF the fociety. The party who oppofed the fociety, when any 
 good news arrived from the Continent, came out and fired piftols 
 in the flreet, and. one of them fired at his window; the fociety 
 did not aflemble to damp their joy, or ever gave them any offence 
 of any kind ; notwithstanding all this the fociety never regularly 
 armed; if they had wilhed it they might have had 10,000 pikes 
 in one day. They never had any idea but that of purfuing their 
 means by peaceable and orderly proceedings, according to the law 
 of the land. He did uot exactly know what fome men might 
 mean by calling him a Democrat, but he urulcjftood that it 
 
 ment
 
 [ 209 ] 
 
 meant a perfon who wanted to overturn the Houfe of Common*. 
 They never had any idea of touching their Sovereign ia any 
 lhape. 
 
 \ 
 
 Crofs- examined. 
 
 Mr. Garrow in the crofs-examination availed himfelf much 
 of the deplorable ignorance of this old man. Though he had no 
 muflcet or pike for his own defence, he applied to no magiftrate 
 for protection againft the threats and ill ufage of his perfecutors, 
 nor did he make any application to that effecT: to the Secretary of 
 State. He acknowledged, though rather reluctantly, that his 
 fociety had diftributed hand-bills, exhorting the people in the 
 fame words as thofe of the other bill of <which he complained, 
 to arm for the protection of their property. Of the plan about 
 which he was fo fanguine an advocate, he appeared to have very 
 little conception. The Duke of Richmond's plan, he faid, was a 
 free reprefen-tation, and Mr. Pitt's plan was, that " every man 
 fliouldhave his voice." Being afked if he had not a cheap edition 
 of Tom Paine's book of the Rights of Man ? Aye ! (aid he, and 
 I have feen the other too. You of courfe thought it a very ex- 
 cellent book? Aye, that I did. I liked it very well. Were 
 there not many thoufands ot that work circulated amongft the 
 cutlers by a fubfcription of the Society? That and fome few 
 other books were circulated by fubfcription. This fubfcription 
 was only amongft a few friends. 
 
 TheCounfel then read the paflage againft heritable thrones, 
 where the people were reprefented as flocks and herds, and aikcd 
 the witnefs if that was a paiTage very favourable to Kings? He 
 anfwered, that he believed Paine was no great friend to King., 
 but that neither he nor his Society ever minded thefe pallages 
 about Kings : All they wifhed was a Parliamentary Reform. 
 Several other paflages were read, to which the anfwers were fo 
 ftupid, that we (hall not tire our readers with them. 
 
 He was at the Meeting at Caftle-hill: did not know that the 
 motion for petitioning Parliament was only put that it may be 
 negatived; the queftion was carried by a fhew of hands : did 
 not know that the motion was feconded, or that any other hand 
 was held up for it but that of the perfons who made it. He 
 was alfo at the celebration of the Fait Day, and never heard that 
 his Society had font any Addrefs to France. Thefe witnefles 
 having fo frequently repeated, that their object was a Reform in 
 Parliament, according to the Duke of Richmond's plan, Mr. 
 Erflune thought it would be proper to ^ive that plan in evidence, 
 and the next witnefs called was 
 
 D d His
 
 His Grace of Richmond. 
 
 Mr. Erflcine handing him a copy of the letter to Col. Shar- 
 man, " Will your Grace do me the honour to ftate whether that 
 be a copy of the letter which you addrefled to Mr. Sharman in 
 the year 1780?" 
 
 Duke of Richmond. " It is extremely difficult for me to tell 
 whether the paper now put into my hand is the fame as the let- 
 ter I wrote to Mr. Sharnaan or not. I know that there was a 
 mutilated edition of it publifhed at the time." 
 
 Mr. Erfkine. ' Will your Grace have the goodnefs to look 
 over it, and afcertain whether it be a genuine copy or not." 
 
 The Duke proceeding to look over it, the Lord Prefident 
 aflced, whether he would wifh to retire while he read it in ano- 
 ther room. 
 
 The Duke faid, ' I believe I may fpare Mr. Erflcine fome 
 trouble, by giving him a correct copy which I have brought in 
 my pocket." 
 
 This was immediately agreed to, and the letter to Col. Shar- 
 man, which had been in Court, was read by the Clerk of the 
 Arraigns, while Mr. Garrow and others looked over the Duke's 
 copy, both of which exactly agreed. 
 
 His Grace then afcertained that to be the letter which he ad- 
 drefled to Col. Sharman. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine wifhing Col. Sharman's letter to be read, aflced 
 the Duke of Richmond whether that letter was not written in 
 dnfwer to one from Col. Sharman after the refolutions taker, by 
 the Irifli Volunteers, anembled at Lifburner And whether Col. 
 Sharman's let'ter and his were not bound up and publifhed to- 
 gether? 
 
 The Duke replied, that he wrote the letter in anfwer to one 
 from Col. Sharman, and they were bound together in the fame 
 manner in which they now appeared. 
 
 The Attorney General objected to reading Col. Sharman's 
 letter, as the Duke of Richmond's only was referred to in the 
 evidence before the Court. 
 
 Mr. Erflcine faid he was ready to argue that point, but as it 
 was not very material, he would neither exhauft his ftrength, ot 
 which he retained but very little, nor occupy unneceflarily the 
 time of the Court. 
 
 After the Duke of Richmond's letter was read, Mr. Erfkine 
 offered a piece of evidence on the part of the prifoner, which 
 was oppofed by Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Erikine wifhcd to 
 produce witnefles to prove what they had heard the prifoner at 
 the bar declare in converfaiion, with reipect to a Reform of 
 Parliament, and what his fentiments were with regard to a Con- 
 ysntion oi the People, &c. After a very learned argument, Mr. 
 
 Eifkiuc
 
 Krfkine and Mr. Gibbs on the one hand, and the Attorney Ge, 
 neral and Solicitor General on the other, 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre faid, the Court went a certain way with 
 Mr. Erfldne. Nothing was fo clear as that all declarations that 
 applied to the facets of the cafe, were evidence againft the prifon- 
 er, though not evidence for him. It was prefumed that no man 
 would declare any thing againft himfelf that was not true. That 
 was the general rule ; but if the queftion here was as his Lord- 
 fliip thought it was, what were the political fpeculative opinions 
 which tiie prifoncr at the bar entertained touching a Reform of 
 Parliament ; his Lordihip was of opinion that that might very 
 well be learned and di (covered by the converfations which he had 
 held at any time, or at any place. If his declarations were meant 
 to apply to a difavowal of the particula r charge made againft 
 him, as for inftance, if he had faid to fome friend, when there 
 was a plan for holding a Convention, that it did not mean to 
 affecl the Ki:;g and the Government, fuch a declaration could 
 not be given in evidence in favour of the prifoner, though it 
 would be evidence againft him, becaufe it was fuppofed he would 
 not have made fuch a declaration unlefs it were true. 
 
 Ot the Duke of Richmond's 'excellent compofition, the follow- 
 ing extracts' are moft important with refpe& to the prifoner's 
 defence : 
 
 Sir, 
 
 " I have been honoured with a letter from Belfaft, dated the 
 igth July laft, written in the name of the Committee of Cor- 
 refpondence, appointed by the delegates of forty-five volunteer 
 corps, aifemt'lea at Lifburn pn the ifl of the fame month, for 
 taking preparatory fteps to forward their intention on the fubjeft 
 bf a more equal Reprelentation of the People in Parliament," and 
 figned by their fecretary, Henry Joy, jun. Efcj. 
 
 " In this letter, after {hewing the corrupt rtate of the boroughs 
 in Ireland, the general opinion of the people that the conflitutkm 
 can be reftored to it's antient purity and vigour by no other mrans 
 than a Parliamentary Reform, and informing me of the fleps which 
 have been taken, and are taking by the volunteers, in determining 
 to procure this defirable object, the committee is pleafcd to requeit 
 my fentimeritsand advice as to thebeft, moflelegible, and moftpi.ic- 
 ticable mode of deflroying, reflraining, or courfteraling this hydra 
 of corruption, borough influence, in order to lay my opinion be- 
 fore the Provincial Afiembly of Delegates, which is to be held at 
 Dungannon on the 8th of September next. 
 
 " The fubjeft of a Parliamentary Reform is that which of all 
 others, in my opinion, moft deferves the attention of the public, 
 as I conceive it would include every other advantage which a 
 nation can wifh ; and I have no hefitation in fying, that from 
 every confideration which I have been able to give to ibis great 
 D d 2 oucition,
 
 tjueftion, that for many years has occupied my mind, and from 
 ^very day's experience, to the preient hour, I arn more and more 
 convinced, that the reftoring the right of voting univerfally to 
 every man, not incapacitated by nature for want of reafon, or by 
 law for the commiflion of crimes, together with annual ele&ions, 
 is the only reform that can be effectual and permanent. I am fur- 
 ther convinced, that it is the only reform that is practicable. 
 
 ' All other plans that are of a palliative nature have been found 
 infufficient to intereft and animate the great body of the people, 
 from whole earneftnefs alone any reform can be expected. Along 
 exclufion from any fhare in the Icgiflature of their country has 
 rendered the great mafs of the people indifferent whether the mo- 
 nopoly that lubfifts continues in the hands of a more or lefs ex- 
 tended company; er whether it is divided by them into (hares of 
 fomewhat more or lels juft proportions. The public feels itfelf 
 unconcerned in thefe contefts. except as to the oppreflions it en- 
 dures, and the exactions it fuffors, which it knows muft continue 
 fo long as the people remain deprived of all controul over their 
 representatives. 
 
 " The leffer reform has been attempted with every poffible ad- 
 vantage in it's favour ; not only from the zealous fupport of the 
 advocates for a more effectual one, but from the affiftance of men 
 of great weight, both in and out of power. But with all thefe 
 temperaments and helps it has failed. Not one profelyte has been 
 gained from corruption, nor has the leaft ray of hope been held 
 out from any quarter, that the Houfe of Commons was in- 
 clined to adopt any other mode of reform. The weight of corrup- 
 tion has crufhed this more gentle, as it would have defeated any 
 more efficacious plan in the fame circumftances. From that quar- 
 ter therefore, I have nothing to hope. It is from the people at 
 large that I expect any good. And I am convinced that the only 
 way to make them feel that they are really concerned in the bufi- 
 nefs is to contend for their full, clear, and indifputable Rights of 
 Univerfal Reprefentation. The more extenfive plan, at the fame 
 time that it's operation is more complete, depends on a more effec- 
 tual fupport, that of the people. 
 
 " I am alfo perfuaded that if the fcheme for additional county 
 members had proceeded any further, infinite difficulties would 
 have arifen in adjusting it. Neither the Yorkfhire Committee nor 
 Mr. Pitt have given the detail of their plan. A juft repartition 
 would have been a moft intricate tafk', for where different interefts 
 are feparately reprefented, the piopottion is not very eafy to afcer- 
 tain. The doubt you Rate concerning this mode of reform ap- 
 pears to me well founded ; a few great families might divide a 
 county between them, and chufe the members by a houfe lift, like 
 Eaft-India Directors. Another difficulty, from the increafe of the 
 number of members, which might render the houfe more tumultu- 
 ous than deliberate, has it's weight. But the greateR objection, in 
 my opinion, to this and to every other narrow and contracted plan 
 of reform is, that it proceeds upon the fame bad principle as the 
 
 abuie
 
 C 213 ] 
 
 abufe it pretends lo reftify; it is Hill partial and unequal ; a vaft 
 majority of the community is dill left ur.rcprefented ; and it's moft 
 efiential concerns, life, iiberty, and property, continue in the abfo- 
 lute difpofal of thole whom they do not chufe, and over whom 
 they have no controul. In the arrangement of plans of this kind. 
 there is no leading principle to determine that the addition ought to 
 be one hundred and fifty, or two hundred ; that the allotment 
 fhould be according to the population, property, or taxes paid in. 
 each county ; that any tuppoled proportion between the landed 
 and trading intereft is the jufl one, and that the divifion of County 
 and City members will correfpond with this proportion when 
 found. Ail is a lea, without any compafs toenable.us to diftin- 
 guifh the iafe from the dangerous courfe. 
 
 " But in the more liberal and great plan of univ? rial reprefenta- 
 tion, a clear and diftinft principle at once appears that cannot lead 
 us wrong. Not conveniency, but right ; if it is not a maxim, of 
 our constitution, that a- Brilifh fubjeft is to be governed only by 
 laws to which he has confentcd by himfelf or his reprefentative, 
 we (hould inftantly abandon the error; but if it is the eflfential of 
 freedom, founded on the eternal principles of juftice and wifdotn, 
 and our unalienable birth-right, we fhould not hefitate m alferting 
 it. Let us then but determine to acl on this broad principle of 
 giving to every man his own, and we fhall immediately get rid of 
 all the perplexities to which the narrow notions of partiality and 
 exclufion muft ever be fubjeft. 
 
 " In the digefting a plan upon this noble foundation, we fhall 
 not find any difficulty that the moft common underftanding and 
 pains will not eafily furmcunt. 
 
 " The prefent number of members in the Houfe of Commons 
 is preferved, fo that all apprehenfion from too numerous an affem- 
 bly ceafes. 
 
 " An account of the whole number of males of age in the king- 
 dom is to be taken and divided by the number of members to be 
 fent, which will find the quota "of ele6lors to chuie one member ; 
 from the beft acounts I can nt,w get, it will be about two thouland 
 fix hundred ; thefe are to be formed into diftricls or boroughs from 
 the moft contiguous parifhes; and by having all the elections 
 throughout the kingdom in one and the fame day, and taken in 
 each parifh, all fear of riot and tumult vanifhes. 
 
 " The great expence of elections, which arifes chiefly from the 
 coft of conveying electors to the place of poll, and entertaining 
 them there and on the road, will be no more whcri every man 
 will vote in his own parifh. Bribery muft intirely ceafe ; in a 
 Jingle Borough it would be difficult, on fo many as to have any 
 effeft, impoltible. The numbers to be bought would be infi- 
 nitely too great for any purfc. Befides, annual Parliaments, by 
 their frequency and by their fhortnefs, would doubtlefs operate 
 in preventing corruption. 
 
 " The vaft expence of petitions to Parliament on account of 
 
 illegal
 
 [ 214 ] 
 
 % 
 
 illegal returns would be reduced almoft to nothing. The points 
 on which thefe contefts generally turn, are the qualifications of 
 the eleftors. under the numberlefs reftriftions the prefent laws 
 have impofed, which require the attendance of witnefies, the pro- 
 duftion of records, and are fubjeft to infinite difpute. But when 
 no other qualifications fhould be neceflary but that of being a 
 a Britifh fubjeft, and of age, there can be but little left to contend 
 upon as to the right of electors to vote. 
 
 But there is another fort of objection, againft which no pro- 
 vifion can be made, as it is merely imaginary. It is feared by 
 fome that the influence of poverty and riches will give to the 
 .Ariftocracy fo great a lead in thefe elections, as to place the whole 
 government in their hands. Others again dread, that when pau- 
 pers and the loweft orders of the People (hall have an equal vote 
 with the firft commoner in- the kingdom, we (hall falHnto all 
 the confufion of a democratic republic. The contrariety of thefe 
 two apprehenfions might of itfelr be a fufficient proof that neither 
 extreme will take place. It is true that the poorcft man in the 
 kingdom will have an equal vote with Ihe firft, for the choice of a 
 perfon to whom he enttufts his all ; and I think he ought to have 
 that equal degree of fecurity againft opprefiion. 
 
 Another fubjeft of apprehenfion is, that the principle of al- 
 lowing to every man an equal right to vote tends to equality in 
 other refjjircls, and to level property. To me it feems to have 4 
 dire ft eo^tivrv tenucncy. 
 
 The protection of property appears to me one of the moft efien- 
 tial eiKis of foctety ; and, fo far .from injuring it by this plan, I 
 conceive it to be the only means of prefcrving it; for the prefent 
 fyt'tem is haftening with great ftrides to perfect equality in univerjal 
 poverty. 
 
 It has been faid, that this plan of extending the right of voting 
 to every individual creates much uneafinefs in the minds of quiet 
 and well difpofed perfons : and that if paupers, vagabonds, and 
 perfons of no property were left out, there would be no objeftion 
 to extend it to all houfeholders and perfons paying taxes, and that 
 the fa;r.: divifion into diftricis might take place. My anfwer is, 
 that I know of no man, let him be ever fo poor, who in his con- 
 fumption of food, and ufc of raiment, does not pay taxes; and that 
 I would wifh to encourage an enthuiiafm for his country in the 
 brcaft of every fubject, by giving him his jufl fhare in it's govern- 
 ment. I readily admit, that fuch an alteration would oe a vaft 
 improvement; but I muft prefer the adhering rigidly to a felf- 
 evident principle, efpecially when attended with no inconvenience 
 in the execution, that I can forefee. Befides, we fhould again 
 fall into the difficulties of drawing the line of feparation, and into 
 the difpules about qualifications. 
 
 For my part, I agree in opinion with thofe who are for reftoring 
 to all parts of the (tate their jufl rights at the fame time ; to do it 
 generally, not partially, is whm I 'muft contend tor. At the fanr.e 
 
 time
 
 t S ] . 
 
 lime, 1 admit _I am not for reftoring the negative of th crown. 
 My reafon is, that it appears to me prepofterous that the will of 
 one man fhould for ever obfhuft every regulation which all the 
 reft of the nation may think necefcry. 1 objeft to it, as I would 
 to any other prerogative to the crown, or privilege of the Lords or 
 People, that are not founded on reafon. 
 
 But I agree, that if the Houfe of Commons was reduced to 
 it's natural dependence on the people alone, and the prefent fyftem 
 of making it the exclufive part of government was continued, 
 we fhould approach to a pure democracy more than our confti- 
 tution warrants, or than I wifh to fee. I am not for a democratic, 
 anymore than for an ariftocratic, or monarchic government, folcly ; 
 I am for that admirable mixture of three, that our inimitable 
 and comprehenfive conftitution has eftablifhed ; I wifh to fee the 
 executive part of government revert to where the confb'tution has 
 originally placed it, in the hands of the crown, t<3 be carried on by 
 it's minifters ; thofe minifters under the controul of Parliament; 
 and Parliament under the controul of the people. I would not 
 have Parliament made, as it daily is, a party concerned in every 
 aft of Mate, whereby it becomes the executive for which it is not 
 calculated, and lofes it's fuperintending and controuling power, 
 which is the main end of it's inititution. For when the two Hou- 
 fes are previoufly pledged by addrefles, votes, and refolutions, it 
 becomes extremely difficult for them afterwards to cenfuremeafures 
 in which they have been fo deeply engaged by a&s of their own. 
 Another great inconvenience arifes from Parliament's taking fo 
 much of the executive of government on itfelf, which is, the ex- 
 ceflive length of the feffions; an evil which of late had greatly 
 increafed. Now that parliament is engaged in ever)' detail in 
 orider to fcreen the minifter, it never can finifh it's bufine's till the 
 middle of the fummer, when the independent country gentleman, 
 tired of a long attendance and hot weather in town, is retired to 
 his private bufinefs in the country, and that of the public left to 
 be fettled in thin houfes by a few dependants of the minifter. A 
 fhort feffion of two or three months would be lufficient to examine 
 the expenditure of former grants, to make new ones, to redrefs 
 grievances, and pafs fuch general laws as circumftances might re- 
 quire. The inconvenicncy and expence to a private member of 
 parliament in attending his duty would then be trifling', and, in- 
 flead of forty commoners, and three peers, to form a quorum to 
 decide the- greatefl matters of (late, the attendance of two thirds of 
 each body, which would give refpeft to their proceedings,mightand 
 ought to be required. I am alfo free to own my opinion, that when 
 the Houfe of Lords fhall be cffe&ually prevented from having any 
 influence in the Houfe of Commons, as I think it muft by this bill, 
 it fhould at the fame time recover it's equal rights in every refpec"t 
 with the Houfe of Commons as a co-ordinate branch of leg! flat* re. 
 Thefe fentiments are, I think, confonant to the idea fo well ex- 
 preffed in your letter to the volunteer army of the province of 
 
 Ulfttr,
 
 C 216 j 
 
 I 
 
 Ulfter, " to reflore to the crown it's original fplendor, to. Nobility 
 it's ancient privileges, and to (he Nation at large it's inherent rights." 
 
 A clerk of the Houfe of Lords then attended with a journal of 
 the ptoceedings dated the 8th of February 1780. It contained a 
 motion of the Earl of Shelburne for a committee of thofe who 
 were not placemen, penfioners, &c. to confider of the expendi- 
 ture of the public revenue, and the means we had of defraying 
 thefe expences. The motion was made in confequence of a pe- 
 tition couched in very ftrong language; and the motion was ne- 
 gatived. A proteft was then entered in, which after delcribing 
 the expences of the war to be fo great as to exceed the patience 
 which may be expe&ed in the people to bear the additional taxes, 
 to which they would give, faid that their refource muft then be in pen- 
 fions, finecures, and ufeiefs places. It afferted the right of the 
 people to aflbciate in bodies for the attainment of their reafonable 
 demands, as afibciations proclaimed more loudly the voice of the 
 nation than the reii:onftrances of individuals, &c. 
 
 This addrefs was figned by that venerable cptiftitutional lawyer 
 Earl Camden, together with the illuftrious names of Richmond, 
 Portland, Devonshire, Grafton, Shelburne, Rockingham, Fitz- 
 william, Tankcrville, &c. &c. This proteft was acknowledged 
 fcy the Duke of Richmond, and Mr. Erfkine faid it fupported and 
 maintained ail thofe proceedings which were now brought againft 
 Hardy as charges of High Treafon. 
 
 A. Stirling identified the minutes of the Scotch Borough con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Fergufon was called. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid that much ftrefs had been laid on the circum- 
 ftance of the focieties having adopted French phrafes, particu- 
 larly the terms Convention and Delegates ; he had called this 
 gentleman to prove that he was a delegate to a convention of 
 refpeclable gentlemen in Scotland at the lame time that the Bri- 
 tifh convention were aifembled in Edinburgh. 
 
 Chief Jnftice Eyre. I objed to fuch evidence, as being quite 
 irrelevant ; it would lead to a hiftory entirely unconnected with 
 the caufe. 
 
 Jofeph Srrutt was then called. He had belonged to a fociety 
 rnltituted for the purpofe of obtaining a reform in parliament. 
 
 Mr. Erfidne afked him, had the fociety any other objedl ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Did it meditate any thing agsinft the other two branches of 
 the legiftature ?. A. It certainly did not. Since the rejection of 
 the petition to the Houfe of Commons, I believe the fociety has 
 not adembled more than once. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine propofed next to give in evidence the refolutions 
 of the Aifbciation at the Thatched Houfe .Tavern in 1789. 
 
 The Lord Prefident. What would you fay if we were of 
 opinion that thefe aflbciations amounted o High Treafon ? 
 
 Mr.
 
 Mr. Erfkine. My Lord, I can hardly conceive Jr poffible that 
 Tome of the greateft characters in the kingdom, and fome of the 
 greateft favourites of the King, fhould have been guilty of High 
 Treafon. 
 
 Prefident. We know noth ng of the circumftances of thofc 
 aflbciations. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine faid, he was ready to date them to his Lordflnp. 
 
 He was however over-ruled. 
 
 Richard Brinfley Sheridan, Efq. was the next witnefs for th 
 prifoner. 
 
 Mr. Erfkine dated to the Court, that he called this gentleman 
 to prove that Hardy had offered all his papers to be laid before 
 parliament in the year 1793. 
 
 Quedion to Mr. Sheridan. Did you ever fee the prifoner ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q_. At wh?t time ? 
 
