Gordon advised a certain number to go up with the petition; he would with to avoid all offence, and it might be attended with contention and diforder; therefore he wished for a fmall number to go. Many in the ring faid, they were men capable of conducting themselves with peace and order, and they chofe to go in perfon.'.

Mr. John Robinson saw the af. fociation in St. George's Fields, and went in proceffion; they were very peaceable in the afternoon, he faw the riots in Palace-yard; they had blue cockades; but he did not think they belonged to the affociation.

Sir James Lowther faid, that Lord George Gordon requested to accompany him home in his carriage, from the House of Commons, on the evening of Friday the 2d. When they were got into the carriage, fome of the remaining mob came about, and asked, Is the Bill to be repealed?' Lord George faid, I do not know, I hope it will, but go home, be quiet, make no riot nor noife.'

Mrs. Youd, fervant to Lord George Gordon, was called to prove that his Lordship was at home at a quarter before 11 o'clock on the evening of the 2d of June, and that he was at home Saturday, Sunday, and Monday following. Being asked whether he did not go out any part of thefe days, Mr. Erfkine faid he was ready, if the court thought it material, to fhew where his lordship was every hour and every minute of those days.

Mr. Alderman Pugh faid, that he was in a coach with Ld. George Gordon, about three o'clock on the afternoon of the 7th of June.

A young man came with half a fheet of paper that was written upon; he feemed to be in great agony; he defired the prifoner to fet his name to it; he faid, his house was in danger of being deftroyed, and he wished his lordfhip would fign the paper.' The witnefs was not clear whether Lord George afked his opinion or not, nor whether he looked at it but his lordship did fign it; and the man feemed to go away happy.

The evidence for the crown being clofed, Mr. Erfkine addreffed the jury in a very long fpeech, which he opened with a very clear and diftinct history of treason. He stated the wisdom of our anceftors in guarding against the confequences of loofe and arbitrary conftruction, by the most accurate and explicit definitions, and deducing hence a feries of inconteftable principles, he ftrongly exhorted the jury to apply them to the whole evidence before them. Then commenting on the various parts of the evidence in the most masterly manner, he concluded with thefe animated words: ‹ I may now relieve you from the pain of hearing me any longer, and be myfelf relieved from the pain of fpeaking on a fubject which agitates and diftreffes me. Since Lord George Gordon ftands clear of every hoftile act or purpose against the legislature of his country, or the properties of his fellow fubjects-fince the whole tenor of his conduct repels the belief of the traitorous purpose charged by the indictment-my task is finifhed. I fhall make no address to your paffions; I will not remind you of the long and rigorous imprifonment he has fuffer

cd;

ed; I will not fpeak to you of his great youth, of his illuftrious birth, and of his uniform, animated, and generous zeal in parliament for the conftitution of his country. Such topics might be ufeful in the balance of a doubtful cafe; yet even then I fhould have trufted to the honeft hearts of Englishmen to have felt them without excitation. At prefent, the plain and rigid rules of juftice are fufficient to entitle me to your verdict; and may God Almighty, who is the facred author of both, fill your minds with the deepest impreffions of them, and with virtue to follow thofe impreffions! You will then reftore my innocent client to liberty, and me to that peace of mind, which, fince the protection of that innocence in any part depended upon me, I have never known.'

The folicitor-general replied. After which, Lord Mansfield gave the following charge.

Gentlemen of the Jury, The prifoner at the bar is indicted for that fpecies of hightreafon which is called levying war against the king, aud therefore it is neceffary you should first be informed what is in law a levying war against the king, fo as to constitute the crime of hightreafon, within the Statute of Edward III. and perhaps according to the legal fignification of the term before that Statute. There are two kinds of levying war: one against the perfon of the king; to imprifon, to dethrone, or to kill him; or to make him, change meafures, or remove counsellors: -the other, which is faid to be levied against the majefty of the king, or, in other words, againft

him in his regal capacity; as when a multitude affemble to attain by force any object of a general public nature; that is levying war againft the majefty of the king; and most reafonably so held, because it tends to diffolve all the bands of fociety, to deftroy property, and to overturn government; and, by force of arms, to reftrain the king from reigning according to law.

Infurrections, by force and violence, to raife the price of wages, to open all prifons, to deftroy meeting-houfes, nay, to destroy all brothels, to refift the execution of militia laws, to throw down all inclofures, to alter the established law, or change religion, to redress grievances real or pretended, have all been held levying war. Many other inftances might be put. Lord Chief Juftice Holt, in Sir John Friend's cafe, fays, if perfons do aflemble themselves and act with force in oppofition to fome law which they think inconvenient, and hope thereby to get it repeal ed, this is a levying war and treafon. In the prefent cafe, it don't reft upon an implication that they hoped by oppofition to a law to get it repealed, but the profecution proceeds upon the direct ground, that the object was, by force and violence, to compel the legiflature to repeal a law; and therefore, without any doubt, I tell you the joint opinion of us all, that, if this multitude affembled with intent, by acts of force and violence, to compel the legiflature to repeal a law, it is hightreafon.

Though the form of an indictment for this fpecies of treafon mentions drums, trumpets, arms,

fwords,

fwords, fifes, and guns, yet none of thefe circumftances are effential. The queftion always is, whether the intent is, by force and violence, to attain an object of a general and public nature, by any inftruments, or by dint of their numbers. Whoever incites, advises, encourages, or is in any way. aiding to fuch a multitude fo affembled with fuch intent, though he does not perfonally appear among them, or with his own hands commit any violence whatfoever, yet he is equally a principal with those who act, and guilty of high-treafon.

