the society was plan of the Duke of Richmond. convention, have I not as good a claim to take credit for honest purpose in the poor man I am defending, against whom not a contumelious expression has been proved, as when we find the same expressions in the mouths of the Duke of Richmond or Mr. Burke? I ask nothing more from this observation, than that a sober judgment may be pronounced from the quality of the acts which can be fairly established; each individual standing responsible only for his own conduct, instead of having our imaginations tainted with cant phrases, and a farrago of writings and speeches, for which the prisoner is not responsible, and for which the authors, if they be criminal, are liable to be brought to justice. If we look at the whole of the institution itself, | been considered as an infamous libeler and traThe object of it exactly corresponds with the plan ducer, and deservedly hooted out of civilized life. to carry out the of the Duke of Richmond, as express- Why, then, are different constructions to be put ed in the letters to Colonel Sharman, upon similar transactions? Why is every thing and to the High Sheriff of Sussex. to be held up as bona fide when the example is This plan they propose to follow, in a public ad-set, and malà fide when it is followed? Why dress to the nation, and all their resolutions are framed for its accomplishment; and I desire to know in what they have departed from either, and what they have done which has not been done before, without blame or censure, in the pursuance of the same object. I am not speaking of the libels they may have written, which the law is open to punish, but what part of their conduct has, as applicable to the subject in question, been unprecedented? I have at this moIn proposing a ment in my eye an honorable friend they had high of mine, and a distinguished member authorities. of the House of Commons [Mr. Fox], who, within my own remembrance, I believe in 1780, sat publicly at Guildhall, with many others, some of them magistrates of the city, as a convention of delegates for the same objects. And what is still more in point, just before the convention began to meet at Edinburgh, whose proceedings have been so much relied on, there was a convention regularly assembled, attended by delegates from all the counties of Scotland, for the express and avowed purpose of altering the constitution of Parliament-not by rebellion, but by the same means employed by the prisoner. The Lord Chief Baron of Scotland sat in the chair, and was assisted by some of the first men in that country, and, among others, by an honorable person to whom I am nearly allied, who is at the very head of the bar in Scotland, and most avowedly attached to the law and the Constitution.47 66 These gentlemen, whose good intentions nevFirst Scottish er fell into suspicion, had presented a convention. petition for the alteration of election laws, which the House of Commons had rejected, and on the spur of that very rejection they met in a convention at Edinburgh, in 1793. The style of their first meeting was A Convention of Delegates, chosen from the counties of Scotland, for altering and amending the laws concerning Elections"-not for considering how they might be best amended-not for petitioning Parliament to amend them, but for altering and amending the election laws. The proceedings of these meetings were regularly published, and I will prove that their first resolution, as I have read it to you, was brought up to London, and delivered to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, by Sir Thomas Dundas, lately created a peer of Great Britain, and paid for by him as a public advertisement. Now, suppose any man had imputed treason or sedition to these honorable persons, what would have been the consequence? He would have an association was formed at this time, of which Er skine was a member, to erect a monument to his memory in his native village. This was finally accomplished at an expense of £300. The Honorable Heury Erskine, Mr. Erskine's brother, then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, at Edinburgh. Prejudice against these latter conthey speak of the ventions because rights of man But it will be said, gentlemen, that all the constitutional privileges of the people are conceded-that their existence was never denied or invaded-and that their right to petition and to meet for the expression of their complaints, founded or unfounded, was never called in question. These, it will be said, are the rights of subjects-but that "the rights of man" are what alarms them. Every man is considered as a traitor who talks about the rights of man; but this bugbear stands upon the same perversion with its fellows. The rights of man are the foundation of all government, and to secure them is the Defense of only reason of men's submitting to be the phrase. governed. It shall not be fastened upon the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, nor upon any other man, that because these natural rights were asserted in France, by the destruction of a government which oppressed and subverted them-a process happily effected here by slow and imperceptible improvements-that, therefore, they can only be so asserted in England, where the government, through a gradation of improvement, is well calculated to protect them. We are, fortunately, not driven in this country to the terrible alternatives which were the unhappy lot of France, because we have had a happier destiny in the forms of a free Constitution. This, indeed, is the express language of many of the papers before you that have been complained of—especially of one alluded to by the Attorney General, as having been written by a gentleman with whom I am particularly acquainted. And though in that spirited composition there are, perhaps, some