 A. The firft time was in the month of March 1793. I'll 
 jftate, as fhortly as poflible, how the circumJlance happened. I 
 had given notice in the Houfe of Commons of a motion for % 
 Committee of that Houfe, to enquire into the feditious practices 
 that were faid to ex id in fcveral focieties in this metropolis, 
 
 Q. Was the Scotch Convention fitting at that time ? 
 
 A. I do not perfectly recollecl:. Having given the notice, I 
 thought it was my duty to collect all the information poflible on 
 the fubjedt. I was rather unbelieving with refpedl to what I 
 had heard of the extent to which feditious practices were carried 
 in thofe focieties. By the advice of a gentleman of my acquaint- 
 ance, I fent for Mr. Hardy. He immediately came to me. I 
 fhewed him the book which was circulated among the Members 
 of the two Houfes of Parliament, giving an account of the pro- 
 ceedings of thofe focieties. Heoblerved, that, in many things, 
 government had received very correct intelligence, particularly 
 with refpe& to the number of the divifions, and the places of 
 their adembling ; but he complained that their objects and prin- 
 ciples had been greatly misdated and mifreprefented. 
 Q^ Did he, Sir, declare what their real objedl was ? 
 A. He ideclared that their whole object was to obtain, by 
 peaceable means, a parliamentary reform, on the plan of the 
 Duke of Richmond. Upon my interrogating him, (I do not 
 mean that I confidered him under any obligation to anfwer) he 
 told me the focieties did not meet at the fame places where they 
 ufed to aflemble. As they confided chiefly of perfons who could 
 not afford to fpend much, the keepers of public houfes had been 
 *afily induced to difmifs them. 1 afked Mr. Hardy if the focie- 
 Uesi continued to meet any where. He ajifwered, yes j and he 
 
 e had
 
 t 218 ] 
 
 nad no objection to give me a lift of the private houfes where 
 they had held their meetings. I took down the names of feveral 
 of thefe places. 
 
 CK Have you the paper now ? 
 
 A. I believe I have loft it. I had it in my hand the day I 
 made the motion in the Houfe of Commons. Mr. Hardy of- 
 fe'red me a fight of all the books, papers, and correfpondence of 
 the fociety ;%nd he requefted that, if I thought proper, I would 
 make the contents of them known in parliament. When he 
 wnderftood the nature of the motion I intended to make, he ex- 
 prefled a moft eager and ardent wifh that the committee might be 
 appointed, and that an enquiry into the affairs and conduft of 
 the focieties might be inftituted. 
 
 0^ Was this offer voluntary, or did he conceive that he was 
 bound to make it to you as a Member of Parliament "or a Ma- 
 ^giftrate ? 
 
 A. The offer was voluntary, and, as I believed, arifing from 
 a fmcere wiih that the motion I intended to make mould be fuc- 
 cefsful ; that is, that a Committee of Enquiry might be infti- 
 tuted. 
 
 Crofs -examined by the Attorney General. 
 
 Q; Did Mr. Hardy ever mew you any book, journal, or 
 books ? 
 
 A. Mr. Hardy did not (hew me any journal, or book or books. 
 He offered generally to give me all the informatiQn refpe&ing 
 the fociety he could. He faid they had been greatly calumniated 
 by the publications of government. 
 
 ,Q. Are you, Sir, a Member of the Society for Conflitutional In- 
 formation ? A. Mr. Attorney, I hardly know whether I am, or 
 not; I have not formally withdrawn my name from the books, 
 but I have not attended the fociety fince the year 1793; I fhould 
 fuppofe J am^a Member. 
 
 Mr. Francis was next called. 
 
 Q. Do you know the prifoner ? 
 
 A. I do; but I never faw him more than once. On Of before 
 the ^d of May, 1793, Mr. Hardy lent to roe, requesting metopre- 
 fent to fhe Houfe of Commons a Petition fora Parliamentary Re- 
 form : and that I would permit Mr. Margarot and two of the De- 
 legates whofe names I forget, to come to my houfeon the (ubj^ft ; 
 they came, and, as the form of the petition feemed perfeftly re- 
 fpeftful, I toicl them I would prefent it ; informing them, at the 
 fame time, that I was perfectly adverfc to it's prayer. Hardy ap- 
 peared tome to be a remarkable quiet, tf-mperate man. I was (ur- 
 prifed at the readinefs of their arguments in defence of univerfai 
 fnffrage. Margarot faid I need not be furprii_*d,for they had learnt 
 arguments from the Duke of Richmond. I mentioned that 
 
 I thought
 
 I thought it would have been better to leave the mode of redrefj, 
 as in other cafes, to the wifdom of Parliament. They faid, they 
 were forry they had not known my objections fooner ; but it was 
 then impoffible to alter the petition, as the names were fubfcribcd, 
 "and there would not be time enough to prepare a new petition be- 
 fore the 6th of May, when Mr. Grey was to make his :notion. 
 
 They all (hewed remarkable readinefs to hear reaion*bie ar- 
 guments and objections. 
 
 On crols-examination, Mr. Francis faid, the Delegates fliewe^ 
 great anxiety about the fate of their petition. They had forwarded 
 it to Mr. Fox, who had refufed to prefent it. Now tuey adhered . 
 to their original approbation of univerfal fuffrage ; they never' faid 
 that they would accept of nothing lefs than univerfal fufi'rage. 
 The letter of trlanks fent by the London Correiponding Society to 
 Mr. Francis, with that Gentleman's anfwer, were read. He faid, 
 he thought they were much milled, but he did not believe that they 
 had any other objects than thofe which they profefled. 
 
 Lord Lauderdale was next examined. lie laid, he had received 
 a letter from the Society of the Friends of the People in the fuburbs 
 of Edinburgh, requeuing to become a delegate to the Scotch 
 Convention. He had feen Skirving, who had urged him to ac- 
 cept the offer. He faid, that his (Lord Lauderdale's; coming 
 among them would prevent them from committing thofe irregu- 
 larities and informalities, which they might olherwiie fall into ;, he 
 heard nothing among them injurious to the Crown or the Houfe of 
 Lords. Their language was, to acquire, by peaceable means, a 
 thorough Reform in Parliament, 
 
 The evidence on both fides being concluded, 
 
 Mr. Gibbs rofe for the prifoner, but was fo agitated as to be 
 obliged 10 fit down in order to recover htmlclf. Aftetfome mi- 
 nutes he proceeded That he needed not ftate the anxiety of mind 
 which he felt on the prefent occafion. He now rofe, (inking under 
 the weight of a caui'e n which the mighty abilities of his honour- 
 able and learned fuend had almoft funk. It was noi becaufe he 
 had any wifh to ipare himfelt; he was not delirous to withhold 
 either his ftrength or abilities. S ich as they were, they had been 
 exerted to the utmoR; he would defend the priioner if his {Length 
 was f qiral to the tafk of conducting the defence ; but he contelled 
 himfelf unable to comprehend the vafl mafs of evidence which had 
 been brought forward. On his part, no induftrv had been wanting, 
 during the period of interval allowed by the Court. liut he 
 begged to advert to the particular and unprecedented ci rcum fian- 
 ces of the prefent cafe. The Attorney General, in h;s oix.-nm;; 
 fpeech, took up a fpace of nine hours a circumftance unlvard uf 
 in the annals of hiftory no fpeech, upon any occafion. had JHT- 
 haps ever extended to fo great a length. Yet to fuppoie ihai he 
 had Hated the cafe at greater length than was ntrceifary, or had 
 brought forward evidence which was not connected with the fub- 
 jel. would be to fuppoie that he intended to puzzle and harrats 
 
 E e a th
 
 [ 220 ] 
 
 <he counfel, and to confound and perplex the Jury. His learned 
 friend, Mr. Erfkine, himfelf, was unable to comprehend that im- 
 menfe and complicated mafs of evidence ; indeed it was impoffible 
 for any counfel fo to comprehend it,as to be able to make a fair de- 
 fence. Firft, he woud ftate what was the law, which was to be 
 found in theindiftment, and in the ftatute of treafon, as it applies to 
 that indiftment. The firft charge of the indiftment was that of 
 compaffing the King's death, and the overt aft charged was that of 
 concerting the plan of a convention, with a view to depofe the 
 King in order that they might afterwards deftroy him. It 
 was notneceflary to ftate the other overt afts, becaufe their ten- 
 dency was the fame. The fafts dated againft the prifoner were 
 thefe : firft, that he had an intention of mind to deftroy the King ; 
 fecondly, that, in purfuance of that intention, he did the afts pur- 
 fucd in the indiftment. His learned friend had argued very ably 
 on the ftatute of Edward III. on which the prefent indiftment 
 was founded. The firft treafon in the Statute, and the firft charge 
 in the indiftment, was compaffing the King's death. In 
 the prefent cafe, the form of the indiftment and the ftatute 
 went hand in hand. When he recoilcfted that his learned friend 
 (Mr. Erfkine) had already fo fully and ably ftated what was the law 
 of the cafe, he was fure the Jury would regret that it was at all ae- 
 ceffary for him to go over the fame ground. Lord Coke had very 
 forcibly commented on the ftatute of Edward III. and what he had 
 faid on the fubjeft (hewed how exceedingly careful an Englifh Jury 
 ought to be, not to extend the ftatute beyond it's proper limits. (He 
 then read an extraft from Lord Coke's Inftitutes.) This paffage- 
 contained an exhortation to all Juries, not to find their verdict 
 guilty, without plain, direft, and manifeft proof. Such was the 
 proof which the legiflature required in cafes of treafon, and <uch 
 waS the proof which the Jury were bound to require in the prefent 
 inftance. In proof of his affertion, he referred to the proceed-* 
 ings on the trial of Lord Ruffel for High Treafon. 
 
 The doftrine delivered on that occafion he fuppofed to be law, 
 becaufe it had been alluded to from the Bench in the courfe of th 
 prefent trial. 
 
 The indiftment charged Lord Ruflel with confpiring to feize the 
 King's guards, in order to deftroy his Majefty. The evidence on 
 the cafe went to prove the exiftence of fuch a confpiracy. Yet my 
 Lord Chief Juftice Pemberton, in his charge to the Jury, faid to 
 them, "'You are to find whether, upon the whole matter, any de- 
 fign has been entertained againft the King's life." Yet no man 
 \vould complain that the proceedings on that trial were not fuffi- 
 ciently fevere. 
 
 What made this proceeding on this occafion the more remarkable 
 \vas, on the fame morning fome perfuns had been tried for being 
 engaged in the Rye-Houfe plot, and the diftinftion was tAen in 
 Court, that thefe perfons flood in a different fituation from that of 
 Lord Ruffe), having been direftly engaged in a plot to murder the 
 King. 
 
 . Suck
 
 L 221 ] 
 
 Such was the charge of Lord Chief Juftice Pemberton, though 
 the friends of Lord Ruflel complained that he was feverely dealt 
 with, he left it to the Jury to find upon the whole matter before 
 them. The Jury found their verdift guilty; and furely, when it 
 was proved to them that a plot was in agitation to fcize upon the 
 King's guards, who were entrufted with the immediate protection 
 ofhispeifon, they might reafonably enough lorm the conclufion 
 that his life was aimed at. Yet when Lord Ruflel was brought up 
 to receive fentence, and heard the indiftment read, he ftartcd back, 
 upon hearing the charge of comparing the King's death, and was 
 proceeding to Mate that the overt aft by no means came under that 
 defcription, when he was anfwered by the Recorder, that fach a 
 remark might, with propriety, have previoufly been made to the 
 Jury, but that they had now found upon the whole matter, and 
 that all fuch objections were too late. It was evident, therefore, 
 that the point for the Jury, in all fuch cafes, was to confider whe- 
 ther the overt acl charged in the fubfequent part of the indi&rnent 
 amounted to the treafon charged in the former part. 
 
 Having Mated what was the law of the cafe, he now came more 
 particularly to confider what was chafged againft the prifoner. It 
 was dated in the indifttnent, that he had concerted to call a Con- 
 vention, in order to overthrow the Government, and depofe the 
 King. It was allowed on all hands that he had agreed to call a 
 Convention, but that the objeft of the propofcd Convention was 
 fuch as was charged in the indiftment, the Counlel for the Prifoner 
 could by no means admit. In order to prove that fuch was indeed 
 the objeft, it would be neceffary for the profccution for the Crown 
 to fhew, firfr, that no Convention had in any inftance been called, 
 except for treafonable purpofes and fecondly, that this Convention 
 was really called for the purpofe of depofmg the King, and thereby 
 compaffing his death. We on the other hand contend, that this 
 Convention was in itfelf legal, and called for lawful purpofes. 
 The prifoner believed that corruption had made great flrides in 
 the Britifh Conftitution, and that conftderable abufes had crept into 
 the original frame of the Government. He was of opinion that it 
 was necefTary, in order to reftore the Conftitution to it's purity, 
 that thefe abufes fhould be redreffed ; and at the fame time he had 
 found, that every petition of individuals, demanding a remedy, had 
 been peremptorily, not to fay contumeliouflv, rcjefted. In this 
 fituation, he thought that the only way to collect the voice of the 
 people, and to convey it to Parliament with due effecl, would be to 
 call a Convention. All this was contended by the profecution for 
 the Crown to be mere pretext. " You did not," lay they to the 
 prifoner, " think that there exifted abufes in the Conftitutio which 
 might be remedied by calling a Convention; you talked of re- 
 diefling it's abufes by the very means you intended fhould effeft 
 it's fubverfion." But before a Jury be induced to give credit to a 
 charge of this nature, it muft firfl be made out by plain, direft, and 
 manifeft proof. 
 
 There
 
 [ 222 ] 
 
 There are two points which the profecution for the Crown have 
 laboured : firft, to prove that there cxifhed in the kingdpm a ge- 
 neral confpiracy of different focieties; and, lecondly, thst the pri- 
 foner was concerned in the plots of all thefe focieties. Both of 
 thefe they thought neceffary for the purpofe of making out the guilt 
 of the priioner. They have therefore brought evidence of every 
 thing that has been declared or done in all thefe focieties, and which 
 they contend proceeded from a defign to depofe the King, in order 
 afterwards to deftroy him ; and in the whole of this plot they af- 
 firm that the prifoner was engaged. By this means the Couniel for 
 the prifoner are laid under confiderable hardfhip. It became im- 
 poffible diftincily to (late what part of the proof did or did not im- 
 mediately affeft the prifoner. Even his honourable friend, with 
 ail his abilities, had not been able to difcriminate with refptft to 
 the complicated proof that had been brought forward. Sometimes 
 evidence was produced of what had been done in one fociety, then 
 of whit had been done in another ; nay, the aftions and expreffions 
 of different individuals were brought together, in order to load the 
 prifoner with the accumulated guilt of high treafon. 
 
 Had the Couniel for the profecution firft brought forward the 
 general proof of the exiftence of a confpiracy in the country, and, 
 fecondly, the particular proof as it affecled ihe prifoner, the diffi- 
 culty would then have been obviated. As the evidence has b-en 
 brought forward, it has become impoffible properly to difcriminate 
 beiween it's feveral parts, in conducting the defence. It was not 
 iiis bufinefs to fay whether fome of the circumltance^ tha' had come 
 out in evidence were criminal, or not ; but he dehed his learned 
 friend to prove that any of thefe amounted to an overt aft of high 
 treafon. He \\ould not contend lh,u there might not be fome in- 
 ikancet. of nuurooei or indecent corduct to be found in the tranfac- 
 tions of i.u;ie io< if ties ; but thefe, it is to be confidered. proceeded 
 horn arafh or irritated mind. All that made for the prifoner ought 
 to be taken into confederation, as well as what made againft him. If 
 it was aliedged that tne reform propofed to be obtained by holding 
 a Convention was merely a pretext, the uniform tenor of the papeis 
 that had been produced proved that it was really his object. 
 
 Another charge brought againft the focieties was their in.tro^- 
 duclion of French terms. But this was a charge which would have 
 no weight ; for when it had that day been attempted to prove that 
 the terms Convention and Delegates, on which fo much ftrefs had 
 been laid, were not adopted from Ihe example of the French, but 
 \vcre Englifh terms, in common ufc-, the evidence was rejected by 
 the Bench as immaterial, and not at all fit to be taken into conn- 
 deration by the Jury. No inference, therefore, wag to be drawn, 
 that this alledgcd introduction of French terms implied by any 
 means en adoption of French ideas. 
 
 Another charge was, that they approved of the French revo- 
 lution. It was natural for them to approve of that revolution, be- 
 they were Englifhmen, and becaule they wece f icemen. It 
 
 wa*
 
 t 223 3 
 t 
 
 was natural for them to rejoice that a nation fo long held to th 
 mod abjedt flavery, were at laft likely to participate in that free- 
 dom which was the glory and the hoaft of Englifhmen. But it was 
 faid that they continued to approve of the French revolution, after 
 it had been dilgraced by the moft fanguinary excelfes. Was it 
 therefore to he inferred that they approved ofthofe exceffes, or 
 wifhfd a fimilar conduct to be puriued in this country ? They 
 might approve of the original revolution, as reftoring freedom to a 
 great nation, and at the fame time lament thofe acts of cruelty by 
 which it had been afterwards tarnifhed. At any rate, it was by no 
 means r to be inferred that they conceived that a fimilar revolution 
 ought to take place in this country. Here the fame neceflity did 
 not exift ; they had not the fame grounds of complaint from an 
 overbearing Nob. ility, and an arbitrary Monarch. Even if, from a 
 mifguided zeal for freedom, they had approved of the wont acts of 
 the French revolution, they were not to be fet down as traitors to 
 the free conftitution of this country. But it was alledged that they 
 had gone fo far as to wifh for an union with France ; and what 
 good fubject would not wifh for fuch an union? Enough furely had 
 been experienced of the calamities of war to render luch an union 
 defirable, if it could honourably be effected. They might be mif- 
 taken in their politics, but they were not therefore to be branded 
 as guilty in their intentions. - 
 
 . Another charge brought againft them was, that they had pafTed a 
 refolution to infert in the books of the fociety the fpeeches of 
 Poland and Kerfaint a refolution which, by the bye, was never 
 carried into effect. And what was the mighty guilt attached to 
 fuch a refolution, which, at moft, could only have afforded to the 
 members an opportunity of being acquainted with the fentiments 
 of the leading men in France. But how did a charge of this nature 
 apply to the prifoner, a poor (hoemaker, who could not be fuppoled 
 to underftand French, or be a reader of the Moniteur, in whicjt 
 thefe fpeeches were originally inferred ? If they approved of tho 
 reaibns for putting to death the King of France, were they to be 
 fuppofed to entertain the fame fentiments with refpect to the King 
 of England? What was the ftate of the cafe? The King of 
 France had accepted of a Conftitution which he was charged with 
 having violated, and under which .lie fuffeied. The King of 
 England never violated that Confutation by which he holds his 
 Crown : he reigns lefs bv the terror of his authority, than the in- 
 fluence of his virtues : he has nothing to fear for his fecurity, whila 
 he lives in the hearts of his lubjects. 
 
 But it has be:-n faid that they muft have meant to have recourfj 
 to foicc*, becaufc they had refolverd in future not to petition Par- 
 lidmcnt. It appeared to him that fuch a refolution neccflarily 
 preceded the mcafure of calling a Convention. If the petitions 
 of individuals had b, en fuccefsii'1 in order to procure a reform, 
 there-would have been no neceiTity for calling a Convention. It 
 was bccauie thcfe petitions -had been rcjeclcd that they therefore 
 
 though
 
 J 
 
 thnught a Convention would give greater effect to their reqtiefr, 
 and procure that redrefs which had been refufed to their former 
 applications. The proteft of the venerable Lord Camden had 
 been that day read in Court, from which, among other things, it 
 appeared that after petitions had been rejected, the voice of a 
 Convention was a Legal and Conftitutional mode of conveying 
 the fenfe of the people to the ear of Parliament. A good deal 
 of ttrefs had been laid on the proceedings of the Scotch Conven- 
 tion, particularly the refolution to refift the parting of a particular 
 act by the Legiflature. But to confpire to procure the repeal 
 of an adl already palled does not amount to High Treafon : there- 
 fore the act of confpiring to refift an act that is not at all in ex- 
 iftence, cannot furely conllitute that crime. The Prifoner was 
 only interefted in the proceedings of the Scotch Convention, fo 
 far as the Delegates had acted under the authority and agreeably 
 to the inftrudtions of the Society to which it belonged, 
 
 The proceedings of that Convention he was not interefted to 
 defend : they were fuch as he hughly difapproved. But it did 
 not appear to him that the Prifoner ought to be affected by pro- 
 ceedings, in which, in the firft inftance, he had no (hare. They 
 were attempted to be fixed upon the focietyto which he belong- 
 ed, in confequence of the fubfequent publications. But they 
 were then irritated at the fate of their Delegates a fate which, 
 from high legal authority, had been admitted to befevere; fome 
 allowance was to be mads for what was done in the moment of 
 irritation, and an Englifh Jury would not be extreme to mark 
 exprefuons ramly and haftily uttered. But he had legal autho- 
 rity to prove, that no act of the Scotch Convention amounted to 
 High Treafon ; fome of the Delegates to that Convention had 
 been tried for a mifdemeanour, and found guilty upon the fame 
 evidence which had been brought in the prefent inftance to ef- 
 tablifh the charge of High Treafon. But if the acts of the De- 
 legates did not amount to Treafon, much lefs could the concerts 
 to bring about the Convention come under that defcription. He 
 now came to the parole evidence brought to prove that the direct 
 object of the Prifoner, and all the Societies, by calling a Conven- 
 tion, was to depofe the King, in order that they might afterwards 
 deftroy him. The firft witneffes were thofe from Sheffield, Ca- 
 rnage and Broomhead, who were called to (hew that means had 
 actually been taken to fupport the Convention by force againft 
 the whole armed body of the Government, They proved in- 
 deed that fome pikes had been prepared but in what circum- 
 ftances? They were made by a party, becaufe they had every 
 reafon to apprehend an attack from thofe who differed with them 
 in fentiment; inflammatory hand-bills had been circulated, in 
 order to ejccke the populace againft them j a muflcet had been 
 
 fired
 
 fired into one of their houfes. In fuch a fituatlon, it was both 
 their right and their duty to provide againlt an illegal attack. 
 Neither the legality, nor the neceffity of arming themfelves, 
 could in fuch a cafe be difputed. He here referred to the cafe of 
 Dr. Prieftley, who would have been juftified in refifting the mob 
 who deftroyed his houfe of Mr. Walker, of Manchefter, who 
 had experienced the effecls of the fame lawlefs fury and, laftly, 
 of thr- Mayor of Nottingham, who in defending his houfe, killed 
 two of the rioters by whom he was attacked. But how was this 
 charge of providing arms attempted to be fixed on the Prifoner ? 
 Becatife he, forfooth, was a member of a fociety which had corre- 
 fponded with the Sheffield Society, and had received a letter on 
 the fubjedt of arms. This letter he does not anfwer, he does not 
 even fo much* as communicate it's contents, except to one perfon, 
 who afks him where he mud apply in order to procure a pike; 
 he does not fend a letter which it inclofes according to the direc- 
 tions ; in fhoit, he takes no ftep which can imply the fmalleft ap- 
 probauon of the propofal contained in that latter. Had he taken 
 any ftep, it would not have failed to have appeared in evi- 
 dence, (unrounded as he has been for three years by a hoi'l of 
 Ipies, who were continually at his elbow, who watched his every 
 motion, and caught up every expreffion that fell from his lips. 
 Was this evidence of fuch a nature as could convince any reafon- 
 able mind that the Prifoner intended to refill all the military 
 force and armed affociations of Great Britain ? What were the 
 means provided for this purpofe? About three dozen of pike?, 
 .an order for fixty mufkets. and fomewhat lefs than half a dozen 
 French cafe-knives. Such was the facility of arming themfelves, 
 that it had been ftated in evidence, that in Sheffield they might 
 have provided themfelves with ten thoufand pikes in one day. 
 If they had the will, it appeared then that they had the means; 
 but though they had begun to arm in 1792, or in the beginning 
 of 1793, they had made no further progrefs in arming than he had 
 juft now had occafion to mention. Mr. Gibbs then proceeded 
 to examine the circumfhinces of Hardy having recommended 
 Williams, who was his cuftomcr, to the fale of a few mufkets, 
 and the armed Aflbciation of Franklow. This Affociation, he 
 would not contend whether it was proper or improper, but it 
 was at leaft open and avowed; Franklow appeared public'}' in 
 his uniform, and his cartridge-box lay expoled to view in his 
 fhop. Franklow was an old dabbler in military matters, and might 
 chufe, when armed Aflbciations were the fafhion of the clay, to 
 have one of his own. He remembered hi mfel fence to have been in 
 arms, andtohAvea&ed as Lieutenant, under his friend, Mr.Erfkine, 
 in 1780. Good God! exclaimed Mr. Gibbs, if fuch evidence be 
 admitted to convil a man of High Treafon, who canpoffibly be 
 fafe for a moment ? Or, what fentence can we expeft from th^ 
 
