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