expressions proceeding from warmth which he may not desire me critically to justify, yet I will venture to affirm, from my own personal knowledge, that there is not a man in court more honestly public-spirited and zealously devoted to the Constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, than the honorable gentleman I allude to [Felix Vaughan, Esq., barrister-at-law]: it is the phrase, therefore, and not the sentiment expressed by it, that can was charged by the Bill of Rights to consist in cruel and infamous trials, in the packing of juries, and in disarming the people, whose arms are their unalienable refuge against oppression. But did the people of England assemble to make this declaration? No! because it was unnecessary. The sense of the people, against a corrupt and scandalous government, dissolved it, by almost the ordinary forms by which the old government itself was administered. King William sent his writs to those who had sat in the former Parliament; but will any man, therefore, tell me that that Parliament re-organized the government without the will of the people? and that it was not their consent which entailed on King William a particular inheritance, to be enjoyed under the dominion of the law? alone give justifiable offense. It is, it seems, a new phrase commencing in revolutions, and never used before in discussing the rights of British subjects, and, therefore, can only be applied in the sense of those who framed it. But this is so far from being the truth, that the very phrase sticks in my memory, from the memorable application of it to the rights of subjects, under this and every other establishment, by a gentleman whom you will not suspect of using it in any other sense. The rights of man were considered by Mr. Burke, at the time that the great uproar was made upon a supposed invasion of the East India Company's charter, to be the foundation of, and paramount to, all the laws and ordinances of a state. The ministry, you may remember, were | turned out for Mr. Fox's India Bill, which their opponents termed an attack upon the chartered Gentlemen, it was the denial of these princirights of man, or, in other words, upon the abuses ples, asserted at the Revolution in Ensupported by a monopoly in trade. Hear the gland, that brought forward the author called forth by sentiments of Mr. Burke, when the natural and of the "Rights of Man," and stirred constituional chartered rights of men are brought into contest. up this controversy which has given Mr. Burke, in his speech in the House of Com- such alarm to government. But for this, the litmons, expressed himself thus: "The first objec-erary labors of Mr. Paine had closed. He astion is, that the bill is an attack on the chartered rights of men. As to this objection, I must observe that the phrase, "the chartered rights of men," is full of affectation, and very unusual in the discussion of privileges conferred by charters of the present description. But it is not difficult to discover what end that ambiguous mode of expression, so often reiterated, is meant to an swer. 48 "The rights of men, that is to say, the natural Mr. Burke on rights of mankind, are, indeed, sacred this subject. things; and if any public measure is proved mischievously to affect them, the objection ought to be fatal to that measure, even if no charter at all could be set up against it. And if these natural rights are further affirmed and declared by express covenants, clearly defined and secured against chicane, power, and authority, by written instruments and positive engagements, they are in a still better condition: they then partake not only of the sanctity of the object so secured, but of that solemn public faith itself, which secures an object of such importance. Indeed, this formal recognition, by the sovereign power, of an original right in the subject, can never be subverted but by rooting up the holding radical principles of government, and even of society itself." Duke of Richmond on the same subject. The Duke of Richmond, also, in his public letter to the High Sheriff of Sussex, rests the rights of the people of England upon the same horrible and damnable principle of the rights of man. Let gentlemen, therefore, take care they do not pull down the very authority which they come here to support. Let them remember that his Majesty's family was called to the throne upon the very principle that the ancient kings of this country had violated these sacred trusts. Let them recollect, too, in what the violation was charged to consist: it 48 See antè, page 313. Paine's book the denial of principles. Mr. serts it himself in his book, and every body knows This ac tempt to interfere, by despotic combination and violence, with any government which a people choose to give to themselves, whether it be good or evil, is an oppression and subversion of the natural and inalienable rights of man; and though the government of this country should countenance such a system, it would not only be still legal for me to express my detestation of it, as I here deliberately express it, but it would become my interest and my duty. For if combinations of despotism can accomplish such a purpose, who shall tell me what other nation shall not be the prey of their ambition? Upon the very principle of denying to a people the right of governing themselves, how are we to resist the French, should they attempt by violence to fasten their government upon us? Or what inducement would there be for resistance to preserve laws which are not, it seems, our own, but which are unalterably imposed upon us? The very argument strikes, as with a palsy, the arm and vigor of the nation. I hold dear the privileges I am contending for, not as privileges hostile to the Constitution, but as necessary for its preservation; and if the French