 F f Judge
 
 Judge of 'the Univerfe, in the great day of retribution, if we can be 
 iatisfied upon fuch proofs to condemn a fellow-creature ? The 
 next witnefs was Gofling, one of that infamous race of men who 
 having no means of fupport of their own, endeavour to pick up 
 a^ livelihood by infinuating themfelves into the confidence of 
 others, in order that they might betray their fecrets to Govern- 
 ment. He would not fay that the evidence of fuch perfons, 
 where it was corroborated with other teftimony, ought not to be 
 admitted, but it ought always to be received with extreme caution. 
 In his chief examination, he had his ftory quite ready and pre- 
 eife, but in his crofs- examination, he was abafhed, confound- 
 ed', and unable to reply even to the fimpleft queftions. Some part 
 of his evidence carried with it it's own contradiction. He dated 
 that a man Jiad gone about the country to tamper with the fol- 
 diers ; that with fome he had fucceeded, but that many had re- 
 fifted. If fuch had been the cafe, could not thefe foldiers eafily 
 have been produced in evidence, and in the anxiety which had 
 been (hewn to procure proof from all quarters, would fuch ma- 
 terial witnefles have been omitted ? Another witnefs of the fame 
 fort was Lynam; he fpoke from notes, which, in many in- 
 ftar.ces, were incorrecl, and though taken for the exprefs purpofe 
 , of being given in evidence, are all vague and general. He, for- 
 footh,hati not attended to particulars, he had only gathered the 
 general ftrain of the converfation, and in order to fix any parti- 
 cular imputation of criminality, he was obliged to have recourfe 
 to his recollection. To the evidence given by fuch a witnefs, 
 no degree of credit was due. He next came to the evidence of 
 Mr. Groves, upon which he commented at fome length. This 
 man appeared, by the fubfequent teftimony of Green, to have been 
 guilty of perjury; and by his own'crofs-examination, of a volun- 
 tary ftippreflion of the truth, in order to keep back evidence that 
 might have been favourable to the Prifoner. Such.were the arts 
 to which this infamous Spy had recourfe, in order to enhance 
 the value of his own evidence to his employers, and poifon me 
 courfe of juftice. Yet even from his teflimony, corroborated 
 by that of the other witnefles, it appeared, that the only object 
 of thefe Societies was a Reform in the Reprefentatiun of the 
 People, to be obtrincd by legal and pt-aceable means, and that 
 they had not the fmalleft intention of interfering either with the 
 dignity of the Peers or the authority of the Crown. An attempt 
 had been made to. fix upon \',e Prilbner the guilt of the man late- 
 ly executed in Edinburgh I ike wife a Spy of .Miniflers, who 
 having overvalued his fervices, was difmided, and in attempting 
 to make a plot, which might entitle him to a reward from Go- 
 vernment, the expence of the lives of innocent or deluded men, 
 vras caught in his own Auinv and hanged as he richly dderved 
 
 "a perfon
 
 a perfon too wiih whom Hardy, the prifoner, had no correfpon- 
 dence, and whom it could not even be proved, that he knew bv 
 name. A queftion had been put to the witneires whether they ' 
 thought that thefe Societies intended to purfue their object by 
 peaceable and orderly means. This was intended to throw 
 dud into the eyes of the Jury; it was not the queflion how far 
 the means were in themfelves peaceable and orderly, but whether 
 they went todepofe and ultimately to deftroy the King. If one 
 act did not clearly amount to High Treafon, all the acts brought 
 out in evidence could not by any fair conftruction of the law of 
 England amount to that crime. Though the whole Court were 
 full of offenlive matter though the evidence went to prove in- 
 numerable libels and mifdemeanors, rtiil the Jury, laying afide all 
 confiderations of politics, and attending or.ly to facts, were 
 bound only to find a verdict guilty upon the plain, direct and ma- 
 nifeil proof of the crime of High Treafon. Miferable as the evi- 
 dence was with refpect to the ftibjeft of arms, yet without it no- 
 thing could have been don^ in making out the charges of the in- 
 diftment. It was proof of fuch a nature as would even weaken the 
 force of a ftrong cafe, and the prefent cafe would certainly have 
 been much ftronger, if no fuch charge had been introduced. 
 The overt-aft, hs apprehended, was the refolution to call a Con- 
 vention, the words of which he read ; yet furrounded as they had 
 been by Spies, not one proof had been brought to conneci this call- 
 ing of a Convention with any preparation of armed force, or to 
 fhew that they intended to proceed to the object in any other way 
 than by the peaceable means of difcuffion. Yet if they could not 
 prove that this refolution to call a Convention, was connected 
 with a determination to fupport it by armed force, they proved no- 
 thing to the purpofe. 
 
 One curious circumftance he could not but remark, that the 
 counfel for the profecution feemed much belter acquainted with 
 the evidence for the defence, than even the counfel for the pri- 
 foner: for infhnce. when a Mr. Stevens was called, they afkfd 
 whether it was Mr. Stevens of Rathbone-place, or Mr. Stevens 
 of the Minories. If there was, therefore, any deficiency of proof 
 on the part of the profecution, it did not at leafl arile from any 
 want of care in providing witnefles, nor could it be fuppofcd that 
 there remained any thing behind which could have been brougJit 
 forward to advantage. Yet there was hardly one aft which had 
 been broughr forward' in evidcjice which had been made public at 
 the time by the focieties themjelves fo far were they from being 
 tronfcious of'any illegal conduct or trcalonable intentions. Of the 
 evidence called for the prifouers, two were particularly entitled to 
 attention. 
 
 He referred to the evidence of Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Francis, 
 as proof that the prifoner could have no evil intention. To Mi. 
 Sheridan he had offered the infpe&ion of all his pipers without 
 rcferve. Mr. Francis he had aiked. to prefent a. Petition to the 
 
 1- f 2 Houfc
 
 [. 228 ] 
 
 Houfc of Commons, praying for univerfal Suffrage and annual 
 election ; reafoned upon the lubjeft, and profeffed his adherence 
 to the Duke of Richmond's principles. On being told that it was 
 informal in a petition complaining of a grievance, to inlift upon 
 a fpecific remedy, he had profeffed hisreadinefs to adopt any form, 
 but ftJll maintained that univcrial fuffrageand annual ele&ions was 
 the only adequate remedy. Surely this was the concluft o^ a man, 
 who, however erroneous he might be in his opinions, was himfelf 
 fmcere in the belief that they were well founded. The counfcl 
 for ihe Crown wifhed the Jury to believe, that all this was only 
 pretext on the part of the prifoner to cover treafonable defigns. 
 Let the Jury examine how this flood. The prifoner and thofe 
 with whom he afted, thought the Reprefentation of the People de- 
 feftive, and the Houfe of Commons in comequence corrupt. 
 They were perfuadcd alfo that a majority of the people held the 
 fame opinion he did not fay fo, but they thought fo and there- 
 fore wifhed to appoint a meeting of delegates, by which they might 
 afcertain beyond difpute that this was the opinion of the people, 
 and concert the means of giving it effeft. What faid the Duke of 
 Richmond ? That all attempts to obtain Reform from the Parlia- 
 ment itlelf, with every incidental help and advantage, were over- 
 borne by the corruption of Parliament ; that not a angle profeiyte 
 had been gained from corruption ; and that the only remaining 
 hope of Reform was from the people. What was the remedy he 
 cxpe6ted to come from the People for this corruption of Parlia- 
 ment ? Univerfal fuffrage and annual elections. Now it was ob- 
 jefted to the prifoner, that his own complaint of ihe corruption of 
 Parliament, was all a pretext. What colour was there for this, 
 when twenty witneffes had depofed, and almoft any number 
 might have been produced, that both he and they adopted the 
 opinion of the Duke of Richmond ? The prifoner thought a Con- 
 vention of delegates the beft mode of obtaining a Reform. The 
 Duke of Richmond publifhed that he expefted no Reform but 
 from the people at large. When the Duke of Richmond faid this, 
 how was a plain man, like the prifoner, to underftand it ? The 
 fair conftruftion was, that he thought the collected fenfe of the 
 people at large, communicated to Parliament, would not be dif- 
 regarded, as the petitions of comparative fmall bodies had been, 
 and that thus by Conftitutional means, the reform he thought 
 ueceflary would be effected. If this, which was the probable 
 interpretation of his views, were but barely poffible, furely, furely, 
 the jury would not prefer the hardier to the more lenient con- 
 ftrucuon. 
 
 It was a maxim of law, that in all doubtful cafes they were to 
 incline to innocence, and that als, of themfelves indifferent, were 
 in every cafe to be taken in the moft favourable fenfe. He re- 
 ferred to a motion for a committee to enquire into certain 
 abufes made by Lord Shelburne, in the Houfe of Lords, during 
 the American War. This motion, although negatived by the ma- 
 jority in point of numbers, might be faid to have been fupported 
 
 by
 
 f 229 ] 
 
 by the majority in point of character and talents. Among the 
 iupporters of it were the venerable Earl Camden. a man who 
 iurely underflood the law and the conftitution of his coun'rv ; 
 Marquis of Rockingham, Duke of Portland, Earl Fitzwilliam. &c. 
 They not only fupported it, but thought it their duty to hand down 
 iheir rcafoos for doing fo, in a proteft. The fecond reafon in this 
 protefl was. that a great majority of the people, as appeared by 
 the Refolutions of numerous aflbciations, were defirous of fuch an 
 enquiry. They added, that although fome perfons were alarmed 
 at thofe aflbciations, the foleobjeft of them was to make the whole 
 body of the Representatives of the People acquainted with the 
 wifhes of the whole body of their conftituents. This too was ths 
 objeft of the prifoner. The Prolefl went on to ftate the impofli- 
 bility of rejecting the petitions of the collective body of the people. 
 If Lord Camden and the iliuftrious characters who figned that 
 "proteft (did fo ; if they held it to be impoflible to rejeft the peti- 
 tions of the collective body of the people, furely a man like the 
 prifoner, who followed great au;horities rather than thought for 
 himfelf, might be allowed to fay fo too, without being fufpefted of 
 evil intention. " It is admitted," faid the proteft, " that the 
 Houfe of ( ommons may vote as they pleafe, but it is hoped that 
 fe wife a body will never, by rejecting the petitions of a majority 
 of the people, put to hazard the qucftion whether they have not 
 betrayed their tru ft. " This he read to {hew, that in the opinion 
 of great constitutional lawyers, of eminent ftatefmen, of unim- 
 peachable charafteis, aflbciations of the people to w/ttch the con- 
 duct of parliament, were not only innocent but commendable. If 
 all this was true, what offence had th* prifoner com.nitted ? He 
 defied any man to fhew, from the evidence produced on the part 
 of the profecution, that the prifoner had taken any ftep for acting 
 by force. To conclude that his intentions were treafonable when 
 nothing appeared againft him, but als which the law admit'-d to 
 be innocent, and which great authorities had held to be^audable, 
 would neither be charitable, nor befitting the character of an 
 Englifh Jury. Suppofe the Duke of Richmond could defcend 
 from his high ftation, and become the advocate of the pri- 
 foner: he would fay, *' His fins are mine, if he was milled, 
 I mifled him. But it will be faid that harfh resolutions were pafled 
 in the focieties of which the prifoner was a member GrantH. 
 The prifoner wi;s an ignorant man compared with thofe whofe 
 plans he followed, and when the ultimate end, and the means of 
 effecting it were fo clearly the fame, a little indifcretion on his part 
 might be excufed. I, with all the advantages of rank and know- 
 ledge, wi>h connections to fuppoit me in the attempt, or to comfort 
 in cafe of failure, prepared this plan. He, with none of thefe ad- 
 vantages, followed the example I had given him. You will fay 
 that he has gone farther, than I did. Perhaps he may ; but hr had 
 lefs information and greater provocation." If the Duke of Rich- 
 mond were to feel for a moment, that the life of the pnfoner was 
 in danger, his blood muft curdle with horror ; he muft fhudder at 
 
 the
 
 [ 230 ] 
 
 the very idea of guilt being imputed to the prifoner for the very 
 fame opinions and principles, that had been thought commendable 
 in himlelf. None of the evidence that was not brought pcrionally 
 home to the priloner, ought to have any weight, except as it went 
 to prove the "general charge of a plot, and this would exclude nine- 
 tenths of the whole. The prjforier had co-operated in a plan for 
 affembling a convention, but by no part of the evidence was there 
 a fhadow of proof, that he ever meant to employ force. He 
 \vas aware of ieparating the evidence on thefe heads, he had at 
 tempted it, but from the immenfe muls, and not having in his poi-- 
 feflion one third of the papers read, he had found it impoflible. 
 It was proved, and indeed admitted, that for two years the priioner 
 had never been without a ipy at his elbow. He had been watched 
 in the locieties.He had been watched in the moments of unfuipet- 
 ing intcrcourie wuh his private friends, in the moments of familiar 
 and unguarded converiation. \Vas it not fingular, ii he realiy 
 harboured in his mind luch purpoles as were imputed to him, that 
 in fuch a length of time, not a tingle expreffion of difrefpetl to the 
 King or the Houfe of Lords, had ever dropped from his lips ; not 
 an unguarded word about employing force 1 upon any occafion had 
 efcaped him ? No matter who elfe had meditated employing force ; 
 if the prifoner .had not, he was innocent. No word of his, no 
 cafual expreffion to this effect, was attempted to be proved. No 
 man, however cunning, could have kept fuch a watch over his 
 fecret thoughts. It was not in human nature to acl ; it was not 
 in human credulity to believe, if he had been a man of diflblute 
 life, his rufliinghaftily into any fcene of guilt might not have been 
 improbable. But luch a ^harafter had been given of him, as, of 
 any man in his ftation of life, had never been given in a court of 
 juftice : 1'riends, neighbours, employers, the clergy-man of whofe 
 congregation he was one all concurred in declaring him religious, 
 Jbbcr, ir.duftrious, mild in his temper, exemplaiy in his general 
 conduft, and worthy of any truft. The clergyman faid, that he 
 had converted intimaiely with him upon political fubjcfts, for the 
 exprei* purpofe of difrovering hi-s real intentions, and was per- 
 fuadcd that they were what he profefled them to be. Many of the 
 wttnefTes to his character, did not belong to the fame fociefies, nor 
 jentei tain the fame political fentiments ; yet they all concurred in 
 Hating his character to be irreproachable, and fome of them had 
 knoxvn him for twenty years. This was one of the cafes in which 
 character ought more pailiculaily to avail, for the Jury were to try 
 and pronounce upon the zii of the prisoner's mind; and unlels 
 they \\vre convinced that he meant to overturn the Government, 
 as the means of effecting the death of the King, they muft acquit 
 him." 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre. " Prifoner, you applied to the Court for 
 counfcl, and counfel were affigned you. They have now con- 
 cluded what they have to fay in your defence. You are at full 
 liberty to offer a defence for yjurfclf. If you have any thing to, 
 lay, this is the pioper time." 
 
 Prifoner.
 
 [ 2 3' 3 .. 
 
 Prifoner. " I am perfectly fatisfied with (he defence my oounfel 
 have made forme, and wifn to add nothing to it."' 
 
 The Court adjourned for an hour, and being refumed, 
 The Solicitor General, Sir John Mi t ford, rufe to reply, and in 
 feme degree to futn up. After fome compliments to his learned, 
 friends on the able defence they had made for the prisoner, he faid 
 hernuft firft notice what had been faid to the Jury on the policy of 
 their verdict. They were to decide on the evidence before them, 
 and the law as it affected that evidence, without regard to political 
 circumliances. Trial by Jury was not only the great protection of 
 the State and of every individual who lived under it, but that con- 
 troul over the adminiftration of juilice by the executive power, 
 which the people had kept in their own hands that .which the 
 tyranny of (Cromwell could not fubduc, and which was the firft to 
 fnake James II. on his throne. In ordinary cafes the State could 
 he in no danger from the verdict of a Jury. In fome cafes it might 
 -but even this conuderation they were to lay afide. No impor- 
 tant fact, at lead none that could fhake the main points of the 
 charge, had been difputed by the prifoner. His Counfel, with 
 great judgment, had forborne lo touch upon the ftrohgeil facts. 
 To attack the parole evidence, was indeed irnpofiible, for nu- 
 merous as were the witneffes by which it was fuppcrted, they 
 knew it might have been fupported by almoft. any number more. 
 Much of what they had faid tended rather to accufe the Duke of 
 Richmond, and another of his Majefty's minifters, than to exculpate 
 the prifoner. All this the Jury were entirely to pafs by, and attend 
 only to the evidence, as it applied to the prifoner. lie fnould 
 therefore take a fhort view of the law of the cafe; but firft make a 
 few remarks on the evidence, as it applied to the pnfoncr's inten- 
 tion. The Attorney General, in his opening, did not impute evil 
 intention to ail the perfons who were members of thofe focietics. 
 He knew that a fyftem of fraud and deception had pervaded the 
 whole, by which the few had impoied upon the many. If this^had 
 been doubtful before, it was now cier. The whole of the Sheffield 
 evidence went to ihew that the members of the fociety there fol- 
 lowed their leaders implicitly, and adopted whatever they thought 
 fit to propofe. In this manner inattentive an;l unfufpccting men, 
 without any evil intention of their own, might be led by the evtl 
 intention of others, to the mod violent and guilty extreme. Why,. 
 inftead of witnclFcs who knew the prifoner but by general charac- 
 ter, were not perfons called who had been parties to the more fe- 
 cret transactions of the focicties, or who at Icail had continued 
 'members till the time of his being taken into cuftody ? It vras only 
 in the latter part of the bufmeis that the evil intention became 
 clearly manifcil. He denied that equal credit was to be given to 
 the witneffes for the Crown, when their evidence matic in favour 
 of the prifoner, and when it made againft him. The Jury wov;ld 
 confidcr that the teflimony even of hon.:fb men might t-e aiiecte'd 
 by a particular bias of mind, and judge of it accordin;;!v. Tlu- 
 people of Sheffield had been impofed upon, when they thought of 
 
 providing
 
 L 
 
 providing thenvfelves with arms. They were told by the defigmng 
 few, thai the Ariflocrats, as they were called, were going to attack 
 them, and that they were entitled by the Bill of Rights to provide 
 arms for their own defence. But thefe arms, when provided for 
 defence, might have been employed, on fome new fuggeftion of 
 the leaders for offence. They faid they had been infulted and 
 threatened by the Church and King Clubs. Thefe clubs had very 
 poflibly done unjuftifiable things;. but their orator, Mr. York e, 
 who, by the accounts they gave of him, was not a man deftitute of 
 information, when he told them they had a right to arm for their 
 own defence, did not tell them they had a right to apply to the 
 civil magiftrate for defence. A plan had been once on foot for 
 making 10.000 pikes, in Sheffield, in one day. When this was 
 done, Mr. Yorke might have propofed what he had before hinted, 
 viz. marching to London, rather than be trampled upon, as he faid 
 they were, and there afting like the Marfeillois, who had tranfafted 
 things not of the moft agreeable nature at Paris. At Sheffield, a peti- 
 tion to the Houfe of Commons had been prepared, couched in fuch 
 terms as they knew muft caufe it to be rejected. Was this a bona 
 jidc tranfaftion, or a pretext to cover the further proceedings they 
 intended, and which were, perhaps, prepared before the petition ? 
 It was therefore clear that a fyftem had been purfued, which ab- 
 folved from any heinous degree of guilt, the greater part of thofe 
 who had been drawn in to fupport it. Some of them faid, they 
 wanted only to bring back the Houfe of Commons to what it was 
 in the Revolution. The only alterations in the Houfe of Com- 
 mons fince the Revolution were the Septennial Aft, and fome als 
 excluding contrators from fitting in it, and certain perfons fup- 
 pofed to be under the immediate influence of the Executive Go- 
 vernment from voting at elections, fo that the Houfe of Commons 
 might truly be faid to have been improved fince the Revolution, 
 inftead of having gone to decay ; fuch were the delufions practifed 
 upon the many by the few. The great majority being thus abfolved 
 from any high degree of guilt, though certainly not exempt from 
 blame, the guilt of the few who deluded was the greater. Among 
 thefe, the prifoner at the bar was deeply implicated by the evi- 
 dence. He could not fay, that he took no part in preparing the 
 bufinefs to be tranfacted, or that he voted heedlefsly and implicitly 
 for whatever was propofed. A Secret Committee had been ap- 
 pointed ; this committee was diffolved, but with powers to the 
 members to cleft a new committee, the names of the members com- 
 pofing which, were not even to be known by the fociety. Here 
 was a thing unexampled in any ftate, for.a little {late this fociety 
 was, and therefore dangerous. If their intentions were honeft, 
 why fuch fecrecy in the prime directors of all their movements? 
 Why not a6l openly, as they had done before ? Speculative opi- 
 nions on government, or on any other fubjeft, were allowed in thii 
 country, unlefs hurtful in the manner of circulating them. Such a 
 check mud exift in every government, as no government could 
 iland againft conftant attempts to diflurb the opinions. All go- 
 vernments
 
 C 233 ] 
 
 vernments mufl be adminiftered by a few In comparifon of the 
 many, and how was the fubmifllon of the many to the few to be 
 fecured but by the force of opinion ? Even the members of the 
 Conftituent Aflembly of France, when they had framed, as they 
 imagined, a free government for their county, thought that fpecula- 
 tive opinions were not to be left entirely without reftraint, and the 
 laft legacy they left to their fucceffors was a decree againft the clubs, 
 connected by affbciation and affiliation. The decree had never been 
 executed, and fince, the country had been under the direction of 
 thofe very clubs. The prifoner could not plead that he was a man 
 deluded. He figned all the papers, and to him all the letters were 
 addrefled. He was privy to all the proceedings of the Secret Com- 
 mittee, and perhaps carried on a correlpondence of his own, which 
 he never communicated to the committee. His conneftion with 
 Tooke, Margaret and Skirving, appeared very myfterious. None 
 but the prifoner. Margaret and Skirving, fcemed to have known 
 any thing in the firft mftance of the intention to fend delegates to 
 the convention at Edinburgh. 
 
 The Solicitor General then entered into a long and elaborate ar- 
 gument on the law of trcafon, which he read from his notes. 
 
 He proceeded to mainta n, that a convention in any State, being 
 a convention of the whole people, muft neceflarily become a Sove- 
 reign Power, and therefore that the King muft fubmit to it or be in 
 danger, and it mattered not that the parties did not intend to de- 
 pole him for life; for to depofe him for one day, or for one hour, 
 was the fame thing in point of law as that of depofing him for life j 
 and the (teps the prifoner had been engaged in led neceflarily to 
 that end, and therefore it was clearly trealon. He then gave a hif- 
 tory of the Revolution in France by the Convention; he faid, that 
 the moment the French deprived the King of his power of nega- 
 tiving the proceedings of the aflembly, he was then dcpofed. He 
 then gave an account of all the addrefles prefented from the focic- 
 ties of this Country to the National Convention, and the anfwer 
 which the Prefidenf gave to them. He began with : Generous 
 Rebublicans.".This, he (aid, was clearly underdood by the pr<rh- 
 dent of the French Convention to mean, that thcle perfons wifhed 
 to eftablifh a Republican form of Government in this Country, and 
 he had no doubt they did. The acts they did on this occafion, he 
 faid, he had no doubt whatever to be treafon. He faid he would 
 now proceed to another head of the fubjeft. 
 