Having premised thefe propofitions as the ground-work of your deliberation upon the points which will be left to you, it will not be amifs to lay a matter which you have heard a great deal upon at the bar totally out of the cafe. Whether the Bill, called Sir George Savile's, was wife or expedient-whether the repeal of it would have been right or wrong has nothing to do with this trial. Whether grievances be real or pretended-whether a law be good or bad-it is equally high treafon, by the strong hand of a multitude, to force the repeal or redress.

Thus much let me fay, it is moft injurious to fay this Bill, called Sir George Savile's, is a toleration of Popery. I cannot deny, that, where the fafety of the ftate is not concerned, my own opinion is, that men fhould not be punished for mere matter of confcience, and barely worshipping God in their own way: but where what is alleged as matter of confcience is dangerous or pre

They are ftill fubject to all the penalties created in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and yet you know Queen Elizabeth fucceeded to the crown foon after a cruel tyrant of the Popish religion. The Reformation was established in her reign. She was excommunicated by the pope, and her dominions given away. Her next heir was a bigotted Papift*. She was exposed to many plots of affaffination: therefore found policy, and even the preservation of her life, during her reign, called for many penal laws against Papists.

This Act repeals no penalty enacted in the reign of King James the First; yet in that reign the provocations given by Papifts were great. It began with the Gunpowder Plot; and no wonder fevere laws were made against

them.

This Act repeals no law made in the reign of King Charles the Second; and yet you know the dread of a Popifh fucceffor, and the jealoufy of the court at that time, occafioned many penal laws to be made against Papists.

In the reign of William the Third, the fecurity of the new go

vernment

vernment made penal laws against Papists neceffary; yet this Bill repeals none made during the first ten years of his reign: it only re peals fome additional penalties in troduced by an Act that paffed at the end of his reign, which is notoriously known to have been countenanced or promoted by him. Therefore be the merits of the Bill, called Sir George Savile's, as it may, it is totally a mifrepre-fentation to infer from thence that Papifts are tolerated. It is a cry to raise the blind spirit of fanaticism, or enthufiafm, in the minds of a deluded multitude, which, in the hiftory of the world, has been the caufe of much ruin and national deftruction. But I have already told you the merits of this law are totally immaterial upon this trial; and nothing can be fo difhonourable to government, as to be forced to make, or to repeal, by an armed multitude, any law from that moment there is an end of all legislative authority.

There is another matter I must mention to you, before I come to ftate the questions upon which you are to form a judgment, and fum up the evidence, from which that judgment is to be a conclufion.

A doubt has faintly been thrown ont at the bar, whether it is lawful to attend a petition to the Houfe of Commons with more than ten perfons? Upon dear-bought exrience of the confequence of tumultuous affemblies, under pretence of carrying and fupporting petitions, an Act of parliament paffed in the reign of King Charles the Second, forbidding, under a penalty, more than ten perfons to attend a petition to the king, or

either house of parliament: but it is faid, that the law is repealed by the Bill of Rights. I fpeak the joint opinion of us all, that the Act of Charles the Second is in full force; there is not the colour for a doubt the Bill of Rights does not mean to meddle with it at all: it afferts the right of the fubject to petition to the king, and that there ought to be no commitments for fuch petitioning; which alluded to the cafe of the bishops in King James's reign, who petitioned the king, and were committed for it. But neither the Bill of Rights, nor any other ftatute, repeals this Act of Charles the Second: and Mr. Justice Blackftone, in his Commentaries, treats of this Act as in full force; and, as I have told you, we are all of that opinion; and confequently the attending a petition to the Houfe of Commons by more than ten perfons is criminal and illegal.

Having premifed thefe several propofitions and principles, the fubject-matter for your confideration naturally refolves itself into two points.

First, Whether this multitude did affemble and commit acts of violence, with intent to terrify and compel the legislature to repeal the Act called Sir George Savile's.-If upon this point your opinion fhould be in the negative, that makes an end of the whole, and the prisoner ought to be acquitted: but if your opinion fhould be, that the intent of this multitude, and the violence they committed, was to force a repeal, there arifes a fecond point

Whether the prifoner at the bar incited, encouraged, promoted, or affifted in raifing this infurrection,

and

and the terror they carried with them, with the intent of forcing a repeal of this law.

Upon these two points, which you will call your attention to, depends the fate of this trial; for if either the multitude had no fuch intent, or fuppofing they had, if the prifoner was no caufe, did not excite, and took no part in conducting, counfelling, or fomenting the infurrection, the prifoner ought to be acquitted; and there is no pretence that he perfonally concurred in any act of violence.

[His lordship now fummed up the evidence verbutim to the jury; in the course of which he told them, that he obferved that moft of them had taken very full notes that he purposely avoided making any ob fervations upon the evidence, chufing to leave it to themselves; then concluded as follows:] This, gentlemen, is the whole of the evidence on either fide: you will weigh this evidence, and all the obfervations made at the bar, or which occur to yourselves, upon it-I avoid making any. The points for you to determine are- Whether this multitude were affembled and acted with an intent to force a repeal of this called Sir George Savile's Act; and if you think fuch was their intent, whether the share the prifoner had in getting together fuch a number of people to go down to the House of Commons in meeting them in St. George's Fields-in talking to them in the lobby-in wearing the cockade on Friday and Saturday

or in any other part of his con

duct-had the fame intent, by the terror of an outrageous multitude, and the violences they committed and threatened, to force a repeal of this Act. If there was no fuch intention, either in the mob or in the prifoner, he ought to be acquitted: but if you think there was fuch an intent in the multitude, encouraged, incited, or promoted by the prifoner, then you ought to find him guilty.

If the scale should hang doubtful, and you are not fully satisfied that he is guilty, you ought to lean to the favourable fide, ard acquit him.