were to intrude by force upon the government of our own free choice, I should leave these papers, and return to a profession that, perhaps, I better understand.19 Norwich re The next evidence relied on, after the institu(2) Letter of tion of the Corresponding Society, is a formers, and letter written to them from Norwich, reply. dated the 11th of November, 1792, with the answer, dated the 26th of the same month. It is asserted that this correspondence shows they aimed at nothing less than the total destruction of the monarchy, and that they, therefore, vail their intention under covert and ambiguous language. I think, on the other hand, and I shall continue to think so, as long as I am capable of thought, that it was impossible for words to convey more clearly the explicit avowal of their original plan for a constitutional reform in the House of Commons. This letter from Norwich, after congratulating the Corresponding Society on its institution, asks several questions arising out of the proceedings of other societies in different parts of the kingdom, which they profess not thoroughly to understand. The Sheffield people (they observe) seemed at first determined to support the Duke of Richmond's plan only, but that they had afterward observed a disposition in them to a more moderate plan of reform proposed by the Friends of the People in London; while the Manchester people, by addressing Mr. Paine (whom the Norwich people had not addressed), seemed to be intent on republican principles only. They [the Norwich people], therefore, put a question, not at all of distrust or suspicion, but bona fide, if ever there was good faith between men, whether the Corresponding Society meant to be satisfied with the plan of the Duke of Richmond? or whether 49 The reader is already aware that Mr. Erskine had served successively in the navy and army, before studying for the law. it was their private design to rip up monarchy by the roots, and place democracy in its stead? Now hear the answer, from whence it is inferred that this last is their intention. They begin their answer with recapitulating the demand of their correspondent, as regularly as a tradesman, who has had an order for goods, recapitulates the order, that there may be no ambiguity in the reference or application of the reply, and then they say, as to the objects they have in view, they refer them to their addresses. "You will thereby see that we mean to disseminate political knowledge, and thereby engage the judicious part of the nation to demand the recovery of their lost rights in annual Parliaments; the members of these Parliaments owing their election to unbought suffrages." They then desire them to be careful to avoid all dispute, and say to them, Put monarchy, democracy, and even religion quite aside;" and "let your endeavors go to increase the numbers of those who desire a full and equal representation of the people, and leave to a Parliament, so chosen, to reform all existing abuses; and if they don't answer, at the year's end, you may choose others in their stead." The Attorney General says this is lamely expressed. I, on the other hand, say that it is not only not lamely expressed, but anxiously worded to put an end to dangerous speculations. Leave all theories undiscussed; do not perplex yourselves with abstract questions of government; endeavor practically to get honest representatives; and if they deceive you―then, what?—bring on a revolution? No! Choose others in their stead! They refer, also, to their Address, which lay before their correspondent, which Address expresses itself thus: "Laying aside all claim to originality, we claim no other merit than that of reconsidering and verifying what has already been urged in our common cause by the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, and their then honest party.”" reformers was When the language of the letter, which is branded as ambiguous [by the counsel Pretense that for the Crown], thus stares them in the age of the face as an undeniable answer to the a mere cover. charge, they then have recourse to the old refuge of mala fides; all this, they say, is but a cover for hidden treason. But I ask you, gentlemen, in the name of God, and as fair and honest men, what reason upon earth there is to suppose that the writers of this letter did not mean what they expressed? Are you to presume, in a court of justice, and upon a trial for life, that men write with duplicity in their most confidential correspondence, even to those with whom they are confederated? Let it be recollected, also, that if this correspondence was calculated for deception, the deception must have been understood and agreed upon by all parties concerned-for otherwise you have a conspiracy among persons who are at cross purposes with one another-consequently, the conspiracy, if this be a branch of it, is a conspiracy of thousands and ten thousands, from one end of the kingdom to the other, who are all guilty, if any of the prisoners are guilty. Upward of forty thousand persons, upon the low est calculation, must alike be liable to the pains and penalties of the law, and hold their lives as tenants at will of the ministers of the Crown. In whatever aspect, therefore, this prosecution is regarded, new difficulties and new uncertainties and terrors surround it. veut.on. limited by my instructions, and have not advanced a single step upon your journey to convict me. The instructions to Skirving have been read, and speak for themselves; they are strictly legal, and pursue the avowed object of the society; and it will be for the Solicitor General to point out, in his reply, any counter or secret instructions, or any collateral conduct, contradictory of the good faith with which they were written. The instructions are in these words: "The delegates are instructed, on