 Lord Chief Juftice Eyre here faid, Mr. Solicitor General, if you 
 have come to the end of this head, we had better adjourn : for no 
 human powers would be able to go on, fo as to take up the mailer 
 after you have done. We {hail lofe no time then by flopping heie 
 for to night. 
 
 It was half pad tsvelve o'clock. Adjourned to eight next morn- 
 ing. 
 
 C g Tucfday,
 
 234 
 
 Tuefday, November 4. 
 
 The Solicitor General refumed his fpeech of the night befoi 
 by obferving, that he had already informed the Gentlemen of ihe 
 Jury what idea he had of the perfons engaged in the tranfaftion 
 which at prelent occupied the attention of ths Court, and how far 
 the Prifoner at the bar was implicated in the burtnefs,in the charac- 
 ter of an agent to the chara-S^rs concerned. He had ftdted the law 
 on the tranfa&ion, law that had the 'anftien of from four to five 
 hundred years continuance. He had, when he left off on that 
 night, arrived at the period when the fociety addreffed the Con- 
 vention of France. This addrefs irrefragabiy fhewed their objects, 
 and he faid. fhould be deeply impreHed on the minds of the Gen- 
 tlemen of the Jury. It fhewed the objeft of the fociety, and how 
 they meant to accomplifh their views, by affembling a National 
 Convention ; if any thing was wanting to (hew that this was their 
 objeft, he had only to advert to the addrefs prefented at the bar of 
 the National Convention, by Mr. Frolt and Mr. Barlow, and the 
 an-fwer given to the addrefs by the Prefident. There was no . 
 doubt, he faid, in his mind of the views of the prifoner, which 
 were the dellruclion of the Eftablifhed Government, by means of 
 affembling the people, and of eftablifhing in it's room a government 
 founded on the Rights of Man, on ihut broad bafts that would give 
 eve iy man a (hare of the government or the country. 
 
 He would not difguife but that there were abufes in our govern- 
 ment ; nay, he would luppofe. abominable abufes, and, if the fetffon 
 were proper, he would himfelf bring (uch forward, if he thought it 
 neceflary. For whatever iituarion a man may hold in the date, 
 either in a civil or pohtic.il point of view, he certainly would ex- 
 change it for liberty, for neither riches nor honour could compen- 
 iate for the lofs of that which was fo dear to Englifhmen. 
 
 In his obfervations, he faid. that he would naturally recur to 
 the affairs of France, and requefted if he fhould advert to any paper 
 not given in evidence, that he may ftand corrected by his learned 
 friends. He next took a view of the letter from Stockporf, dated 
 November 3, 1792, in page 32. of the Second Report. He laid that 
 It is letter pioved that the objefcts of the focieties were to eftablifh 
 a conflitution agreeable to the Rights of Man. They ftile them- 
 lelves Friends of Univerfa! Peace and the Rights of Man. The 
 H'ery terms begot a fufpicion that they were not friends to the pre- 
 f-nt conltitution. They attributed, he knew, all wars to Monatr 
 chics; and their favourite idea was, that a Representative Govern- 
 ment would (ecu re univerfdl pface. when nothing but the wifhes 
 and trie interefts of the peo;)lf- fhould be considered. Such an en- 
 thufiafm hovc-red over this noiion, that it refembled that of t the 
 >rfth Monaichy-'nen, who role m an mfurreftion for akrngdorn of 
 the Saints in trie reign of Charles II. Nay, fo thoroughly were they 
 yerliuded oi the fanflity of their purpolcs, that many of them per- 
 
 filied
 
 C 
 
 fitted in their laft moments to aver, that if they were deceived, they 
 had been deceived by Leaven. 
 
 In people thus warmed by enthufiafm, no imtfer for v/hat objeft, 
 the mod: dreadful effefts miht fpringjup; politics mijht lead as 
 far as religion. How, if they ihould fancy ardently a community of 
 property? Should we be able to ftifle fo dangerous an enthufiafm ? 
 The letter proves, that the London Correfponding Society endea- 
 voured to prevail upon all the other Reforming Societies, to ad- 
 drefs the National Convention of France. The prifonerhad faid, in 
 their fituation, fignatures were the bed fupplies, and names in 
 great numbers would be more ferviceable to them than money. It 
 is fufficiently obvious, that this f.>ciety thought the French caufe, 
 their caufe : they offer them their aid and affiftance, exprefs the 
 utmoft friendfhip, and their great fatisfaftion at the extinction of 
 treacherous royalty. They congratulate them upon their glorious 
 viftory ; and what viftory, Gentlemen, do they term fo? Theioth 
 of Auguft. No anfwer has been heard, nor obfervation ventured 
 upon this addrefs the filence on the other fide is conviftion that 
 they cannot repel it. However they go on to fay, " if ever our 
 minifters fhould lead this country to join the league of execrable 
 dcfpots combined againft you, we will (land forward at the ha- 
 zard of our lives." thus meaning to com pel or refift the meafures 
 of Government, if they fhould affeft thole they arc pleafed to terra 
 Defenders of Liberty. 
 
 The letter from Norwich, upon which obfervation has been 
 made, as it was neceffary to obferve upon fomcthing, is dated No- 
 vember 11, 1792. It is addrefled to the London Corrcfponding 
 Society, and exprefies admiration of their well adopted plan of rer 
 formation of the date. They defire to fend three of their mem- 
 bers to be incorporated with that fociety. With refpeft to this 
 plan, it waspretcnded to be that of the Duke of Richmond. This 
 I think a wild one; if I remember, it propofed to eleft, by about 
 2600 voters, a Houfe of Commons of 500 members. But the Duke 
 of Richmond never thought of equal citizenfhip, and a fhare in 
 the election of the executive government. The Sheffield declara- 
 tion meant the Duke of Richmond's plan only, and accordingly 
 f,oon found out that they muft abide by the conduft of the Friends 
 of the people, . whole object was a moderate reform. The letter 
 declared th^t thev would have nothing to do with the Society 
 for Constitutional Information on account of their idea, that 
 they meant to, go the length of all Paine's plans. It is thought 
 that we prefs hard upon the defendants, when we depend ou 
 this approbation of Paine. It is, however, probable the Nor- 
 wich Society underftood the thing as we have ftated it, and 
 would have been contented with the Duke of Richmond's plan ; 
 however thev afkof the London Correfponding Society, whether 
 their plan be to rip up monarchy, and plant democracy in it's 
 
 Gga If
 
 C 236 i 
 
 I f this Society had only had in view the framing anew the com- 
 pofitinn of Parliament, they could have had no reafon to demur 
 at anfwering explicitly and directly. Lynam's teftimony is 
 here diftincl: and clear ; whatever may be faid about his being a 
 fpy, it (lands uncontradi&ed and muft be received. There would 
 have been no occafion for deliberation they would have anfwer- 
 ed it at once fimply and indignantly, as beint> fufpe&ed of a de- 
 fign fo abhorrent from their true objecl:, a Reform by legal and 
 conftitutional means. 
 
 However, on the 28th of November, they do anfwer. In the 
 Addrefs the word Gentlemen isfcratched out for Fellow Citizens, 
 There can be no queftion that there is nothing criminal in the 
 ufe of the term Citizen, unlefs it is with fome peculiar view ; 
 but it is here meant to difcriminate between the Citizen of a Go- 
 vernment founded on the right of equal Citizenthip, and the 
 fubjecl of Governments originating in conqueft, or the progrefs 
 of faction ufurping upon the people. It has been aflerted by 
 Paine, that we have our Constitution from William the Norman 
 nothing can be farther from the trutli ; if you refer to the bif- 
 tory of the country, you will find that he altered only the Arifto- 
 cratic part, and that the Saxon Laws remained in full force, par- 
 ticularly in the adminiftration of that juftice, which fecifres the 
 liberties of the people. The fail is, they determined to be Fellow- 
 Citizens ; that is, in plain terms, Fellow- Kings. The anfwer 
 refers to their Addrefles, upon which no comment has been made, 
 and it was ftated that if numbers of people united themfelves, the 
 reform would make itfelf their difference is ftated to be trifling 
 that is, between ripping up Monarchy and Reform of Repre- 
 fentation. They advife a divifion into numerous fmall bodies, 
 and that each of thefe fhould fend a Delegate. They publish 
 and recommend books for the infirudlion of weak members, by 
 which are meant fuch as had not attained the requitite pitch of 
 enthufiafm. 
 
 But what anfwer- do they make to the query about ripping up 
 Monarchy? " Let no dilputes concerning monarchy, democracy, 
 or religion moleft us, let us fet them entirely afide, and leave to 
 a Parliament, fairly and freely elected by the people, the taflc of 
 reforming ail grievances." But it muft neceflarily be a pure de- 
 mocracy they meant, by alluding to a Parliament fo chofen 
 " New Reforms were expected in a Parliament uncorrupted by 
 a Minifter." 
 
 But you hfcve been told the Prifoner never talked of thefe ob- 
 jects. What does this prove, but that hepra&ifed himfelf the 
 lefTon he taught tootheis, and left their rights to be reftored by 
 this Parliament ; however, this is declared, " that they are not 
 fo fanguine as to imagine they will be rellored by the Ipontane- 
 
 ous
 
 C 237 ] 
 
 oiis confent of thofe who have robbed them fo long of them. 
 This affertion implies a degree of force in the means they (houUl 
 adopt to procure them. You may judge of a man by the fo- 
 cieties he is admitted to, and of the objects of men by their opi- 
 nion^. Let me afk you whether, if the Roman Catholics or 
 Papifts (they makeadiftinction, I believe) had fought to form a 
 Convention, would you not have been warranted in inferring 
 that religion was their object ? The modern French are to the 
 full as intolerant as the ancient Papifls, and there is the fame 
 obligation on the confaence in politics as religion. If they hold 
 their's the true government, and proclaim it unlawful to have 
 any other, it will be to the full as mifchievous. Applying this 
 intolerance to government is alfo new, and muft unfettle every 
 eftablifhed ftate in the world. If our focieties will confider no 
 government legal but fuch as is eflablifhed in France, and re- 
 commended by Paine, can they aim at any thing (hort of the <le- 
 ftruction of theEnglifh government ? If they get power to make 
 a Reform, their principles lead them, and they muft neceffarily 
 do the whole. They do not declare thefe merely as opinions, they 
 fay they will aft upon them they refolve they will make it a 
 Republic they have declared how they will effect it it is a 
 confpiracy. 'They propofe that their Convention (hall be ad- 
 drefled by the French as the Government of the country. 
 
 The Revolution in France fprung from fmall beginnings ; but 
 great has been the fimilarity, as far as our Societies have pro- 
 ceeded. The different effects may be found in the refpective 
 governments of the country. France had been governed by a 
 defpotifm the mod tyrannic and oppreffive: every body felt this, 
 and at the voice of excitement, to redrefs their wrong?, the fpirit, 
 the opinion of the people, by which alone Governments fubfift, 
 failed all at once. The very circumftances attending the Affem- 
 bly of the States Genera!, made it obvious that there muft be a 
 Revolution. 
 
 The Government by the Conftitution of this country had long 
 been an object of attachment with all it's faults and all it's im- 
 perfections. W have been told all this is prejudice moft of 
 our opinions are fo. They flow out of education and habit, and 
 a veneration without examination for a ftate ot things from 
 which our anceftors have recorded their beft blefllngs to arile. 
 Thefe are falutary prejudices. And here is the difference be- 
 tween the man of education and the man without learning, that 
 the one examines the canfes of prejudice, and fpeculates upon the 
 importance of defect confidered as working up from the temper 
 and conftirution of our nature ; the other receives them merdy 
 becaufe his father has tranfmitted them to him. 
 
 Tht
 
 [ 
 
 Thegreat majority of the people cannot, with any fuitable profit to 
 themfeives, apply to the conhderation of governments if they 
 prefer any, it is either taken upon content, or becaufe they believe 
 it to have produced happinefs greater than that of other govern- 
 ments. Few men are competent to difcern and confider how the 
 alteration of the parts of a fyflem a ff eft the whole. The firft at- 
 tempt to deftroy a goverment, therefore, is to overturn the preju- 
 dice by which it is lupported. Such was the praftice of the States 
 General of France in the year 1789. and fuch is now the con- 
 duct of their imitators. I do not call them imitators merely becaufe 
 they adopt certain terms fuch as convention, (committee, I be- 
 lieve, is not French, they had it from us) but becaufe they know 
 thele men have deftroyed the conftitution of 1791, at the head of 
 which was the King, and certainly as a free government this was 
 nearly what they pretend here to require. Paine was perfectly 
 aware of the force of this opinion which fecures States, and there* 
 fore he fets out with calling himfelf a Citizen of the World- 
 When a man is fo, he becomes, in a degree, an enemy to his own 
 country. All the endearing ties and dependencies that fpring frora 
 family, that extend to neighbourhood, and are bounded by the 
 country which gave us binh, vanifh, and we learn to difmifs the 
 feelings which produce the character of the father, the friend, and 
 the patriots. 
 
 He opens the 2<1 part of his Rights of Man with declaring, " if 
 we bad a bafis on which to (land, we might raife the world." 
 Thus applying to politics what had been faid of mechanics. The 
 propagation of his principles would be that Handing place. He 
 fays, alluding to the expreffions ufed in France upon the loth of 
 Auguft, " that revolutions may be confidered now as the order of 
 the day their dangers were before them, and the principles and 
 advantages were known and feen." Pamphlets were written for 
 the purpofe of inducing the people to fubvert this government, by 
 Paine, Barlow, &c. and to deftroy the two parts, the King and the 
 Houie of Lords, which, Court fel fay, the prilbner meant to re- 
 tain. They declared we had no conftitution how were they to 
 reform what did notexift? 
 
 Nothing can furpafs the eafe with which revolutions may be 
 excited, 'when the opinion of the people is deftroyed an ancient 
 writer fays, that, " he that goeth about to perfuade the people to 
 remedy defe&s, fhall never walk in fafety, fince no man can re- 
 medy them all;"*and many fuch are perhaps irremediable on ac- 
 count of the prejudices which have grown up with the people. 
 
 They knew that there muft be fome head in all governments, and 
 they obferved the operations of the Jacobin Club and it's 44,000 
 affiliated focieties ; that, in fact, it had given law to all France, 
 iuad didtated to the convention Their object therefore was union, 
 and the Jacobin Club their model. One of thefe focieties, that for 
 conftitutional information, had been originally compofed of men 
 of character and talen's, however fome of them might have been 
 foured by difcontent at difappointed hopes. By degrees perfons 
 crept in with bolder views, and more dangerous principles the 
 
 original
 
 [ 2 39 3 
 
 original members left the focietyr- 'Sixteen o: feventcen prrfon* 
 ufually guided the fociety, among whoi.W.; Conllant attendant) was 
 Mr. Home Tooke. However, this was n.ot even then fuch a one 
 as could be confidered as any thing like the jacobin Club. Mr. 
 Sheridan had been a member, although he had not attended 
 for feveral years. However, *& they left the names of the oiginal 
 members (landing in the books, it was not perceived that they 
 had feccded. 
 
 It was, however, neceflary to their defigns to have fome other 
 fociety asfubordinate, and, in coniecjuence, Hardy and (orne others 
 framed the London Correfpondmg Society. Hardy feeim to be tne 
 leader ; at all events in the character of fecretary, he (anclions all 
 the meafures by figning them. He becomes alfo a member of the 
 iociety for confhtutional information. They were to form divi- 
 fions a committee of ce! gates, thefe a committee of correfpond- 
 ence, which became the committee of fetrecy, and thus their pro- 
 ceedings were intimately combined. 
 
 They have declared by three publications, as they did in the 
 Norwich letter, their refolutions to refift all oppreflions, infinuat- 
 ing that this government is an oppreffive one only calling an a& 
 one of opprellion, they declared they had a right to refift it. They 
 declare that they have a right to (hare in the election of the exe- 
 cutive government, not merely a right to choofe their reprefenta- 
 lives, as in the Duke of Richmond's plan. They then declare 
 the people not reprefented they fay they would have all partial 
 privileges abolifhed. This latter applies to the peerage as much as 
 anything. Add to this their right to a fhare in the choice of the 
 executive fervants, and the amount is an wholly elective Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Arother circumftance extremely fingular is the propofa! of tefts 
 to thofe inclined to become members this precluded difcuffion of 
 the objefts a man to be admitted muft fnl\ profefs himfeif of 
 opinion that, 
 
 1. The prefent Reprefentation of the People was inadequate and 
 
 deluiive. 
 
 2. That every Adult ought to have a vote lor his Reprefenfation. 
 
 3. That he would promote a fair and free Reprefentation, by all 
 - fcgal and jujlifiabU means. 
 
 Tounderftand this, we muft remark, what they had determrned 
 to confider illegal, and juflifiable means may then be interpreted by 
 any. The defign was thus to govern by a tyranny of thcfe clubs. 
 
 In the next fet of refolutions, the terms welfare of thefe King- 
 doms are omitted, and the word Kingdom altered to Country in 
 feveral places. Aware that the great majority of the people were 
 not with them, they refolve, 
 
 That no majoriiy can deprive the minority of their rights, and 
 x^hcn they attempt it refinance becomes a right. Thefe are under- 
 flood of civil rights; and they explain them to be " Equality of voice 
 
 to
 
 L 240 J 
 
 to make laws, and equality of choice in the perfons to adminifler 
 them." Gentlemen, does the fpirit of the Britifh Conftitution per- 
 mit this ? It was ufually thought a ftrong thing to fay, that the ma- 
 jority had a right to alter the constitution of a country; indi- 
 viduals might be found whofe habits and occupations made the 
 exifting government agreeable to them, their right to fuch a one was 
 only vacated by the irrefiftible plea of neceffity. 
 
 If two men were floating upon a plank in the fea, and the plank 
 would bear with fafety only one, the law fanftioned the llronger 
 pufhing the weaker off into the ocean (the dreadful alternativg 
 forces thefe tears from me). They have taken a refolution to rebel 
 againft every government not founded on their principles, and yet 
 we are to be told that they have a perfect reverence for the go- 
 vernment of this country. Their refolution of 6lh Auguft flows 
 from thefe principles, and other pretences are only veils to cover 
 their defigns. They begin their addrefs with an extract from 
 Thomfon, extremely well read, as his habits lead him to do, by Mr. 
 Erfkine. The fentiments were not objectionable, but it was the 
 view with which they were quoted that made the offence. Any 
 and every good book might be fo proftituted, and in this view no 
 one had fuffered more than the Bible. 
 
 We are told then thar an alarm' d Ariftocracy had already made pre- 
 parations to counteract their plans, (that Ariftocracy which they 
 meant not to injure) but that they demanded the attention of the 
 people to the vitiated ftate of the Briiifh government. Great at- 
 tempts, by the way, are always made to excite the poor. Paine's 
 works are written upon that principle. The great end attain-able 
 by the whole nation was an equal representation of the gveat body 
 of the people. 
 
 It is obvious thjt. a refolution had been formed to fubvert the 
 government, and thai the reform was a mere pretence. The were 
 told this repeatedly. They continued to think in fecn:t, that if 
 they could gain annually elecled Parliaments, all the reft would 
 follow. Some things particularly ftrike in their addrels: they 
 will retrench the wafte in the revenue; watte, therefore, had taken 
 place. ; ' The People's Parliament would reflore lands improperly 
 granted by the Crown to the People." The whole landed property 
 might, upon fi;ch pretences, be refumed ; half the Crown lands be- 
 ing held by grants from the Crown, which cannot be traced, are 
 cultivated and improved by men who would thus be plundered of 
 their property. 
 
 This is precifely what was done in France, this was their grand 
 injustice, and this was a fecond time held out to delude the people. 
 Tiidt particu ar hails were held out for the poor will be allowed, 
 wr.en the regulation reipecting Spiulfialds is remembered. Other 
 reforms were expected to take place when this Parliament fhould 
 be held. Their ot>je6l certainly was to exclude a Houfe of Lords, 
 although the conlluution thev fometimes affect to reverence exifts 
 only by a middle power. This power was terribly decreafed by 
 civil wars between the Houfes of York and Lancaller mofl of the 
 
 great
 
 t 241 ] 
 
 great families were dcftroyed, or Scattered, or attainted. When the 
 Seventh Henry afccnded the throne, there were only thirty Peats, 
 and in consequence, there was not that (land made that would other- 
 wife have checked the ambition of that monarch and his fon. From 
 this defeft flowed the fubfequent afcendancy of thcCommonS in the 
 reign of Charles I. And that Monarch loft his head, becaufe the 
 barrier which would have reftrained the fpirit of the Commons was 
 no more. 
 
 Thar our Societies intended to dtpefe the King is clear from all 
 their plans centring in a republic this is an evident act of High 
 Treafon. I mult Hate to you a very artful proceeding, which has not 
 been attended to as the Society for Conftitutimal Information met 
 on a Friday, that which was called the Corn/pending met the even- 
 ing before. All violent refolutions were to originate in the latter, 
 or the country focieiies, and then be brought and fubmitted to the 
 ftnclion of the elder club. 
 
 The letter from Sheffield, ijth Oflober 1792, fays. *' It will be 
 vain for the friends of reform to contend with their tremendous hoft 
 of enemies, without mutual fupport we clearly fee that Scotland 
 will take frhe lead of this country^ there is a neceility for contlant 
 Correfpondence France by this means became united, and wr ought 
 not to lofe fight of it." How can Government fubfift with fuch 
 bodies in the niidft of it ? Government is a Corporation; but ihefe- 
 focieties are diftinft Corporations that aft like States. The India 
 Company is a Corporation for the regulation of our Indian Kftates, 
 in fubordination to the Government of the Country. But thefe clubs 
 are bodies moving in regular action, Subordinate to one principal 
 club; like the States of America they have one Government for the 
 whole. Such a fcheme, imperium in imperio, is inconfiftent with any 
 Government. This was the error in the French Conftitution of 1791 , 
 as diftinclly dated by \1. Andre. It was not an improper thing that, 
 fuch clubs fhould aflemble, while they did not a3\ but if they afted 
 no government could fubfift. 
 
 In all thefe proceedings the Piifcner has borne a diftinguifhed part; 
 befides that as Secretary, he was privy to every thing. The letter 
 of Hardy to Mr. Vniighan of the rjth April, fhews that he had con- 
 certed how (he people might be deluded. With rcfpeci to all or any 
 of thefe tranfadions, that gentleman has never been called to explain 
 any thing. 
 
 With refpeft to the rife of the Convention, this was it. There 
 had been feve'al Societies formed about the country; they folicited 
 a correfpondcnce with the London Society. Delegates met early in 
 the year 1793, and adjourned until the month of November. They 
 defended themfelves merely a Society of Delegates for the purpofe 
 ol (.-ill-cling a Pailiamentary Reform. Skirving, by a letter dated 
 May 2.-,, 1793, fpeaks of his difpofuion towards the work, and rr- 
 .luelKs leave to corrcfpond with him upon the fuhjcft. On the 5?h 
 of Oitobtr, Hardy writes to Skirving. He fpeaks of Muir and 
 
 H h Palmer
 
 [ *4* J 
 
 Palmer's trials and he fays " the idea of a general Convention ap* 
 pears to Margaret and himfelf an excellent meafure. He wifties 
 Skirving w^uld communicate his ideas to the Society, without any 
 hint of the private correfpondence; he makes no doubt the Society 
 would agieetoit, and infifts upon the necefiity of availing themfelves 
 of this opportunity, which once loft may never be tecovtred." 
 
 Then a letter from Skirving, in an official way, communicates to 
 both Societies the plan of the Convention, and they agree to fend 
 Delegates to the Scotch Convention ; Sheffield and Norwich fent 
 Delegates aifo. Thefe were inftructions to the Delegates given and 
 figned by the Prifoner : 
 
 j. That they (hall obtain Annual Parliaments and Univerfat 
 
 Suffrage by rational and lawful means. 
 2. Sheriffs and Juries were to be chofen by lot, and the Repre- 
 
 fentatives to be paid by their Conftituents 
 
 And this without reflecling what mifchiefs had fprung in France from 
 the confcquence of this payment. Illegal force was defined to be 
 that which prohibited the meeting of Societies for Reform. Thus 
 refiftance was declared kgal of the powers of the Crown, if neceflary 
 to the attainment of their ends. If refiftance can be made lawful, 
 they may vote attack lawful for fuperfeding the neceffity of refiftance. 
 
 The refolutions of the Society for Conftitutional Information were 
 more moderate; however, all that was done by the others they ap- 
 proved, and one Refolution they fanftion, namely the Seventh : Yet 
 if delegates go beyond authority, it ought to difavow their acls ; this 
 is not their cafe; they approve and declare they will lupport them. 
 It is fitting I mould examine now what were the proceedings of this 
 Convention. I ftiall not fearch into them all, though fome few it 
 is proper for me to notice: They call themfelves the Briiifh Conven- 
 tion of the People; this was unneceflary and improper. If they 
 meant but to petition Parliament for a Reform, to convey their ce- 
 legated opinions, is at all times improper. The people delegating, 
 not appearing, made it ftill more improper. But if they impofed 
 upon the world as a Convention of the People, they attributed to 
 themfelves the title, in order to feize and employ the power. Per- 
 fons, however, fo delegated, thus imperfectly upon their own plan, 
 could not pretend to reprefent the people, they were merely Dele- 
 gates from a few Clubs. 
 
 Yorke indeed puts this matter beyond a doubt; for he exprefsly 
 fays, the Britiflv Convention fplits upon a rock, bccaufe they had 
 declared themfelves too foon a Convention of the People ; they mould 
 have obtained that fort of tacit acknowledgment of their proceedings 
 from the people, which is the refult of a publicity not difcouiTte- 
 nanced. 
 
 The States General of France, aflembled on the 7th of June, 1789, 
 by the authority of the King, declared themfelves a National Aflem-
 
 bly. The people, by various arts being ufed, fupported them as 
 their Convention, and from that time lodged there the fovereign 
 powers of the State. The Brttifh Convention at Edinburgh ought 
 to have addrefled the public at large, and, if approved, then they 
 inight have affumed all the powers and authorities of fuch a body. 
 
 They dated theif tranfaclions the ift year of the Convention one 
 and indivifible; not to be feparated until their objects Diould be ac- 
 complilhed. This very aft was an aft of High Treafon, as the 
 Attorney-General had correclly faid in his place in the Houfe of 
 Commons. His learned friend Mr. Gibbs, when remarking upon 
 the profectJtion, had faid, that thefe afts did not amount to High 
 Treafon on account of defective evidence, although they were fedi- 
 tious. The Courts of Scotland had been crroneoufly accufed of 
 rigour in the profecutions there for fedition. The matter for exa- 
 mination was, whether the law of Scotland pointed at any diftinft 
 crime as fedititn? If it did, as affuredly it does, it was highly pro- 
 per they ftiould be tried upon it. Sedition was anciently the law of 
 England ; however, now the diftinflion is merely whether the offence 
 rank as mifdemeanor, or reach up to High Treafon. It appears that 
 the reformers of Scotland correfponded with the prifoner, that they 
 adopted their proceedings in this country. 
 
 Margarot fays, the Societies in London are numerous In Shef- 
 field alone 50,000 people were afforiated, although it is well known 
 that Society never contained more than 600 at mod Thus by ex- 
 aggeration he gave them a confequence that did not belong to them, 
 and in the refult, imagining their numbers thus great, they adopted 
 the characler of a Convention of the People. 
 
 The principal thing they did in their new junction, was to make 
 another and a new Union between Scotland and England. Whether 
 this might be a wife meafure may admit of fomedifcuffion but they 
 have affumed to break through by their own authority the Conven- 
 tion now exifting. They appointed a Committee to draw up a plan 
 of general Union They iffued tickets for admiflion, and voted thern- 
 felvea permanent. In the mode of their great model in France, they 
 exercifed the powers of a government, and received contributions 
 patriotic gifts donations, &c. and in the formulary talked of taking 
 the fenfe of the Houfe. 
 
 That they meant to ufe force to effect their purpofc was evUent. 
 The tafk of enlightening the Highlands mud refer to arming. They 
 were recommended to copy the Bill of Rights in the front of any of 
 their declarations or pamphlets, to prevent improper conftruftions ; 
 but this was clearly meant to deceive. To what purpofe elfe was 
 that bill to be copied into their books, which fome of them had 
 called a Bill of Wrongs ? But it told them it was lawful to aflemble 
 a Convention, and this was fomething; it would delude the people, 
 as they had deluded one of the witnefles, Hill .who told you that he 
 wanted only to reftore the Conftitution o '1688, when, except the 
 triennial and feptennial BilJr, there had bttn no material changes. 
 
 H h 2 He
 
 He then alludged to the famous blank refolimons of November, 
 1793, when Citizen Brown difcr.fled the Habeas Corpus Aft; this 
 man was the editor of the Patriot. Gerald acid retted them in an 
 eloquent fpecch, and Margarot propofed the resolutions. 
 
 That the Convention had an undoubted right to difcufs all ob- 
 jefts relative to their rights, and they declared before God and the 
 world to follow the example of their brethren and they will refill 
 fujterior force 'that fhould ftrive todifperfe them. So that if any hill 
 had been palled then for the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus Aft, 
 they would have been in a ftate of rebellion. They were to have 
 been ready to aft, if an invafion of any foreign or internal enemy 
 made it neceflary, and in that cafe the Secret Committee was to have 
 been removed to fome other place of fecurity, he declared perma- 
 nent, and aft accordingly. 
 
 But what mud have been the nature of thefe proceedings, which 
 could not bear the light of day, and were fo myfterioufly hid from 
 the eye of Government? They inftitmed Suj>pleans of their Depu- 
 ties the Delegates were to hold themfelves always in readinefs to 
 depart at an hour's notice, and the Secret Committee was to fix the 
 place; if they mould be difperfed by Government. They did re- 
 fufe to difperfe as Margarot communicated how he was dragged 
 out of the chair. A Committee of Emergency was to fit not mere- 
 ly if they fhould be difperfed, but on account of any extraordinary 
 nieafure. In cafe of invafton they were to be affembled. Marga- 
 rot ftates in his letter of Dec. 2, that they had done what could 
 not be communicated. Seven Delegates could vote themfelves per- 
 manent, and 21 could aft. Thus you fee they were provided againft 
 whatever might happen. Papers were referred to as making part of 
 
 a parcel they did not dare truft by the poft thefe were to be read 
 
 by Hardy to fuch Members of the Society as he fhould think proper 
 to truft. Thefe cautions to Hardy are in private letters, to be 
 communicated or not as he fhould judge of the fervour of the indi- 
 vidual. The Prifoner was the aftive agent of their defigns, and in- 
 timately acquainted with all their proceedings. Have they, let me 
 aflv, the flighted femblance of a defign to petition Parliament. 
 
 The pifture of a Highlandman, properly drtfTed with his broad 
 fword and target, before their books, could only be meant to excite 
 them to arm?, it had certainly nothing to do with a peaceable peti- 
 tion to Parliament. There was a propofuion to form a Commiflion of 
 Obfervation to keep watch over the Britifli Parliament this was ne- 
 gatived, and it was determined to requeft the London Correfpond- 
 ing Society to keep a clofe look out upon the proceedings ot Par- 
 liament. 
 
 Touching the Reform of Parliament, their finccrity may be 
 guefled at from the obfervation cf Margarot, that it was unnecefTary 
 
 to lop the branches when they intended , . . 
 
 , (To cut down the tree is the only way in which the blank can be 
 filled up.) They, no doubt, me^nt to avail themfelves of foreign 
 
 affi fiance
 
 [ Mo 3 
 
 'afliftance, if it could be had, or by their own force aceomplifl* their 
 objefts. Jn London, a variety of proceedings took place., for the 
 purpofe of procuring another Convention, in confequence of ihe 
 difperfion of the Britifli Convention in Sccliand. 
 
 The firft propofition that appaars of this kind is in a letter from 
 Hardy to Adams, dated loth of January, 1794, to hint to him the 
 Anniyerfary Dinner of the 2oth January, 1794. In the mean time 
 Margarot had communicated the circurr. fiances of their fituation, 
 and incited them to fpirited meafures. Hardy anfvvers that they 
 were detetmined to aft like the men they profefled themfelves 
 and he accordingly \vritesto the Norwich Society, Jan. 11, com- 
 municating what he has done. He adds, " Now is the time to 
 do fomcthing worthy of men." Now while the Defenders o 
 Freedom are South and Kail of the Channel, driving their ene- 
 mies before them like chaff before the wind. He reports, that 
 there were no hopes the people would generally join them, but 
 the French would enable them to fucceed. He adverts to a 
 Meeting of the 2oth January, as the time when fomething would 
 be done. * 
 
 The Solicitor referred to the proceedings of January 17, in the 
 Conftitutional Society : They allude to Judge Jtfferies, and add 
 that thofe who imitate -his conduct deferve his fate meaning that 
 the perfons in Scotland had experienced fimilar injuftice : That the 
 Convention merited the approbation ot all -wife, and the fupport of 
 all tra-ue men : the latter epithet marked their defign. The time 
 was faft approaching when power muft oppofe tyranny. The Soli- 
 citor obferved, that iuch matters were not to be decided by a Jury, 
 they appealed to the fword. They pafs a resolution oppofing all 
 the acts of the Scotch Convention. In allufion to the tranfporta- 
 tions to Botany Bay; they add,. Do you think we alfo fhall not be 
 treated as felons ? Do you believe they will not fend us after our 
 brothers to Botany Bay? Their caufe and ours are the fame We 
 are at iffue We mull oppofe force to force We muft chufe free- 
 dom or ilavery now. 
 
 You may afk what means they have taken to accomplilh their ob- 
 jects ? As to theif means, they themfelves explain them, not to pe- 
 tition the Parliament. " Who hopes to gather grapes from thorns, 
 or figs from thirties ? We mull fcek redrefs from our own laws, and 
 not thofe of our enemies, plunderers, and oppreflors there is no 
 other redrefs for a nation circumftanced as we arc." 
 
 Can any man doubt that the aft of proclaiming the Pretender 
 would be treafon ? Is not the aft of proclaiming a Reprefentative 
 Government the fame ? He referred to the election of Barrere and 
 St. Andre, members of the Society for Conftitutional Information. 
 He remarked upon two of their toafts : 
 
 " Succcfs to the arms of Britons, againft whomfoever direfted." 
 
 The
 
 C 4 1 
 
 The other tenement was only intelligible by referring to Barlow'j 
 letter to the Convention, in which he faid that a King was good for 
 nothing. The fentiment alludes to this, 
 
 ' All that is good in every Confiitution but may we never have 
 iuperftition enough to reverence any part that is good for nothing." 
 
 March 27, Hardy writes a letter to the Society for Conftitutional 
 Information, refpefting meafures to be taken in ronfequence of the 
 moment bemg arrived. He declares that he looked to the fpeedy 
 accomplifhment of all his wifhes and thefe muft be the annihila- 
 tion of all ranks, of a King, of the Nobles and the eftablilhment 
 of Repreferr.ative Government. The Chalk Farm Meeting, and 
 the arms, drew from the Solicitor fume comxent, though brief, and 
 not IB any new form. 
 
 He touched upon the evidence, End ftated the candour of the 
 Crown, in concealing nothing from the Jury if defeftive or con- 
 tradictory, it was then to make for the prifoner. 
 
 And now, Gentlemen of the Jury, faid he, I have nothing more 
 *o oJJer I nave difcharged, God knows ' with much pain, the harfh 
 doty repofed in me You will now do your's If your verdift 
 ilull difcharge the prifoner, I know you will give it with joy ; if the 
 contrary, yet it muft be given ; the cup, although it be bitter, mull 
 BOtpafs away from you. I have had a duty to perform beyond my 
 strength and my abilities ; I have difcharged it faithfully, and fatis- 
 aed my confcience. 
 
 It may here be proper to remark, at the clofe of the profecution, 
 that no men ever conducted themfelves with more mildnefs and hu- 
 manity, than the Counfel for the Crown. Mr. Attorney General 
 was manly and difpaffionate, firm and humane. Mr. Solicitor was 
 to vifibly affecled, that he concluded quite Arffufed in tears. 
 
 The Lord Chief Juftice rofe and faid, he had received a fuggef- 
 rion, that it might be definable, in fuch a mafs of evidence, to re- 
 frefti the minds of the Jury by either reading over the written evi- 
 dence, or repeating foch parts of the parole as might he judged ef- 
 ieBtial to the giving them as perfect a knowledge of the fubjeft as 
 cowld- be had. 
 
 Mr. Attorney -General and Mr. Erikine, after confuting with 
 the Prifoner, expreffed their opinion that it was not expedient. His 
 Lordmip then faid, that if there was any paper which he might 
 omit in fumming up, aSecling either the profecution or the defence, 
 be- begged they would remind him, and at their defire it Ihould be 
 immediately read. He added, that if the Jury pleafed, they might 
 BOW take, their refreshment ; after which he fhould begin and con- 
 eltNic the fumming up of the evidence to them. He begged they 
 woo'd confider his time as theirs, and fend for him, if he ftiould 
 apt be prefent when they were refrefhed, and he would inftantly 
 obey their pleafure. 
 
 Lord
 
 ( 247 ) 
 
 Lord Chief Juftice Eyre. We are now in the 7th day of trial j 
 it comes to me to Cum up this great and momentous Caufe. If it is 
 expected or wilhed on the part of the Prifoner, or on the part of the 
 Profecution, that the whole of the written evidence (hould be re- 
 peated to the Jury, I will do if. Or would it be fatisfaftory to every 
 body, that parole evidence only {hould be fummed up to the Jury, 
 and leave it to your recollection, Gentlemen, on the written evi- 
 dence ; then 1 (hail fum up the oral teftimony, together with fuch 
 parts of the written evidence as in the courfe of fumming up fhafl 
 appear to me to be neceflary to have rccourfe to. If it is the wifh 
 of the Prifoner, or the Counfel for the Prifoner; or, if it is iri!ift- 
 ed upon on the part of the profecution j but certainly, if defired on 
 the part of the Prifoner, I (hall not at all regret the expence of my 
 time, or of the bodily fatigue for me perfonally to go through. I 
 would willingly fpare the Ju-y as much as poffible, becaufe their la- 
 bour has been infinite. If I were to go through the whole of the 
 written evidence, lam afraid it would only load them with an imper- 
 fefl recolleclion of a mafs of evidence, which would make them th 
 lefs able to comprehend or underftand that part of the evidence which 
 appears to me to be material. 
 
 Attorney-General I carmot better confult the public benefit than 
 to leave the whole to the execution of that duty which refides in the 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. Erf-cine My Lord, if you pleafe I will confult with the 
 Prifoner himfelf ?- The Court confenting, Mr. Erfkine went to the 
 Prifoner at the Bar, and, having converged with him, Mr. Er&ine 
 returned, and faid that his client, confiding in the juftice of the 
 Court, had acquiefccd in what his Lcrdfhip had dated. 
 
 The Chief Juftice faid, as this was the cafe, he fliould take that 
 courfe, defiring it to be underftood, that if there was any thing 
 that he (hould not ftate accurately, the Counfel for the Prifoner 
 would be fo good as to remind hLn of it. He wifhed the Counfel 
 on both fides to underftand this, and particularly the Counfel for 
 the Prifoner. And that they fhould put him in mind of any thing 
 that was material, if he would happen to omit it. 
 
 The Court and Jury then withdrew for an hour for refrafl:- 
 ment. 
 
 Chief Juftice Baron Eyre proceeded to fum op the evidence. 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, this Prifor.er (lands indicted for High Trea- 
 fon, in compaffing and imagining ihe King's death. The Indict- 
 ment contains nine counts or overt-acls. Of thefe are, firft con- 
 fpiring to levy war againit the King fccondly, preparing arms for 
 that purpofe. Three others are, firft confpiring to fubvert the 
 Government fecondly, fending letters, and preparing arms for 
 that obj-eft. The four other o\ert-ac1s relate to the affembling of a 
 Convention, the firft of which is concerting to call a Convention, 
 the fecond, publilhing books, letters, and pamphlets, in order 
 to induce his Majefty's tuhjefts to fend Deputies to the fame Con- 
 vention
 
 C 248 ] 
 
 rsntion the third, meeting, confulting, and deliberating 
 ivhen, and where this Convention was to be held the fourth> the 
 nppointing Jeremiah Joyce, John AuguRus Bonney^ c. to meet 
 and co-operate towards the calling ar.d aiTembling fuch Convention , 
 You will attend only to the evidence neceflary for eftahlifhing one of 
 tbefe afts ; the general effeft of the whole will come afterwards to 
 be confidered. The Chief Jutiice then went on to ftim up the evi- 
 dence in the order in which it had been brought forward ; and be- 
 gan with adverting to the Witnefles from Sheffield, Carnage, and 
 Broomhead. In the courfe of his ftatement, he ordered the Clerk 
 to read to the Jury the Addrefs to the People, and the Petition to his 
 Majefty, which had been voted on the Caftle-hill. As to the gene- 
 ral libellous tendency of the Addrefs, he remarked that it was not 
 very much to the purpofe. There was one expreffion in the PetftJcn 
 which deferred to be remarked ; mention is there made of ' the 
 impending ftorm," but what was the application to be given to this 
 phrafe, taken along with the da;e, was matter of fit confideration 
 for the Jury. The whole of this printed paper had been very much 
 relied on by both fides, and had received very different conftruclions 
 from the Counfel for the Profecu:ion, and the Counfel for the 
 Prifoner. Its importance arofe not fo much from the other extrava- 
 gances which it contained, as from one Refo'ution, " That they 
 would petition Parliament no more." 
 
 It was evident, therefore, that they meant to take fotne other 
 courfe in order to obtain their ebjsd~t. What that other courfe was, 
 it remained for the Jury, taking it in the chain of evidence along with 
 the time at which the Societies had in agitation their plan of a Con- 
 vention, to determine. The next witnefs to whom he adverted vva- 
 Henry Alexander, whofe teftimony, from the manner in which it 
 was given, was not entitled to much credit, and upon which indeed 
 nothing material depended. All that could be gathered from him 
 was, that he had been prefent at a meeting where Yorke, who was 
 then on the eve of going abroad, talked extravagantly. Thomas 
 Whitehall confirmed nothing. The teftimonyof the next witnefs, 
 George Widdifon. fugeefted one remark. This was the firft witnefs 
 who had talked of a Reform of Parliament, and Rated his fsntirrents 
 upon the fubjeft, which he profefled to have borrowed from thofe of 
 the Duke ot Richmond. And this ought to afford an important lef- 
 fon to all men of rank and property, how they committed their fen- 
 tur.ents to the public upon fuch fubjedls, fince they there gave to 
 Others the power ef difperfing them to an unlimited extent, and ha- 
 zarded the mifchief that might be produced by their falling into the 
 hands of thofe who were either not qualified to underfland them, or 
 not difpofed to draw from them proper conclufions. Henry Hill, 
 who was next examined, among other things ftated, that there were 
 ten thoufand perfons prefent at the meeting on the Caftle Hill, at 
 Sheffield, who exprefied their approbation of the proceedings which 
 many of them could not hear, and this no doubt was the way in 
 
 whic'i
 
 which vrry frequently the apprchacicm of fo great n multitude was 
 obtained to proceedings wirh which they were entirely unacquainted, 
 or which, if they knew, they were not qualified to understand. * he 
 Witnefs knew not thai the Motion for a Petition to Parliament had 
 previoufly been agreed to be rejeded by the Junro, which gi^es one 
 an excellent idea of what fort of a thing a debate is conducted in 
 fuch an affttnbly. John Edwards proved that he had received from 
 Baxter that infamous paper " -I be Guillotine" which he ordered the 
 Clerk to read. This, he faid. was a molt infamous and deteltable 
 paper. The allufion contained in it was too'obvious to require to 
 be pointed out. ftut whether it ought at all to be interwoven with 
 the Indictment, or allowed to have any weight in the charges againft 
 the PrifV.er, was for the Jury to confider. The Witnefs did not 
 think that H^rdy had ever feen tiie paper, or that if he had feen it, 
 he would have approved of it's contents. One material circumftance 
 which appeared from the evidence of this witnefs was, that Hardy 
 had received the letter from Sheffield relative to the pikes, and had 
 fo far acted upon it as to have communicated to thevvitnefs the direc- 
 tion where he u.ight furnilh himfelf. 
 
 The next witnefs, Samuel Williams, fpoke only to the fubjeft of 
 guns. He had given Hardy an order for boots and fhoes, who in 
 return had found cuftomers for three or four of hir guns; thus far 
 the tranfaftion was merely in the way of trade and mutual accommo- 
 dation, and could re^fonably fix no imputation upon Hardy. But 
 it appeared afterwards that Hardy had recommended him to Franklo's 
 .Aflbciation. The private and clandestine way in which this Aflb- 
 cjation met to exercife, and the manner in which they Ihifted about 
 from one place to another, warranted at leait a fufpicion, that they 
 were confcious that they were engaged in no good purpofe. From 
 this recommendation, '* was evident that ihe nature of this AfToci- 
 ation was not unknown to Hardy; but what were their defigns ; how 
 far the Prifoner might be implicated in them, were queftions fit for 
 the confideration of the Jury. Edward Gofling had ftated aji expref- 
 fion to have taken place in the Society, which was certainly a very 
 ftrong one, " that they would arm to fupport their Convention as 
 the French had done." If tl e Convention, which it had bee* fo 
 much contended was to have met in a legal snd peaceable manner, 
 were to have been fupporrtsi in their proceedings by an armed force, 
 it gave indeed a new complexion to the bufinefs. At the fame tim 
 it was te be recollected what degree of ere iit was due to a v. itr.efs of 
 this lort, who was profelTedl ; employed as a fpy, and whofe cha- 
 racter was by no means the moft unexceptionable; were there not 
 objections tc his credit, his reftirvony would be very important in,, 
 deed, as it would ferve to mark a determined punofeag4nft the King 
 and his family. He had afcribed to Baxter, language fo very impru* 
 dent, as could fcarcely have been fuppofed to be ufcd. His evidence 
 was to be received with great caution. John Groves was a Witnefs, 
 whofe veracity \\as ftill more dircctlj impeached. The Chief Juftice 
 
 I i ordered
 
 ordered a letter from Stockport to be read, dated 5th January, 1794* 
 the whole of which he affirmed to be inflammatory, but particularly 
 the laft paragraph. This was followed by reading a fong full of fe- 
 ditious matter, which had been found among Hardy's papers. The 
 Chfef Juitice obferved that it had been very fairly taken notice of 
 by the Counfel for the Prifoner, that he, being a Secretary of a So- 
 ciety, was expofed to receive all forts of papers, and could not be 
 refponfible for their contents. The circumftance of improper papers 
 being found in his pofleffion, might only afford an indication of im- 
 prudence, and it remained for the Jury to determine how far that, 
 taken in connexion with other circumftances, ought to attach a 
 charge of criminality. The Chief Jullice then proceeded to remark 
 on the evidence of Lynam, and the evidence brought from Scotland, 
 relative to the confpiracy of Watt and Downie, from any (hare in 
 which he feemed to confider the prifoner as completely exculpated. 
 He then adverted to the papers found in the pofleffion of Martin and 
 Thelwall, which, whether they were allowed to affecl: the Prifoner 
 or not, proved at leaft the exigence of very dangerous defigns, and. 
 that the minds of fome of thofe with whom it was connected, were 
 infeded with a degree of violence, the probable effects of which he 
 fhuddered to contemplate, and with a vvickednefs which it was almoft 
 impoffible to believe. He then went over the witnefles that had 
 been brought to prove the virtues of the private character, and the 
 moderation of the political fentiments of the Prifoner, fhortly re- 
 marking on the evidence that had been given by each. 
 