the part of this society, to assist in bringing forward and supporting any constitutional measure for procuring a real representation of the Commons of Great Britain." What do you say, gentlemen, to this language? How are men to express themselves who desire a constitutional reform? The object and the mode of effecting it were equally legal. This is most obvious from the conduct of the Parliament of Ireland, acting under directions from England; they passed the Convention Bill, and made it only a misdemeanor, knowing that, by the law as it stood, it was no misdemeanor at all. Whether this statement may meet with the approbation of others, I care not; I know the fact to be so, and I maintain that you can not prove upon the convention which met at Edinburgh, and which is charged to-day with high treason, one thousandth part of what, at last, worked up government in Ireland to the pitch of voting it a misdemeanor. ambiguous by construction the worst of evils. The next thing in order which we have to look (3.) The second at, is the convention at Edinburgh. Edinburgh Con- It appears that a letter had been written by Mr. Skirving, who was connected with reformers in Scotland, proceeded avowedly upon the Duke of Richmond's plan, proposing that there should be a convention from the societies assembled at Edinburgh. Now you will recollect, in the opening, that the Attorney General considered all the great original sin of this conspiracy and treason to have originated with the societies in London; that the country societies were only tools in their hands, and that the Edinburgh Convention was the commencement of their projects. And yet it plainly appears that this convention originDid not originate in London ated from neither of the London soinfluence. cieties, but had its beginning at Edinburgh, where, just before, a convention had been sitting for the reform in Parliament, attended by the principal persons in Scotland. And, surely, without adverting to the nationality so peculiar to the people of that country, it is not at all suspicious that, since they were to hold a meeting for similar objects, they should make use of the same style for their association; and that Gentlemen, I am not vindicating any thing that their deputies should be called delegates, when can promote disorder in the country, Laws rendered delegates had attended the other convention from but I am maintaining that the worst all the counties, and whom they were every day possible disorder that can fall upon looking at in their streets, in the course of the a country is, when subjects are deprived of the very same year that Skirving wrote his letter on sanction of clear and unambiguous laws. If the subject. The views of the Corresponding wrong is committed, let punishment follow acSociety, as they regarded this convention, and cording to the measure of that wrong. If men The prisoners consequently the views of the prison- are turbulent, let them be visited by the laws er, must be collected from the writ- according to the measure of their turbulency. except as they ten instructions to the delegates, un- If they write libels upon government, let them delegates. less they can be falsified by matter be punished according to the quality of those which is collateral. If I constitute an agent, I libels. But you must not, and will not, because am bound by what he does, but always with this the stability of the monarchy is an important limitation for what he does within the scope of concern to the nation, confound the nature and his agency. If I constitute an agent to buy distinctions of crimes, and pronounce that the horses for me, and he commits high treason, it life of the Sovereign has been invaded, because will not, I hope, be argued, that I am to be the privileges of the people have been, perhaps, hanged. If I constitute an agent for any busi- | irregularly and hotly asserted. You will not, to ness that can be stated, and he goes beyond his give security to government, repeal the most instructions, he must answer for himself beyond sacred laws instituted for our protection, and their limits; for beyond them he is not my rep- which are, indeed, the only consideration for our resentative. The acts done, therefore, at the submitting at all to government. If the plain Scotch Convention, whatever may be their qual-letter of the statute of Edward III. applies to the ity, are evidence to show that, in point of fact, a certain number of people got together, and did any thing you choose to call illegal. But, as far as it concerns me, if I am not present, you are 50 The Secretary to the Edinburgh Convention. He, together with Maurice Margaret and Joseph Gerald (two of the London delegates), was arrested at Edinburgh, in 1794, for sedition: all of them were found guilty, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. All his papers were seized by the magistrate at the same time. not responsible for its doings, instructed their conduct of the prisoners, let it, in God's name, be applied; but let neither their conduct, nor the law that is to judge it, be tortured by construction; nor suffer the transaction, from whence You are to form a dispassionate conclusion of intention, to be magnified by scandalous epithets, nor overwhelmed in an undistinguishable mass of matter, in which you may be lost and bewildered, having missed the only parts which could have furnished a clue to a just or rational judg ment. Gentlemen, this religious regard for the liber- to them, when it is plain, if this evidence can conViews of Dr. ty of the subject against constructive vict of high treason, that no man can be said to Johnson. treason is well illustrated by Dr. John- have a life which is his own? For how can he son, the great author of our English Dictionary, possibly know by what engines it may be snared, a