 The Chief Juftice having gone through all the Evidence, faid he 
 fhould be very glad to go on with what he had to fay to the Jury on 
 the fubjcft, but as what he had to fay muft necefiarily run into an 
 inconvenient length both for them and for himfelf, and as he was fo 
 >nuch exhaufted, he muft trouble them to attend to-morrow, and 
 then he hoped .to be able, in a few hours, to difmifs them, requeil- 
 ing their attendance at nine o'clock. 
 
 The Court then adjourned at half after eleven o'clock. 
 
 EIGHTH DAY NOVEMBER 5. 
 
 THE Court fat at ntne o'clock, when Lord CHIEF JUSTICE 
 EVRE proceeded in his charge as follows : 
 
 Gentlemen oftbf Jury, 
 
 Laft night, at a late hour, I finilhed the parole evidence and fome 
 of the written evidence that feemed to be more immediately con- 
 Ec,led with the parole evidence on both fides, except that I did not 
 Hate to you the proteft in the Houfe of Lords, which was read to you 
 by the confent of the Attorney-General, as evidence on the paat of 
 the prifoner. I did not flate it to you at that time, becaufe it did 
 not appear to me from the nature of the cafe to be evidence. It is 
 that has pafled in the Parliamentary Hiftory of this coun- 
 ty.
 
 try, frbfti whence arguments might be drawn on the part of the prfc 
 foner, to evidence the purity and honefty of his intentions, and it^a 
 in that view only that I mention it. 
 
 Having thus fmiihed the fumming up of the evidence, I may fay 
 to you that this caufe, which is a great and a momentous caufe, be- 
 tween the King and the Prifoner at the bar, is at length brought to 
 a point of conclufion ; and it mud be a faiisfa&ion to the mind of 
 every honeft man, that this caufe has been happily fo conducted, and 
 has been proceeded upon with fo much patience and temper, as that 
 yoar minds may have been fufficiendy informed on the fubjecl to 
 enable you to difcover its true merits, and to pronounce a verdict, 
 which in the firft place will be fatisfactory to your own minds, and 
 being fatisfa&ory to your own minds, cannot but be fatisfactory to 
 the country. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is as much fatisfaction to me, as I can feel in the 
 exercife of fo painful a duty, as that which has been caft upon me, 
 that upon this occafton there is, I think, no poflible chance of our 
 being entangled in any difficulties in point of Jaw. The verdict in 
 this cafe will not proceed, and you will receive no directions from 
 me that it ought to proceed on any technical grounds. The overt- 
 ad is in fubftance, thar the prifoner at the bar, and thofe who have 
 been concerned with him, confpired to depofe the King, and to 
 fubvert the Monarchy; and this is charged, and always has been 
 confidered, an an overt-act of the Trcafon of comparting the death 
 of the King. It is indeed an old prefumption of law, acknow- 
 ledged by the writers of the Jaw, anj particularly by thofe writers 
 who have been cited as authorities by the Counfel on both fides, that 
 he who confpires to depofe the King, imagines the death of the 
 King; and there is noqneftion, whether the com paffing or imagining 
 the death of the King was the primary intent conceived in the mind, 
 prior to the confpiracy to depofe him, as if a confpiracy to depofe 
 him, muft neceffarily, from the nature of the thing, be fubfequent 
 to the confpiracy to compafs and imagine. I fay it is not to be put 
 to you, that the comparing and imagining the death of the King is 
 to be proved a conception in the mind, prior to the conception of 
 depofing the King. The depofmg of the King is evidence of a con- 
 fpiracy to compafs and imagine. It is a prefumption of law only, 
 becaufe it is fuch a neceflary and violent prefumption of fa&. Who 
 can doubt that the natural perfon of the King is immediately at- 
 tacked and attempted by him who attempts to depofe him. 
 
 Gentlemen, I (hall wafte no time in the difcufling of fuch queftions. 
 Many, many hours were fpent at the bar in this difcuflion, but on 
 the part of the prifoner it was nianifeft, that after the difcuftion, the 
 fact broke down under them, and it became impoflrble for either of 
 the Gentlemen to fet his face diftinclly to this propofition. I fay no 
 honeft man ought to doubt whether he who confpires to depole the 
 King, has coinpafled or imagined his death. 
 
 1 i 2 Gentlemen,.
 
 Gdntlemen, you will therefore proceed to the examination of the 
 fafts. and I am moft cordially difpofed to agree with theCounfel for 
 th; Prif ,ner, that if he is this day to be convicled^ that the proof 
 rtt^ilt be clear and convincing. It muft confift of convincing circum- 
 ftances, the refult of which (hall leave no doubt in your minds. 
 
 Gentlemen, the ihort Hate of the queftion of facl may be Hated 
 thlls t Whether the prifoner and the other perfons have confpired to 
 fabfeft the Monarchy, and whether they have fet on foot the projeft 
 of a Convention of the People in order to effect it. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have employed a part of that time, which was ne- 
 Ceflary enough for me to have devoted, in endeavouring to take fuch 
 a re.- ew of the evidence of this cau'e, as might enable me to lay the, 
 queftions of fa& as they exift, be; ween the King and the Prifoner at 
 the bar. with fome tolerable dUUnttions before you, that you might 
 (ee where the matter hinged, and that you may apply your attention 
 and confederation to the different points of the cafe. 1 do not know 
 whether I fhall fucceed or not, but I do hope I fhall be able to point 
 out to you the leading features of this cafe in a way that may be of 
 fome ufe to you in forming your judgments. 
 
 I begin with (rating to you, that 1 think it ought to be conceded 
 td this prifoner upon the whole refult of this evidence, that he had 
 fet out originally upon that which is called the Duke of Richmond's 
 plan of the Reform of Parliament, that is, upon a ^>lan to obtain an- 
 nual Parliaments, and a Reprden ration of the People in the Commons 
 Houfe of Parliament by univerfal fufFrage; and I think it will be 
 incumbent on thofe who fuftain the profecution, to fatisfy you, that 
 the prifoner and the other perfons, who have been concerned with 
 him, whether irritated by their own enthufiafm, or by the example 
 of France, have departed from that plan, and have entered into a 
 criminal purfuit of another object -another objecV- -in the opinion 
 of very wife men, not very far removed from that; and it is that 
 confideration which has made the laboured promulgation of fuch 
 opinions fo dangerous' to the community. The object I now allude 
 to is, the fubllituting, in the room of an improvement of the Repre- 
 fentat'^n of the Commons Koufe of Parliament, a pure Democracy; 
 the eRablifhment of a Government by a Reprefentation of the Peo- 
 pje, only, or what may be expreffed under the wordb-^a full and free 
 Reprefentation of the People. 
 
 Gentlemen, there are parts of the evidence, and thefe will not be 
 found to be extremely numerous, which will be fit to be fubmitted 
 to your confideration, as grounds from whence the profecutors have 
 drawn the conclufion by which they are to fupport the treafon which 
 accompanied this departure from the original plan, and which (hew. 
 that thefe people have entered into criminal purfuits. The parts of 
 the evidence to which I particularly refer you, are thofe paflages in 
 it which tnaik the conduct of thefe people in the courfe of the year 
 1792, prior to their addrefles to the National Convention. Whe^i 
 you have Confidered this, you have then to confider thefe add refTes to 
 
 the
 
 the National Convention, with the circumftances belonging to them. 
 After you have caft an intelligent eye on that fubjecl, you will then 
 have to look at their fubfequent conduct, down to the time of the 
 difperfion of the Britifh Convention in Scotland, in the latter end 
 of the year 1793 ; and then you will have to confider and to form 
 your judgment upon that project of a Convention, which was con- 
 ceived, and proceeded to a certain extent, in the beginning of 1794. 
 
 Gentlemen, I think I may ftate to you, without troubling you with 
 particular evidence, that it is clear, from the whole mafsof the evi. 
 dence which you have heard, that thefe popular focieties had, in the 
 beginning of the year 1792, fo conducted themfelves as to raife a 
 queftion upon ihemfelves and their conduct, fome time before the 
 addrefles to the National Convention took place. You will recol- 
 lect that it appeared from fome of the papers :hat were read, that 
 there was a Society, calling themfelves, " The Friends of thePeo. 
 pie j" confiding of men of rank and property, and of great dif- 
 tinclion in the country, who had refufed to correfpond with the 
 Conilitutional Society. You will recoiled that the fame fet of men 
 had exhorted the Sheffield Society, with whom they were in Cor- 
 refpondence that year, and had exhorted them in vain, to make an 
 explicit declaration of their attachment to the Government as by* 
 law eftablilhed. Some of thefe popular Societies had gone fo far, 
 and particularly a Society at Stockport, as to put the queftion direft- 
 ly to the London Correfponding Society, by a letter addrefled to 
 the Prifoner now at the bar, to know what it was they meant, and 
 particularly to know whether they meant to go on with the Houfe of 
 Lords ? 1 hat Society intimated their doubts, whether, with the 
 Houfe of Lords, they could effectuate their plan of Reform; or 
 whether with the Bifhops, who made a part of the Houfe of 
 Lords, liberty of confcience, as they underftood it, could never be 
 fatisfaclorily eftablifhed. 
 
 Another Society, in the fame year, from Norwich, put the quef- 
 tion more diftinclly and clearly, but in a way which could not pof- 
 fibly be mifunderftood, for they put this direct queftion, and to the 
 Prifoner Hardy Do you intend to rip up the Monarchy by the 
 roots ? It was in evidence, they fufpecled that this laft letter was a 
 fnare intended for them. You will recollect Lynham*s evidence to 
 that effect. They were on their guard, and anfwered it and the 
 other letter. To be fure, one might reafonably have expected, 
 that men, who adopted the Duke of Richmond's plan, with fince- 
 rity of heart, and who meant not to go beyond his plan, would 
 have, when fo called upon, moft diftinclly avowed the extent of 
 their plan, in terms which could admit of no equivocation or ex- 
 ception. They would have avowed their dutiful attachment to the 
 King j they would have avowed their adherence to theCohftitution 
 of the government as by law eftablilhed, in King, Lords, and Com- 
 mons. They would have left no man to doubr, and particularly 
 thofe perfons 0ho put the queftion to them, what their opinion was, 
 
 upon
 
 iipoh that important point which was to goveni the cofl3u<5t of othdh 
 what the opinion was, that they really entertained. 
 
 Gentlemen, the anfwers to thefe two requifuions, I (hall defire 
 may b read, not that I think, in a cafe of this nature, much flrefa 
 ought to be laid on particular expreflions. God forbid that men's 
 lives fhdiild depend on nice interpretations and conftrudions of 
 words. I am againft even a very ftrift interpretation of actions to 
 the prejudice of any prifoner. But fometimes expreflions are too 
 ftrong, fometimes tranfaftions are too explicit, to admit of any 
 doubr, as to the real interpretation and meaning. Gentlemen, read 
 the anfwers to thefe two requifuions, attend to them, and ice what it 
 is they do import, and particularly whether they do import any fa- 
 tisfadlory and explicit avowal of attachment to the conftitution of the 
 country, as by law eftablifhed, in King, Lords, and Commons. 
 
 {"The two letters from Stockport and Norwich, were firft read by 
 Mr. Shdton, and then the anfwers given to them by the London 
 Correfponding Society;] 
 
 Gentlemen, all the obfervations that are to be made in the parti- 
 cular expreflions in thefe two anfwers, have been already made by 
 me, and you will judge of their proper force, I have no occafion 
 to repeat them. Such of them as llrike your minds clearly and dif- 
 tinftly, are probably well founded. If it requires much nicenefs 
 of critical enquiry to fix the meaning imputed to the words, I 
 fhould advife you not to employ yourfelves in that fort of criticifm. 
 I think you would only entangle yourfelves ; and you would not fee 
 the cafe in its great outlines, which I believe is the only way in which 
 it can be feen truly. One obfervation only I (hall make on the laft 
 letter, becaufe it is immediately connected with the hiftory of this 
 tranfaftion, namely, that in the Jail letter they inform the Society 
 at Stockport, that they have refolved on addreffing the French 
 National Convention ; and then follows this extraordinary paffage 
 " Without entering if/ to the probable effffis <f Jtttb a meafure' tffefts 
 which jour Society -ivill not fail T DISCOVER ive invite you to join ;." 
 What were/to be the probable effcfts of this meafure, which thefe 
 perfons were to difrover? And why did they not exprefsly avow to 
 the Society the whole of their project, in terms that could admit of 
 no equivocation or doubt ? Thefe are the only obfervations that I 
 make on this Jetter. They (late that they had refolved to addrefs the 
 National Convention, and they did in faft addrefs it ; and it is very 
 apparent, in the evidence, that the Society to which Hardy belong- 
 ed took a lead in that meafure. They notify it not only to the 
 Stockport Society, but alfo the other Societies with whom they 
 were in intimate correfpondence and connections. They tranfmitt^d 
 that refolution to the Soeiety for Constitutional Information. The 
 Society for Conititutional Information declared their approbation of 
 the intention of the London Corrofponding Society to addrefs the 
 National Convention of France, and the refult was, that the So- 
 ciety for Constitutional infcumation did not think fu to join them 
 
 ia
 
 ( 355 ) 
 
 fn that particular addrefs, but they alfo refolved to prefent an d 
 drcfs of their own to the Convention of France, and they, in fact, 
 did fo, What their objecls were in prefenting that addrefs, are on- 
 ly darkly alluded to in the letter of the Correfponding S/ciety to the 
 Society of Stockport ; but whatever their objects might feem to be 
 it is a fair obfervation upon their conduct, in fac~t, towards thofe two 
 Societies, to whom they fent thefe two letters, and upon their con- 
 duel in thus prefenting this addrefs, namely, that if you could fup* 
 pofe that they had meafures to keep with thofe Societies, the vio- 
 lence of fome to check, the moderation of others to animate, or any 
 other objects which made it neceflary for them to keep meafures with 
 thofe Societies, was the anfwering every man in his own way, fo as 
 to lofe none, and to increafe the number of their followers. If you 
 were difpofed, therefore, to attribute the particular language of thefe 
 anfwers to fomc fuch neceffity, yet, in refpedt of their conduit to 
 the National Convention of France, they appear to be perfectly vo-* 
 lunteers ; to have no meafures to keep with any body, and to be there* 
 fore directly refponfible for all the confequences that might follow 
 from fuch add relies, 
 
 Gentlemen, I believe it may be neceffary to trouble you with the 
 reading of thefe addrefles, becaufe they, on the part of this profe- 
 cution, infer from thofe addrefles this propofuion that they admit 
 of no explanation whatever, that they are the conduct of determined 
 Republicans, going out of their way to exprefs their zeal in the 
 caufe of republicanifm. Now you will hear thefe addreffes read, and, 
 you will judge for yourfelves how far they merit that imputation, 
 
 Mr. Shelton here read the Addreflbs, and alfo the following extraft 
 from the Refolutipns of the Britilh Convention : 
 
 " Refolved, That the following Declarations and Refolutions be 
 inferted ac the end of our minutes, viz. 
 
 " That this Convention, confidering the calamitous confequences 
 of any aft of" the Legiflature which may tend to deprive the whole 
 or any part of the people of their undoubted right to meet,>eithcr 
 by themfeleves or by delegation, to difcufs any matter relative to 
 their common intereft, whether of a public or private nature, and 
 holding the fame ro be totally inconfiltent with the firft princi-. 
 pals and fafety of fociety, and alfo fubverfive of our known and 
 acknowledged conltitutional liberties, do hereby declare, before 
 God and the world, that we lhall follow the wholefome exam- 
 pie of former times, by paying no regard to any act which fhall 
 militate againft the Conftitution of our country, and fhall contU 
 nue to aflemhle and confider of the beft means by which we can 
 accomplish a real Reprefentation of the People, and Annual Elec- 
 tion, until compelled to defift by fuperior force. 
 
 " And we do refolve, That the full notice given for the intro-.
 
 Juftion of a Convention Bill, or any Bill of a fimilar tendency to that 
 palled in Ireland in the laft Seffion of their Parliament : 
 
 * Or any Bill for the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus Aft, or the 
 Aft for preventing wrongous imprifonment, and againll undue delays 
 in trial in North Britain: 
 
 " Or in cafe of an invafion, or the ad million of any foreign troops 
 \vhatfoever into Great Britain or Ireland ; 
 
 All or any one of thefe calamitous circumftances (hall be a fig- 
 al to, the feveral Delegates to repair to fuch place as the Secret 
 Committee of this Convention fhall appoint; and the firft feven 
 Members fhall have power to declare the Sittings permanent, fhall 
 conftitute a Convention, and twenty-one proceed to bufinefs. 
 
 " The Convention doth therefore refolve, that each Delegate, 
 immediately on his return home, do convene his conftituents, and 
 explain to them the neceffity of electing a Delegate or Delegates, and 
 of eftablifhing a fund, without delay, againfl any of thefe emergen- 
 cies, for his or their expence ; and that they do inftruft the faid 
 Delegate or Delegates to hold themfelves in readinefs at one hour's 
 warning." 
 
 Gentlemen, it appears from the evidence, that thefe addrc/Tes 
 were prefented by perfons appointed from hence. The name of one 
 of them is J. Froft. The language in which Froft prefented them, 
 you are in pofleffioa of, and the evidence has been laid before you. 
 It will be proper that you (hould bear it read. (Mr. She/ton read it.) 
 Such was the language, Gentlemen, in which the Addrefles were 
 prefented to the National Convention in France. I forbear, at this 
 time, to remark on the language and conduft of the perfons employed 
 to prefent thefe Addrefles, except fo far as that language is connected 
 with the cafe of the prifoner, becaufe, in any other view of it, it is 
 not before you. But this language, though not held by the prifoner 
 .himfelf, nor by the perfons who deputed Froft to deliver it, yet it 
 will be found to affect them in fome degree, becaufe the language 
 of the prefentation of the addrefs is tranfmitted by Froft to the Soci- 
 eties, and you will find an unqualified approbation of the conduft of 
 Froft, after they had been informed in what language it had been pre- 
 fented, was given by the Society for Constitutional Information, of 
 which Hardy was an affociated member. One material obfervation 
 that occurs upon it is, that it was publicly declared, till the National 
 Convention of France had begun to aft, there was little to be done 
 here with refpeft to the views of thefe Popular Societies. Whether 
 that goes any way towards warranting the idea of a new interpretation 
 of the phrafe, Reprefentation of the People by umverfal Suffrage and 
 annual Eleftions, arifing out of the proceedings of the National Con- 
 vention of France, or if not rifing out of them, yet in confluence of 
 the National Convention of France having exhibited that great fcene 
 on the theatre of the world, that their attempts were to be carried into 
 execution, and they did, in faft, addrefs it, is for your judgment. 
 
 The
 
 '[ 257 ] 
 
 " Thisprefenlation hascxpreffed an expectation that felicitations 
 might foon come over to a National Convention here. What 
 then was the National Aff'rmbly which was to be efhblifhed here 
 in England, and which was to be felicitated by France, will be a 
 material fubjeft tor your ferious confideration. 
 
 ' Gentlemen, I have ftated to you that the only effeft, in this 
 cafe, which the language of the delegate who prefented this ad- 
 drcfs has, is in refpect of the adoption of it by the priloner, and by 
 the perfons concerned with him. It was truly obferved. that if 
 an jgeni be employed, it would be cruel to bind his principal to 
 any thing in which he went, beyond the bounds of his agency. 
 It would be cruel if the acls of an agent could be imputed to his 
 principal, when that principal never approved of them : But if the 
 principal does approve of them, there is no hardfhip in fuch im- 
 putation. There is no cruelty, or even impropriety, in conftruing 
 the language and fentiments of the agent to be the language and 
 fCntiments of the principal. Now you will judge, whether thofe 
 conrerncd to fupport this prciecution have, upon iolid grounds, or 
 oiherwife, branded thefe proceedings with rank Republicanifm ; 
 and with being a diil : nl avowal, that every one of thofe people 
 was embarked in the caufe of Republ'canifm. It is an extremely 
 important point to fettle ; -or the review of the former proceedings 
 in this cajfe will undou'ou, h ; ve, and muft have a very different 
 complexion, as they ate underftood to be the proceedings of deter- 
 mined republicans, or, as they arc unrlerftood to be, the proceed- 
 ings of dutiful and loyal fubjects to the King, zealoufly affefted to 
 the confutation of the country, as eftablifhed in a King, Lords, and 
 Commons. Men of the one defcription are entitled to a large, 
 liberal, and candid interpretation of all their words and aclions. 
 Men of other principles muft expeft to have their language, fenli- 
 ments, and-Conduft, referred to thofe principles. 
 
 " Gentlemen, the next head .of enquiry for you will be, the 
 tranfa&ions of thefe focieties, fubfequent to the prefenting of thole 
 addreffes, and prior to the conception of the prefent detign of a 
 National Convention in England, which is (he immediate iuhject 
 of this profecution; and you will examine whether the perions 
 who had taken this extraordinary Rep, which feems to have beer* 
 uncalled for, and to have for it's principal objeft a demonftiaiion 
 of principle which aftuatcd the addrefs to the French Convention}, 
 whether the authors of it, and the perfons concerned in it, have in 
 any manner redeemed themlclves by their (ubfer|uent conduct from 
 the imputation which the prefenting of that addiels has brought 
 upon them. I ftated to you, th.i f as far as voting an unquahtvd 
 approbation goes, they immediately adopted it, upon conlidciatioii, 
 and after hearing their own agent's comments upon it. 
 
 <: Every thing done by the Britifh Convention is completely 
 brought home to the (ocicties, by the following unqualified zppio- 
 bation of their conduft. 
 
 Kk
 
 . *' At a Meeting, i7th January, 1794. 
 
 < c Rcfolved, That law ccafes to be an objeft of obedience when- 
 ever it becomes an inftrument of cppreffion. 
 
 " Refolved, That we recall to mind, with the deepeft fatisfaftion, 
 the merited fate of the infamous Jefferies, once Lord Chief Juilice 
 of England, who, at the aera of the glorious Revolution, for the 
 many iniquitous fentences which he had pafifed, was torn to pieces 
 by a brave and injured people. 
 
 Refolved, " That thofe who imitate his example deferve his 
 fate. 
 
 " Refolved, That the Tweed, though it may divide countries, 
 ought not. and does not make a feparation between thofe principles 
 of common feverity, in which Engliihmen and Scotchmen are 
 equally interefled; that injuftice in Scotland is inju'lice in Eng- 
 land , and that the fafety of Knglifhmen is endangered, whenever 
 their brethren of Scotland, for a conduft which entitles them to 
 the approbation of all wife, and the fupport of all br?ve men, 
 are fentenced to Botany Bay, a punifhment hitherto inflifted only 
 on felons. 
 
 <; Refolved, That we fee with regret, but we fee without fear, 
 that the period is fait approaching when the liberties of Britons 
 mufl depend not upon reafon. 10 which they have long appealed, 
 nor on their powers of expreffing it, but on their firm and un- 
 daunted refoluiion to oppofe tyranny by the fame means by which 
 it is exercifed. 
 
 " Refolved, That we approve of the conduct of the Britifh 
 Convention, who, though aflailed by force, have not been an- 
 fwered by argument ; and who, unlike the members of a certain 
 aflembly, have no intereffc diflinft from the common body of the 
 people." 
 
 " Gentlemen, as to the evidence of a project of a National 
 Convention in England, the afts of thele focieties more immedi- 
 ately referable to that fentiment, and which have been laid before 
 you on the part of the profecution, confift chiefly of votes, and of 
 the warm and unqualified approbation of the works of two cele- 
 brated writers, Thomas Paine and Joel Burlow, the full writing 
 upon the Rights of Man, and the laft on what was called the 
 privileged orders. Thefe works, whether the whole object of them 
 was that way or no, I do not take upon myfelf to affirm, not being 
 fufiicient mailer of the whole extent of them; but they do in part 
 mofr alTuredly attack direcliy, and pointedly,, the eftabliihrhent of 
 the mcnarchy of this country, and they do atrack, more or lefs 
 pointedly and direftiy, the eftablifhment of that order in this 
 country the Houfe of Lords. The focieties not only approved 
 of thele works, but they difperfed them all over the country with a 
 wonderful anxiety, and at a great expence. The profecutors in 
 this cafe have afked the queftion, why was this done ? They fay it 
 is afting confidently, it is done by Republicans, who wifh to fub- 
 vert the monarchy, and to oveHurn the cftabiifhcd orders ; but if it 
 
 is
 
 L 259 j 
 
 is done by dutiful fubjefts of the King, and peifons attached to 
 ihe Conftitution of the country, what explanation can they give 
 it ? In the defence that was made for the prifoner, it wasobfcrved, 
 that there was part of thele works going to the general rights ot 
 men going to luch gereral rights as can exift in fociety without 
 going into the particular *i(lab!ifrmier.ts of particular countries. 
 That to that part of tho'e works there could be no objection, and 
 that thofe parts mi^h; therefore be diiTeminated by honeft men and 
 good fubjccls. I do nor know whether the oblervation is founded ; 
 but there is another obfctvation Was it not the duty of honeft 
 men and good (ubjefts, who were dilTeminating thofe parts of thefe 
 works as might i'erve to enlighten mankind on fubjects on which 
 they ought to be enlightened ; was it rot lit that thole who ciicu- 
 Jated t!>ete works, fhould have taken foine pains to feparate the bad 
 parts from the good, or at lead given thf-. public fome caution that, 
 in reading thefe works, they {hould make a ieparation ; that when 
 thev were reading of the general rights of men, and found palTages 
 ftriking at the monarchy of this country, they (hould be careful 
 not to imbibe prejudices againft the monarchy; th^t when, read- 
 ing oblervations on privileged orders, they fhou'd rake care to re- 
 member, this was not intended to ftrike at the orders of this country, 
 to which the public had a devoted attachment ? 
 
 " Such would have been the conduft of good fubje&s. That 
 this was not the conduft of thefe perfons, is mod apparent ; and 
 that they have had the etTe& of doing a great deal or mifchief by 
 alienating the minds of the King's fubje&s from his perfon and go- 
 vernment, and from the conftitution, is perfeftly clear. How 
 much of this effeft thefe perfons intended, I fhall leave entirely for 
 your confederation* Only thus much I think is clear, that there 
 is nothing in thofe publications, which can ferve to remove any 
 prejudices which arife againft the prifoner, and the perfons con- 
 cerned with him, from the addrefTes that were prefented to the 
 Convention of France. 
 
 " Gentlemen, another general feature in the tranfaftions of 
 thofe men is, the abundance of licentious obfervations fcattered 
 throughout their publications, and tending to produce the fame 
 eiTccl: the alienation of the affcftions of the country from the 
 King and Government. Grievances may and will exift in all go- 
 vernments, and that they may exilr., in a greater or letter degree, in 
 this government, may be true; but dutiful and good fubjcfts, who 
 honeftly mean the reform of thefe grievances, will take care, in 
 their endeavours to procure this reform, not to hazard the over- 
 turning the government itfelf. It is here the tranfaclions of the 
 early part of the year 1 793 commence, upon which the profecutors 
 rely as exciting a fpirit ol difaffeciion by which thefe men were 
 actuated, and as evidence of the furthering of meafures tdken to 
 prepare men's minds for fome alteration in the Government of the 
 country. It appears, that, in the courfe of the fummcr of that year, 
 the idea of a ISTational Convention, to be held in Scotland, origi- 
 nated ; and they on the part of the profecution, arid certainly not 
 K k 2 without
 
 [ 26o ] 
 
 wiihout colour (how ftr it is diftinftly proved you will judge} 
 they fay, it originated with the piiloner at the bar, as they aflert 
 that a letter was written by the prifoncrto Skirving, in Edinburgh, 
 that recommended this mcafure that was to be taken by thele popu- 
 lar focieties, lending delegates to Edinburgh. 
 
 [Hardy's letter to Skurving, dated May 17, 1793, was here 
 react.] 
 
 " The particular exprefllon upon which my finger is laid, is, 
 " I wifh you to begin there." Now you will read the anfwer 
 which Skirving fent to that letter, and you will attend to it, be- 
 caufe that anfwer is charged on the part of the profecution to 
 have a great deal of matter tending to explain the mechanifm of 
 the National Convention, and alfo what was to be it's great ob- 
 ject. (Reads Skirving's letter, 2,5th of May, 1793.) 
 
 " Gentlemen, every part of this letter deferves the moft fcri- 
 ous attenton, with a view to this point, which I, juft before 
 the reading of the letter, dated to you ; I think there is one pa- 
 ragraph in it which may acquire my reflating to you. This 
 letter fays, " I have not a higher wifh in the prefent exertions 
 for reform, than to fee the people univerfally, and regularly af- 
 fociated, becaufe I am perfuaded that the prefent difaftrous en- 
 gagements will iffue in ruin, and the people then muft provide 
 for themfelves." What do thele myfterious words mean ? difaf- 
 trous engagements to end in ruin! If we underftand this to re- 
 late to any political engagements in which this country was en- 
 gaged, and might end ill, the people would not have to provide 
 lor themfelves, becaufe that would not dhlblve the govern- 
 ment. What dees he mean, therefore, when he talks of thefe; 
 ciiiaflrous engagements ; " and it would be unhappy when we 
 fiiould be ready to act with unanimity, to be occupied about 
 organization, without which however anarchy muft: enfuer" 
 
 " It is true, it the country was to be brought to fuch a date, 
 fhat the government was to be defiroyed, and another govern-" 
 "went to take place, if lhat was the moment of organization, it 
 would be a veiy unhappy circumflance, when we fhould be ready 
 to act with unanimity, to be occupied about organization, with- 
 out which, however, anarchy mult enhie. 
 
 " We will not need but to be prepared for the event, to Hand 
 and fee the falvation of the Lord. Let us therefore take the 
 hint, given us by our opprefTors ; let us begin in earneft.to make 
 up our minds relative to the extent of reform which v\e ought 
 to feck." 
 
 "The extent of reform which we ought to feek was diflindr, 
 and had been fo a gr .at while, ior it was the Duke of Rich- 
 u. on*. 'a pLii >/f rcL :m. 
 
 * EC prepared tu'juftify it, and to controvert objections, let 
 
 us
 
 us model the whole in the public mind, let us provide every ftake 
 und flay of the tabernacle which we would creel, fo that when 
 the tabernacles 01 opprcfiion, in the palace of ambition, are 
 broken down under the maduefs.and folly of their fupporters, we 
 may then without anarchy and all dangerous delay, erecl at once 
 cur tabernacle of righteoufnefs, and may the Lord him (elf be 
 in it." 
 
 " What does this myfterious man mean ? Does he mean that 
 it i? probable there may foon be a revolution in the government of 
 this country ; and in that cafe it would be fit fome body of me 
 fhouUl take upon themfelves the powers of government ; and to 
 acl upon it ? Or does he only mean a reform in parliament 
 would be found to he nccelfary, that people ought to know what 
 it is they mean to afk, and in what manner they mean to afk it? 
 " Gentlemen, this is an expofition of this doflrine of a Con- 
 vention, coming from a Briton, and immediately communicated 
 to the prifoncr at the bar; and in that refpe6l has a direct ap- 
 plication, to him, and is of the utmoft importance, to fatisfy you, 
 that he has not been furprifed into any thing ; but that, from 
 the moment of the communication on the fubjeft, he had an 
 opportunity of weighing it. 
 
 " Now, there was another expofition of a National Conven. 
 tion, which the evidence affords, but I have not ftated it to you 
 particularly, but I (hall now mention it, though, under the parti- 
 cular circumftances of this cafe, I do not think it ought to prefs 
 much agsinft the prifoner. I mean the fpeech of Barrere, on 
 the fubjedl of a National Convention, in which he takes a great 
 deal of pains to (hew, that it is a thing perfectly confiirent with 
 an eftabliihed government ; that a National Convention was 
 the authority of the people by iifelf, which might lawfully have 
 confided with the eftabliihed orders of the country. It was 
 well obferved on the part of the prifoner, that a people had a 
 right to alter their government ; and I agree to it as a general 
 proportion ; but it is improper to be urged, in a Court of Jufttce, 
 that is to proceed on the la\vs of the land as already eftabiiiheJ , 
 and therefore, while we are adminiftering thofe laws, to liftento- 
 i'uch argument ivr.uki tend to annihilate the whole fyitem of 
 juftice. I now take notice that this expofition of a Convention, 
 can have no application to the prefent cafe. My realon fee 
 thinking to prefs the prifoner on the French expofition of Na- 
 tional Convention, is, becaufo it came over to this country ia 
 the Moniteur, to the Conflitutional Society ; but, though it 
 was received, and ordered to be ectcrod in their books, it does 
 not appear it ever \vas tranilated into Englifh v there was no 
 evidence of it, and therefore it was extreme!/ probable that the 
 piifoner never had an opportunity of knowing Barrere's fenti- 
 
 roentg
 
 [ 262 ] 
 
 ments on that fubjedl: but it is otherwife with refpect to the 
 letter that was fent to himfelf. He had a full opportunity of 
 weighing it; of afking for explanation ; of rejecting any part 
 of it ; of contradicting it ; or of corre&ing the ideas that were 
 in it ; and to take care that, if it was fet on foot, it might not lead 
 to any bad confequences. 
 
 " Gentlemen, on the 5th of Oftober, of that year, the prifoner 
 wrote a letter to Skirving, in anfvverto a letter of Skirving's, dated 
 Oftober 2, which letter is not in evidence. In this letter the pri- 
 foner fpeaks of himfelf and Mr. Margaret, and alfo of the plan of 
 a Convention in Scotland : he recommends it to Skirving to write 
 an official letter to his (Hardy's) fociety, to propofe to them to 
 fend Delegates to that Convention ; and in that letter he defires 
 Skirving not to take notice that he had any communication with 
 him. 
 
 Here the prifoner Hardy appears quite in a new character. He 
 was certainly not an inaftive member of the fociety, independent of 
 his being fecretary of the fociety. Had he afted only as fecretary, 
 it might be (aid he might have been milled in a great many things. 
 He might have written many things which he did not underftand, 
 or which he had not time to weigh ; as a man might write whole 
 fheets without having any idea of the fenfe after he had written 
 them; it was therefore very much in his favour to conlider the 
 prifoner only as fecretary. But here he certainly is a principal, 
 and moft extraordinarily fo ; a principal afting with a great fhare 
 of the fpirit of intrigue and [duplicity, which totally changes the 
 character of the man, as it appears from all the reft of the evidence 
 in the caufe. 
 
 This letter is written, and the delegates are appointed. They are 
 very able men, viz. Margarot and Gerald. The Scottifh (x^nven- 
 tion is held. They fat for fourteen days, and were then difperfed 
 by authority. What was to have happened, if that Scottifh Con- 
 vention had not been difperfed, J can only conjecture ; but in order 
 to form any lational conjecture, it is neceffary to attend to the ge- 
 neral objecls of that Convention. It is fit you fhould call back to 
 your memory juft the leading features of it. It is prefled n you, 
 on behalf of the prifoner, that the meeting of the Delegates of thefe 
 bodies was for this fmg!c object to confider what was the beft 
 way of appealing to Parliament to procure a reform of Parlia- 
 ment. With refpeft to that, you will recollect the tranfac- 
 
 ttons of that year, on the ground of an application to Parliament. 
 There had been an application to Parliament, and the principal 
 mover was Mr. Grey. Of the iincerity of the honourable mover for 
 a Parliamentary Reform, I fuppofe no man will doubt; but on the 
 fincerity of their application to Parliament on this evidence every 
 man muft doubt, becaule there are plans to arm, but there are no 
 certain means of coming to an end. They fought a Parliamentary 
 Reform, not as a meajure of which they approved, but as they 
 
 thought
 
 I 263 ] 
 
 thought it might be ufefulby way of preparation for what they had 
 in their minds, and to keep the public.mirid agitated on the fubjccl; 
 and therefore this oftenfible purpole was not the only purpofe of the 
 Convention. When there was a motion made that a petition 
 fhould be prefented to Parliament, they put the order of the day 
 upon it they negatived it; and theteforc, if that was their only 
 object, the purpote of their meeting was at an end. 
 
 But laying thatobjecl afide, view this Convention as it was. 
 You find it clearly imitating the manners of the National Con- 
 vention of France ; you hear of primary alFemblies and fcctions. 
 Committees are common to all, and there/ore no ftrefs ought to be 
 laid on that. You perceive tins National Convention aduming to 
 itfelf a formality that is very becoming where it is fubject to no juft 
 exception; but in the place in which it appears, certainly very 
 alarming. We find the Convention is conltituted every day by 
 folemn prayer: it is clofed every day by folemn prayer. There was 
 allb a Committee of Finances, and other things of lefs confequence, 
 though ftill deferving of confideration. 
 
 After the loth day they affumed this title " The fir/I Year of the 
 Britijh Convention." Recolleft how clofely that goes to the lan- 
 guage of the National Convention of France. Say, what would 
 have happened if that Convention had not been dilperfed at the 
 end of fourteen days. No^ man. 1 fhould ihink, could take upon, 
 himfelf to fay, but if they continued to a (Tame in the manner in 
 which they began, and fornc interval hadoeen permitted to them, it 
 feems to me that I am warranted to fay, from what did take place in 
 France, that luppofing in that time they had happ-md to get the 
 public opinion, that body of men would have been the government 
 of this country. They were however difptriod; ami it would ill 
 become me, in this place, to take notice of the confluence of that 
 difperfion, except thatoccafion was taken to complain of this as a 
 grievance; and moft certainly the pritoner, and thole wi-o are con- 
 nefted with him in thefe focieties, did take occjfum from tnence to 
 irritate the public mind to as great a degree as it was poilible to do, 
 by the refleclio.ns that were nude en thelc proceeding*. 
 
 Gentlemen^ the immediate confequence of the tcflcftioni which 
 were oilpeHed on the fubjeft of thefe proceedings, was 'he plan of 
 adopting a Bmifh Convention, to be held in England ; which leads 
 us nearly to the point to which all the prefont enquiry is to have 
 it's relation more or lefs. Now it deferves ferious attention on 
 your part, to the circumftanccs with which this new plan of 
 Convention was introduced to the public notice, an-i by which it 
 was recommended to the public attention, in order to enable you to 
 judge, whethei the objeft of it was that peaceable obj tl which is 
 infilled on the part of the prifoncr, and really the ujitonof the 
 whole; or whether the objeft of it maft have been 10 carry* into 
 effect; a full and free reprelcntation of the people, but not in the 
 Commons Houfe of Parliament, in our Conuitution. One (hould 
 have apprehended, under any provocation, which theie pt opte 
 
 thou ht
 
 [ *6 4 3- 
 
 thought they had felt, or which they really might feel,- that they 
 would have followed a very different courfe. As they -"ere ac- 
 quainted with the circumftances of the difperfion of the former 
 Convention, and with all the objections that were made to that 
 Convention ; as they were determined to have another Conven- 
 tion, it was to be expected, that they at leaft would have taken 
 care fo to guard their language and proceedings, that it was impof- 
 ftble they could be mifunderitood; to have expreffed themfelves 
 clearly and diftinctly on all occafions; to have explained the 
 grounds of this Convention ; to have conducted themfelves with a 
 decent moderation towards the government of the country, and 
 towards it's proceedings. It rni^htreafonably have been expected, 
 that it would have made an exprefs avowal of loyal fentimcnt% and 
 an exprefs difavowal of going any lengths which could be juflly 
 objected to; an exprefs difavowal of going beyond the original ob- 
 ject of parliamentary reform, as ftated by the Duke of Richmond; 
 ^nd everything that was Inflammatory ought to have been mod 
 carefully avoided, in order to prevent their purpofe being mifun- 
 derftood : and as what was moft material, in order to infure fuccefs 
 to the meafure itfelf. What was done you will fee, and from that 
 you will form your own conclufions. You will hear the paper re- 
 lating to this bufinefsread, and you will mark it. . 1 do not coniider 
 it as my bnfinefs to make particular comments on it. 
 
 The different parts of the evidence will make a certain impreffion 
 on your minds, and you will take'care that they do not go too far, 
 I think the firft great paper, (there are many which are con- 
 nected with it) is the addrefs of the 2oth January, 1794, of the 
 London Correfponding Society, at a general meeting held at the- 
 Gkibe tavern. 
 
 [This Addrtfs to the People of Gnat Britain and Ireland was here ready 
 
 as follows.'] 
 " Citizens, 
 
 " We find the nation involved in a war, by which, in the courfe 
 of one campaign, imrnerfe' numbers of our countrymen have been 
 fldughterec!, a vaft expence has been incurred, our trade, com* 
 mercc, and manufactures are almoft deflroyed, and many of our 
 manufacturers and artiOs arc ruined, and their families ftarving. 
 
 * To add to our affliction, we have rcafon to expect that other 
 taxes will foon be added to the intolerable load of imports and impo- 
 iuions with which we are already overwhelmed, for the purpcfe of 
 defraying the expences which have been incurred in a fruitless 
 cri'.fade, to rc-eftahlim the odious defpotifm of France. 
 
 " When we contemplate the principles of this war, we confefs 
 O".r(elves to be unable to approve or it, as a meafure either of 
 juftice or difcretion; .and if we are to form our calculation of the 
 refult from what has already pafied, we can only look forward Co- 
 defeat, and the eternal difgrace of the Britifh name. 
 
 While
 
 C 
 
 " While we are thus engaged in an expenfive and ruinous forcigw 
 war, our ftate at home is not lefs deplorable. 
 
 " We are every day told, bv thofe perfons who are interested in 
 fupporting the Corruption Lift, and an innumerable hoft of 
 Sinecure Placemen, that the Constitution of England is the perfec- 
 tion of human wifdom ; that our laws (we fhould rather fay, their 
 laws) are the perfection of juftice; and that their admin Iteration of 
 thofe laws is fo impartial and f<> ready, as to afford an equal remedy 
 both to the rich and to the poor ; by means of which we are faid to 
 be placed in a ftate of abfolute freedom, and that our rights and 
 liberties are fo well fccured to us as to render all invafion of them 
 impoffible. 
 
 *' When we afk how we enjoy thefe tranfcendent privileges, we 
 are referred to Magna Charta, and the Bill of Rights; and the 
 glorious Revolution, in the year 1688, is held out to us as the 
 bulwark of Britifh liberty. 
 
 " Citizens, 
 
 " We have referred to Magna Charta, to the Bill of R'ghts* 
 and to the Revolution, and we certainly do find that our anteftors 
 did eftabhfh wife and wholefome laws; but we as certainly find, 
 that of the venerable Conftitution of our anceftors hardly a veftigc 
 remains. 
 
 " If we look to Ireland, we find that acknowledged privilege of 
 the people, to meet for tjie fupport and protection of their rights 
 and liberties, is auempteaf by terror, to be taken away by a late 
 infamons At of Parliament ; whilft titles of honour no, but of 
 difhonour are lavifhed, and new fources of corruption opened, to 
 gratify the greedy proftitution of thofe who are the inftruments of 
 this oppreffion. 
 
 " In Scotland, the wicked hand of power has been impudently 
 exerted without even the wretched formality of an Aft of Parlia- 
 ment. Magiftrates have forcibly intruded into the peaceful and 
 lawful meetings of freemen; and by force (not only without law, 
 but againft law) have, under colour of magifterial office, interrupted 
 their deliberations, and prevented their alfociations. / 
 
 " The wifdom and good conduct of the Britifh Convention at 
 Edinburgh, has been fuch as to defy their bittcrefl enemies to name 
 the law which they have broken; notwithftanding which, their 
 papers have been leized, and made ufe of as evidence againft them, 
 and many virtuous and meritorious individuals have been, as 
 cruelly as unjuftly, for their virtuous actions, difgrared and de- 
 ftrpyed by infamous and illegal leniences of transportation. And 
 thefe unjuft and wicked judgments have been cxccutc-d with a ran- 
 cour and malignity never before known in this land; our re- 
 fpectable and beloved Fellow Citizens have been caft fettered inio 
 dungeons amongft felons in the Hulks, to which they were not 
 fentenced. 
 
 " You may afk, perhaps, by what means fhall we feck rcdrofs? 
 
 'L 1 W
 
 r 266 ] 
 
 < { We anfwer, that men in a (late of civilized fociety are bound to 
 fcek redrefs of the grievances from the laws, as long as any 
 redrefs can be obtained by me laws. But our common Mafter 
 whom we fcrve (-whole law is a law of liberty, and whofe fervice is 
 perfect fieedom) has taught us not to expect to gather grapes from 
 thorns, nor figs from thirties. We muft have redreis from our own 
 la^s, and not from the laws of our plunderers, enemies, and op 
 preffors. 
 
 There is no redrefs fur a Nation circumftanced as we are, but 
 in a fair, freehand full Reprefentatton of the People." 
 
 Gentlemen, you have beard this paper read, and it exprefsly re- 
 fers to a Convention; and it was certainly publifhed at a time w.hen 
 the idea of a Conversion was in the. minds of t'le people. Now, 
 \vitu regard to that paptr, you .aie to judge between the King and 
 the pri toner, whether the object of that Convention wa; merely to 
 procure a free and full reprefentation of the people in the Com- 
 mons Houfe of Parliament, and in the due courfe of law,, and ac- 
 cording to the conllitution of the country, or whether that p^ner is 
 to be underflood as a manifeflo, as a call To the peo ( jh againlt the 
 government, to direct the people's minds to the ufe that ihould be 
 made oF a Convention for the purpofe of overturning the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Gentlemen, this happened on the aoth of January, 1794. They 
 began in thefe two focictits to confider how this Convention was 
 to be brought about. The Constitutional Society had refolvcd it in 
 terms which upon the face of them were open to fome bbfervations. 
 
 There was a committee of correspondence and co operation in 
 order to produce this Convention, and to confider the means of do- 
 ing it; but before I come to that, I fhall take notice of a joint com- 
 mittee, who corrected, in fome meafure, the language of this pro- 
 poled Convention. They made it more moderate; and it is fit 
 that fhould be tlated. 
 
 [The propofal for a Joint Committee of the two Societies was 
 here read.] 
 
 The language of it is a Convention of the People, for the purpofe 
 of taking into confideration the proper method of obtaining a fair 
 and full reprefentation of the people. This is their object, as they 
 think fit to exprefs themf'-lvcs upon conlideration ; and it would 
 never be too late for them to have retracted any part of the ralhnefs 
 and v-olence of any for ner oieafure liiat they had taken ; and there- 
 fore if you, were warranted to luppole that the languague that had 
 been formerly ufed was too violent, ana the fcntimcnis too extra- 
 vagant, if they really meant to moderate and confine the objects of 
 the Convention within it's j./d liimt.s, they ceiuinly ought to have 
 is 's fall benc-fi'. This is nor accompanied with any ulelcfs decla- 
 ration that it ought to be in tiie Commons Houlc ol Parliament, 
 and (till ii-fa thai r.o ai;c:np! >\ts m-Jdnt auainft the King, dtid. *he 
 iclson and aut',oi.:- of the tloufe of Lords. 
 
 The
 
 The Attorney General. " Will not yonr Lordfhip alfo da- 
 fire the application from the Correfponding Society, for a junc- 
 tion of the two focieties., to be read. I confider it as extemcly 
 material." 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre. " It lias already been repeatedly read in 
 the courfe of the evidence ; the proceedings have already ex- 
 tended to fo great a length, that I do not, in the prefent flage, 
 wilh to trouble the Jury with any thing except what is ablblutely 
 necdfary." 
 