man remarkable for his love of order, and for or from what unknown sources it may be attacked high principles of government, but who had the and overpowered? Such a monstrous precedent wisdom to know that the great end of govern- would be as ruinous to the King as to his subment, in all its forms, is the security of liberty jects. We are in a crisis of our affairs, which, and life under the law. This man, of masculine putting justice out of the question, calls in sound mind, though disgusted at the disorder which policy for the greatest prudence and moderation. Lord George Gordon created, felt a triumph in At a time when other nations are disposed to his acquittal, and exclaimed, as we learn from subvert their establishments, let it be our wisdom Mr. Boswell, "I hate Lord George Gordon, but I to make the subject feel the practical benefits of am glad he was not convicted of this constructive our own: let us seek to bring good out of evil. treason; for though I hate him, I love my coun- The distracted inhabitants of the world will fly try and myself." This extraordinary man no to us for sanctuary, driven out of their countries doubt remembered, with Lord Hale, that, when from the dreadful consequences of not attending the law is broken down, injustice knows no to seasonable reforms in government-victims to bounds, but runs as far as the wit and invention the folly of suffering corruptions to continue till of accusers, or the detestation of persons accused, the whole fabric of society is dissolved and tumwill carry it. You will pardon this almost per- bles into ruin. Landing upon our shores, they petual recurrence to these considerations; but will feel the blessing of security, and they will the present is a season when I have a right to discover in what it consists. They will read this call upon you by every thing sacred in humanity trial, and their hearts will palpitate at your deand justice-by every principle which ought to cision. They will say to one another-and their influence the heart of man, to consider the situ- voices will reach to the ends of the earth-" May ation in which I stand before you. I stand here the Constitution of England endure forever! the for a poor, unknown, unprotected in- sacred and yet remaining sanctuary for the opthe prisoner's dividual, charged with a design to pressed! Here, and here only, the lot of man is situation. subvert the government of the coun- cast in security! What though authority, estabtry and the dearest rights of its inhabitants-a lished for the ends of justice, may lift itself up charge which has collected against him a force against it! What though the House of Comsufficient to crush to pieces any private man. mons itself should make an ex parte declaration of The whole weight of the Crown presses upon guilt! What though every species of art should him; Parliament has been sitting upon ex parte | be employed to entangle the opinions of the peoevidence for months together; and rank and ple, which in other countries would be inevitable property is associated, from one end of the king- destruction; yet, in England, in enlightened Endom to the other, to avert the supposed conse- gland, all this will not pluck a hair from the head quences of the treason.31 I am making no com- of innocence. The jury will still look steadfastplaint of this. But surely it is an awful sum-ly to the law, as the great polar star, to direct mons to impartial attention; surely it excuses me for so often calling upon your integrity and firmness to do equal justice between the Crown, so supported, and an unhappy prisoner, so unprotected. Hardship of crisis. Gentlemen, I declare that I am utterly astonMotives for im ished, on looking at the clock, to find at the present how long I have been speaking; and that, agitated and distressed as I am, I have yet strength enough remaining for the remainder of my duty. At every peril to my health it shall be exerted; for even if this cause should miscarry, I know I shall have justice done me for the honesty of my intentions. But what is that to the public and posterity? What is it 51 The following are the facts here referred to. On the 12th of April, 1794, the King sent a message to Parliament announcing the existence of seditious societies. The prisoners were arrested, and the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended on the 24th of the same month. The papers found on the premises of Hardy and others were published by way of viudication, and the subject was long under discussion in Parliament. Loyal associations to support the government were formed, in the mean time, in various places. them in their course. As prudent men, they will set no example of disorder, nor pronounce a verdict of censure on authority, or of approbation or disapprobation beyond their judicial province; but, on the other hand, they will make no political sacrifice, but deliver a plain, honest man from the toils of injustice." When your verdict is pronounced, this will be the judgment of the world; and if any among ourselves are alienated in their affections to government, nothing will be so likely to reclaim them. They will say, Whatever we have lost of our control in Parliament, we have yet a sheet-anchor remaining to hold the vessel of the state amid contending storms. We have still, thank God, a sound administration of justice secured to us, in the independence of the judges, in the rights of enlightened juries, and in the integrity of the bar-ready at all times, and upon every possible occasion, whatever may be the defense of the meanest man in England, when consequences to themselves, to stand forward in brought for judgment before the laws of the country. To return to this Scotch convention. Their papers were all seized by government. What their proceedings were, they best know; we can |