 The paper being read, the chief Jullice proceeded 
 
 " You fee, that here they adopt the comparatively moderate 
 language of calling a Convention, for the purpofe of taking into 
 conlideration the proper methods of obtaining a full and fair 
 reprefentation ot the people. It certainly never was too late to 
 have retracted any part of that ralhnefs and violence of which 
 they might have been guilty. If they, thinking that they had 
 been too violent in their expreflions, or extravagant in their fen- 
 timents, had come to this rclblution with a view to remedy the 
 iault of their former proceedings, that conlideration would no 
 dotsbt have it's due weight. But even in this refolution, we find 
 no declaration that they fought only a reform in the Houfe of 
 Commons, and that they had no intention again ft the authority 
 of the Houfe of Lords, or the power of the Crown. But on the 
 contrary, we find that on the 1 4th of April, the Correfponding 
 Society publi'he.d a declaration, and circulated it in different parts 
 of the kingdom. Tin's declaration is intended to prepare the 
 minds of the people for the arrival of that violent crifis, in 
 which a Convention muft immediately be fummoned, and in 
 which they would necellari!y be called upon to aft. If inftead, 
 then, of intending to bring things back, or to remedy the effcfts 
 of their former violence, we find them advancing in the fame 
 career, and ha'lening by the fame means to the accomplifhment 
 of their object, what muft be the conclufion. Infteacl of com- 
 ing forward with a declaration of their loyalty to the throne, or 
 their rrfpect ior the Houfe of Lord*, in order to do away the; 
 imprelfion of their former proceedings, and remove all fufpicion 
 nd ambiguity with refpect to their future intentions, we find 
 them coming forward with another Manifefto, this Manifefto 
 comes forward in a ftil! more (jueflionable fh;ipe than the former, 
 as it is inien ! <! to carry along with it the appearance of great 
 force, and to Ihcw that they arc ready, if it Hull be necefTary, 
 to aft in fuppott of their former K-io'u'ii-ns. 1 allude to the 
 proceedings that took place at Chalk Farm on the I4th of April, 
 1 794. Thele proceedings coimiicn.fd with reading a letter that: 
 had been fl-nt by the Corrtfponding Society to the Friends of thr 
 People, and. the auivvcr, which it had icccived hum that focicty. 
 
 L 1 2 They
 
 C 268 ] 
 
 They then camr to their own refolutions." He then defired Inc 
 clerk to read the account of the proceedings at Chalk-farm, whick 
 is printed in the firft report from the committee of fecrecy. 
 
 [ The Refolutions read, were AS follows. } 
 
 " Refolved Unanimoufly, 
 
 " I. That this fociety have beheld with riling indignation, 
 proportioned to the enormity of the evil, the late rapid advance* 
 of defpotifm in Britain ; the invasion of public fecurity, the con- 
 tempt of popular opinion ; and the violation of all thofe provifions 
 of the conllitution intended to protcft the people againft the en- 
 croachments of poWer and prerogative. 
 
 " II. That our abhorrence and deteftation have been particularly 
 called forth.by the late arbitrary and flagitious proceedings of the 
 Court of Judiciary in Scotland, where ail the doctrines and prac- 
 tices of the Star Chamber, in the times of Charles the Firft, have 
 been revived and aggravated ; and where leniences have been pro- 
 nounced, in open violation of all law and juftice, which mufl fh ike 
 deep into the heart of every man the melancholy convittion that 
 Brjtons are no longer tree. 
 
 " III. That the whole proceedings of the late BritHh Conven- 
 tion of the People, at Edingburgh, are fuch as claim our approba- 
 tion and applaufe. 
 
 " IV. That the conduft of citizens Margarot and Gerald in par- 
 ticular, by it's ftrift conformity with our withes and inftruftions, 
 and the ability, firmnefs, and difinterefted patriotifm which it fo 
 eminently difplayed, has infpired an enthufiafm of zeal and attacl - 
 ment which no time can obliterate, and no perfecution remove; and 
 that we will preferve their names engraven on our hearts till we 
 have an opportunity to redrefs their wrongs. 
 
 " IX. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Earl Star- 
 hope, for his. manly and patriotic conduct during the prefent Scflion 
 of Parliament, &c. 
 
 After thefe refolutions had been read, he continued. " One 
 cannot hear this paper read without being aftonifhed that men 
 fiiould be fo blinded by enthuafm, or anv other affection, as not 
 to fee the confequcnics to which they txpofed themfelves by this 
 violent conduft, and while they were palling thefe resolution.', 
 they had she hvord of the law hanging over their heads by a fmgle 
 thread. But it hai! been argued that the publicity of thefe proceed 
 irgs implied a confciouinefs, on their parr, that they were perfectly 
 innocent and legal. What! did they not fee fomething extremely 
 criminal in pubhflung to aoo.cco people (the number of copies of 
 thofe refoluiions, which they ordered to be printed) that the focial 
 compact between the Englifh nation and their governor was to be 
 considered as diffolved; and that the fafety of the people was the 
 fupreme, and in cafesof neccflity. the only law? What could be 
 implied by this refolution, but that they looked forward to the 
 framing of another goveramtuMo be cre&eu on the ruins of the. 
 
 prefent
 
 I 469 ] 
 
 prefent eftablifhment ? In their 8th and ioth refolutions, tney- 
 glance, and that not in an indirect manner, to the Houfe of Lords, 
 as not intitled to the refpedt of the nation. 
 
 " The queftion ftill recurs. What did they mean to do by this 
 propofed Coveotion? On the part of the prisoner, it is urged that 
 they intended to meet in a legal and peaceable manner, in order to 
 take into confederation the mod proper method of procuring a fair 
 and full representation of the People in the Houle of Commons. 
 Whether this can be inferred, after all the fteps they had previ- 
 oufly taken, and all the addveffes they had publifhed to the nation, 
 inuft remain for your decifion. Another thing to be taken into 
 consideration was what relpected the foctety in Sheffield. Thi 
 luciety was connected with the fociety for constitutional in- 
 formation, and the correfponding fociety in London. It was ex- 
 tremely numerous : the perfons affernblcd at one time on the 
 CafUe-hill had been flated to amount to ten thoufand. Thefe came 
 to certain refolutions, to which they were brought by one Yorke, 
 not a native of Sheffield, but a member of the Correiponding So- 
 ciety of London, who had got down there, in what particular 
 character does not appear. It is, however, fome confolation to 
 attend to the manner in which theie refolutions were brought a- 
 bout. Though the names of a-great number of perfons, were figned 
 to them, but few of thefe can be confidered as having really af- 
 fented to them in their mind?, or adopted them as principles, upon 
 which they were to aft. And though ten thoufand were ftated to 
 have been prelent, perhaps not above two hundred were con- 
 cerned in planning and carrying thefe relolutiops. The motion 
 to petition t'arliament was previoufly concerted to be overuled by 
 the Junto of four, hut what attached to the focieties the criminal ry 
 of thc(e refolutions was iheir iuhlequent publications <*ijd promul- 
 gation. It has indeed bten fairly put on the part of the priloner, 
 that the refoiution that they would no 1 onger petition Parliament, 
 does not imply that ihey rni^ht not petition in a larger body, when 
 they might think they would have a greater chance of a favourable 
 reception. But what is the reafon a fiigned on thefe Sheffield re- 
 folutions, why thev were no longer to petition ? {i Becaufe they 
 will not petition a b-jdy who are not/their reprefentatives." This is a 
 reafon, which mud equ.iliy applv at all times againft petitioning 
 the Hcule of Commons, while it continues on it's pielent fooling. 
 The uature then of the propofed convention is to be gathered from 
 the language of thofe adcUe&s. And froin thofe it appears to 
 have been intended to be a convention in order to concert the 
 means of cftablifhing a reprefcntative government of the people. 
 There is one piece of paroie evidence, which it is extremely ma- 
 triHtl to attend to. It occurred in the examination of Lynam. He 
 was prefent at a meeting of the fociety whore Bell afked, "Whe- 
 ther it was intended to introduce the iarne laws into this country as 
 in France?" Margarot anfwered, "No doubt;" all the others 
 were filcnt. Hrirdy was piel ont at this meeting. There is alfo parole 
 evidence, foftr as it goe>, of a certain preparation of arms in order 
 
 I*
 
 L 270 ] 
 
 to fupport the convention. One witnefs, but not of the beft crecfif, 
 ftates that it was faid that thefe arms were provided in order to 
 defend the convention. On this head, however, the parole 
 evidence cuts two ways, for different witnefles, from the focieties 
 contend that thele arms were procured merely in order to defend 
 themfelves againft illegal attack. Much has been infifted on the 
 exhortations to peaceable and orderly conduct contained in the 
 (tddrefies, publiihed with a view to the meeting of the Convention. 
 But it is to be recollecied that the character of fuch a Conven- 
 tion as was propofed, is perfectly confident with inculcating peace 
 nd good order, as their object was in the meafures which they 
 fliould adopt with relpeft to the Government, to carry the public 
 mind fo forceably along with them as to render all refiftance vain 
 and ufelefs. 
 
 Tha fame Witnefs, undoubtedly not intitled to much credit, 
 mentioned that it was always expected by the Society,, that a 
 ftruggle would be neceffary in order ro accomplifh their object, 
 and that they looked forward to an actual rifmg in the country. 
 This would amount to confpiring todepofe the King, by levying 
 war in the kingdom a clear ovtrt-aft of High Treafon. And 
 though the witnefs from whom it came was not entitled to much 
 credit, yet fo far as corroborated by the teftimony of others, 
 againft whofe character there is no objection, it is not without it's 
 weight. 
 
 Gentlemen of ^the Jury, 
 
 I have given you the charge along with the evidence, in order 
 that you may be able to afceitain the amount of the whole fa6ls, 
 and fee how far they go to eftablHh what is laid in the indict- 
 ment. On the ofher hand, you are to attend with favour to the 
 arguments urged, and the evidence brought forward, in behalf of 
 the Prifoner, and to weigh well whatever makes for the defence. 
 The written evidence againft him has not been attempted to 
 be difputed, nor can it indeed be controverted. From that evi- 
 dence it appears, that the Prifoner was not merely a perfon who 
 adied under the direction of others, and figned papers as Secre- 
 tary, without adverting to their contents, or being able to com- 
 prehend their meaning, but that he was himfelf a principal in 
 the tranfaclions of thofe Societies, and a defigner, promoter, and 
 inventor of many of the proceedings which had come out in evi- 
 dence. He cannot therefore fet up a defence upon any ground 
 of that fort. The Counfel for the Prifoner attempted to vindi- 
 cate the temper and views of the Sheffield Society, on the ground 
 of the letters which they had written to the Friends of the People. 
 But if thefe are taken along with their letter, dated 26th of 
 May, 1792, addrefled to the Correfpondiog Society, it will then 
 
 be
 
 [ 27' ] 
 
 be perceived how far they were fincere in their firft profefiion?, 
 or, if they really were fincerf-, how far thev had afterwards ad- 
 hered to them. The Prifoner's Counfel had alfo made feveral fair 
 and weighty obftrvaiions on the credit due to wi (Defies, who had 
 introduced themfelves into thefe Societies for the purpofe of giv- 
 ing information of their proceedings, and ot the fubjedt. matter 
 of their teftimony, particularly as it related to the picparation of 
 arms. I have no Iwfitatinn to admit, that if the queltion of 
 criminalliiy depended folely on the proof, brought v\ith i.efpe<St 
 to arms though tnere might be ftrong caufe of fufpicion, yet 
 that would not be fuffident ground to impute to thofe Societies 
 all that mifchief, which might, in the prefcnt iriftance, be ap- 
 prehended to arife from their defigns. Tiie Counfel for the de- 
 ience (late the Prifoner to be a plain, honeft man, orderly in his 
 demeanour, and moderate in his temper, having one great object 
 Itrongly rivitted on his mind, namely, a Reform in the Com- 
 mons Houfe of Par'iament, upon the principles of Univerfal 
 Suffrage and Annual Elections. Thefe principles, they contend, 
 he borrowed from a work of the Duke of Richmond, in which 
 they are inculcated, and that to carry thefe principles into effect 
 all his meafures were directed ; that the very idea of a Conven- 
 tion is taken from the fame work of his Grace, which certainly 
 contains a ftrong allufion to the People meeting in a body in 
 order to procure the objedl which he there recommends. The 
 Prifo: t:r, they alledge, conceived that a Petition to Parliament, 
 coming fr"m a larg*.; body, would have more weight than Peti* 
 lions from Individuals or irnaller bodies, and that he had no in- 
 tention to fife a Convention for any other purpofe than that 
 which is above ft^ed ; that he had not the fmaileft idea, by means 
 of that Convention, to interfere with the privileges ot the Houfe 
 of Peers, or the power and dignity of the Crown. They con- 
 tend, from the ftatement of the force, faid to be prepared, that 
 there could be no fuch intention as to overturn the Conftitution ; 
 for if the means, as in all cafes, are to be proportioned to th 
 end, fuch an attempt, in the circumltances of thefe Societies, was 
 not only highly improbable, but altogether impoflible. They 
 further argue, that if the Convention propnfed to be affembled 
 was of the fame nature with the Biitifh Convention that had 
 been already held at Edinburgh, it could not be treafonable, as 
 fome of the Delegates to that Convention had been tried and 
 convicted only upon a charge of mifdemeanour. If Treafon, 
 therefore, did not attach in the one inftance, neither could it in 
 the other ; the crime of only concerting to hold a Convention, 
 was certainly lefs than that of having aclually held one ; what- 
 ever, therefore, may be the inflammatory tendency of the papers, 
 or whatever the violence of expreffions adapted in them, Hill the 
 
 guilt
 
 [ 272 ] 
 
 guilt of thofe Societies, cannot amount to High Treafon. The 
 Prifoner has appealed to feveral members of the Societies with 
 whom he was connected, for the foundnefs of his principles and 
 of their own their attachment to the eftablilhed branches of the 
 Constitution, and their intention to proceed towards their object 
 in a legal and peaceable manner. A cloud of refpectable Wit- 
 nefles have come forward to his private character to tettify that 
 he is a peaceable, fedate, orderly and religious man, having one 
 great idea relative to a Reform of Parliament. It appears, alfo, 
 from the evidence of Mr. Sheridan, that he made a propofition to 
 him to give up all his papers and correfpondence for the infpec- 
 fion of a Committee of the Houfeof Commons a circumftance, 
 which would feem to imply a ftrong confcioufnefs of innocent 
 intentions. Mr. Francis has ftated, that he waited on him 
 with a Petition from his Society, addreffed totheHoufe of Com- 
 mons on the fubject of a Parliamentary Reform, and mentions 
 that his conduct on that occafion was fuch as was calculated^riot 
 only to imprefs him with a favourable opinion of his general 
 character, but of the moderation of his political fentiments, 
 and his intentions to follow them out in a peaceable manner. 
 In alluding to the work of the Duke of Richmond, there is one 
 circumftance which I forgot to mention. At the fame time, 
 with that work there was brought forward in evidence by the 
 Prifoner's Counfel, a copy of a Proteft, figned by feverai Noble 
 Lords, and {rating the fame fentiments with refpect to the rights 
 of the People to meet, and deliberate on certain objects. This 
 paper, falling into the hands of an ignorant man andanenthu- 
 iiaft, if ever it fell into the hands of a perfon of fuch a character, 
 might, no dcubt, have a tendency to miilead him, and difpofe him 
 to tire profeiution of violent meafures. But thefe pieces of evi- 
 dence applied only to one part of the cafe. It certainly never 
 would be imputed to that Noble Perlon, the Duke of Richmond,. 
 and to the oiher Noble Lords, who fjgned the Protett, that they 
 intended, by the publication of their fentiments, to overturn the 
 eftabliihed Government of the Country, and introduce in it's ftead 
 a Democracy. 
 
 It never could be contended that their views went fo far as thofe 
 Which have been proved upon fomc of the focieties. 1 conceded 
 to the prifoner that he might, in the firft inftance, have fet out with 
 a fmcere profeflion of the Duke of Richmond's principles and a 
 determined refolution to confine him'clf to the object of univerfal 
 fuffrage, but whether he has not departed from thofe principles, 
 and gone fceyond that object, is to be made out from the evidence, 
 and is matter for you to determine. The reply goes to impeach the 
 credit due t6 the evidence from the members of the Sheffield So- 
 ciety. The chaidQers of thofe members is in fome degree impli- 
 cated with that of the prifoner ; and it is to be confidered what ce- 
 - giee
 
 gree of weight ought to be given to the teftimony of a man called 
 upon to (wear to his own loyalty, and the fincerity of his attach- 
 ment to the Conftitution, more particularly if his conduct be fuch, 
 as has been charged with refpect to thofe witneffes, as to beget a 
 fufpicion that he is actuated by very different fentimcnts; in this 
 cafe there is proteftatio contra faBum. His conduct is the reverfeof 
 his fentimentsj and therefore jultly affords ground for didruft. 
 The reply refers alio to the written evidence as a proof of the du- 
 plicity of the priioner. One inftance of this is his conduct with 
 refpeft to Mr. Francis, upon whorri he waited, in order to requeft 
 him to prefenta petition of his fociety fora Parliamentary Reform, 
 and whom he induced to believe that he was really anxious to ob- 
 tain that o! jecl, though from different papers it appeared that he 
 had no fmcere defire for that purpofc, but was only defirous, by 
 bringing forward this petition, to agitate the public m:nd on the 
 fubjeft. Another remark on the reply goes dirsftly to his charac- 
 ter; that though he was defcribed as a fedate, moderate, religious 
 man, it was evident that he was ftrongly tinftured with enthufiafm; 
 a circumftance which, notwithftanding the other pans of his con- 
 duft, makes it ftill highly probable that he might be concerned in 
 the attempts charged againft him. And an initance was quoted in. 
 the cafe of the Fifth Monarchy Men, where a charge of High Trea- 
 fon might be founded againft them on the exprels ground of their 
 religion. It is to be remarked, that the particular acts done by this 
 man, are not contradicted by any of his own v/itneffes. 
 
 They were certainly fuch as are totally inconfiftent with the idea 
 of only effecting a Reform in the Comrnons-Houfe of Parliament ; 
 they are fuch as are confident with the other idea of fubverting tha 
 eftablifhed Conftitution, by introducing in it's {lead a repreienu- 
 tivc Government of the people. 
 
 " Upon all this ftatement, you are now to exercife your own 
 judgment, and in doing fo, you will pay no more attention to 
 what I have faid, except fo far as it may be fupported by the fact* 
 of thecTafe, and lead you to the principal points of the evidence 
 brought forward, both for the profecution and for the priioner. 
 The Jury are in no cafe bound to attend to any opinion, except 
 their own, in forming their deciiion on the general queltion of 
 guilt or innocence. 
 
 Every verdicl ought to be the Jury's own vcrdift, more particu- 
 larly in a cafe of iuch magnitude as the prefcnt, to which the eye 
 of the public are turrled, in order that the country may be iatlsfied 
 that you, as you are bound by your oath, have made a true deliver- 
 ance. I am forry to remark, that during the courle of this trial, 
 the dignity of a Couit ofjufticc has, in conlequencc of condufs 
 that has taken place, both within and without doors, been in more 
 inftances than one, grofsly violated. '.V'i.at fuch a conduct can 
 inean, except from perions who arc de&rous to diflblvc -ali ite ucs 
 
 M QI f
 
 of Government, and deftroy all reverence for authority, I cannot 
 poflibly underftand, and I truft I fhall not again witnefs a repetition 
 of fuch a conduct, either in this, or in any other cafe, in which the 
 public juftice may be called upon to determine. 
 
 " Gentlemen, you will now confider of your verdict." 
 
 1'he Jury, before withdrawing, afked for a copy of the Indift- 
 jnent. 
 
 Chief Juftice Eyre. " I fee no objection to letting you have a 
 copy of the Indictment, although it is not quite regular, provided it 
 be done by the confent of the parties." 
 
 No objection was made; and a copy of the Indiftment was hand- 
 ed to the Jury. 
 
 Chief juftice Eyre. <: Gentlemen of the Jury, It is proper to in- 
 form you, that after you withdraw you can be allowed no refrefli- 
 ment. If you wifli for any refrefhment, now is the time to take 
 it." 
 
 The Jury. " My Lord, we thank you, but \ve {hall have occafibn 
 for no refrefhment." 
 
 At half an hour pad twelve o'clock, the Jury withdrew, and at 
 half pad three, returned a verdift of 
 
 NOT GUILTY. 
 
 The Lord Prefident then thanked the Jury for their diligent at- 
 tendance, on fo long and arduous a trial; and gave directions that 
 the prifbner be immediately difcharged. 
 
 Mr. Hardy then thanked the Jury for the verdift they had given, 
 both on behalf of himfelf, and of all his fcllovv-fubjefts. 
 
 The populace, who, notwithstanding the wetnefs of the day, filled 
 the ftreets adjacent to the Court Houfe, received the news of his 
 acquittal with the loudeft acclamations of joy. And after he was 
 difcharged, they followed the coach which conveyed him to his 
 lodgings, and taking the horfes from it, drew him through different 
 parts of the town. 
 
 The Court adjourned to Monday fe'nnight. 
 
 In pronouncing the verdift, the Foreman was fo overcome that 
 he was fcarce audible, and literally fainted away.
 
 [ 275 3 
 
 HadHardy beenconviled,Englifhmen muft have heard the fatal 
 tidings with companion for the viclim to the law and alarmed, 
 left their enthufiaftic attachment to the reftoration o/ their Con- 
 ftitutional Rights might fubjecl them to the fame terrific fatality. 
 Although we have been told that the enthufiaft is criminal, and, 
 therefore, deferving of punifhmeut, yet, according to every prin- 
 ciple pf ethics or moral philoibphy we have ftudied, we cannot 
 abandon the idea, that neither civil, political, moral, or religious 
 virtue could exifl without enthufiafm. It is this which conflitutes 
 the flame and energy of every worthy aUon that diftinguifhes the 
 flatefman, foldier, lawyer and citizen. Had it not been for the 
 enthufiaftic attachment of Mr. Erfkine and Mr. Gibbs, to the caufe 
 of national freedom, juftice, and humanity, England might have 
 had one of her champions fall beneath the vengeance of legal pro- 
 fecution. What could withftand fuch a formidable mals of written 
 and parole evidence, fuch a phalanx of the ablefl crown profecu- 
 tors, but the enthufiafm of the counfel for the prifoner? convinced 
 of his innocence and his political attachment to the King, and the 
 Conflitution, their eleftric favour illuminated the fhrine of jultice, 
 and thus reftored the patriot again to fociety. 
 
 The momentous acquit:al of Mr. Hardy is a fubjeft that will 
 ever be equally dear to the feelings, and memorable in 'the recol- 
 leftion of every individual in the kingdom. When perlons with 
 the mod ardent attachment to the conftitutiori are liable to fuiFer the 
 ignominy, and hazard of a profccution for High Trealon ; how 
 much are they to be congratulated in finding their innocence fecure 
 in the fanftuary of National Jufl ice! However the fcrvants of the 
 crown are bound by their duty to their King and their Country, to 
 exert every vigilance to preferve the community from the fecret 
 machinations or open outrages of the intriguing, ambitious, or dif- 
 puate, yet the people have now the fatisfaftion of knowing they 
 are fecured from the errors of zeal for exemplary punifhments. 
 
 END OF MR. HARDY'S TRIAL. 
 
 Court will meet at the Old Bailey, on Monday the i Jth t>f 
 November, to proceed on the Trial of another of the Pnfjners charged 
 zoith, High TreafoH t talten it is ex petted Mr. HORNE TOOKE will be 
 put !o the Bar. 
 
 The Readers is therefore reque/ied to obferve, that the FIRST PAR i' 
 of his Trial u'illbtpublijhtd on Tue/day the i8t/i of Nov:ml>:i;
 

 
 ?a e> 
 
 *, 
 
 to 
 
 DUE2WKSFROMDAJERECEIVEI