Clerk of the Court, where is the Lord Justice General of Scotland? I don't see him in his place.

I don't know where he is.

I hold that this Court is not competent to try me. My Lords, I am cited before the Lord Justice General of Scotland, the Lord Justice Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. Now we know this is the highest court in Scotland: we know there is no higher office in Scotland, than that of Lord Justice General, and we know, that if it was an unnecessary post, it would not have £.2,000 a year salary, annexed to it, and we know that the indictment would have run before our Lord Justice General, or Lord Justice Clerk, because we know that the Public Prosecutor will in this case and in every other, trumpet up much the constitution; and as the constitution of Great Britain is founded upon Laws, and those Laws can only be delivered in words, so the least variation of words in a Law, is a total ob­jection to an indictment. My Lords, it may be said there is precedent for it; but it is a fundamental principle, that no man is to hold out his own laches. Why is he not here to do his duty? If this innovation is suffered, perhaps the attendance of the Lord Justice Clerk will be dispensed with, and the attendance of the other Judges; and at last, perhaps, the Clerk of the Court, or even the Macers, will form the high Court of Justiciary, so that by one deviation and another, even the forms of justice will be done away; and, my Lords, we cannot say that there has not been a precedent, where the Lord Justice General has appeared in his place, though perhaps that was not to the honour of Scotland, where the Duke of Argyle sat as Lord Justice General, for the purpose of trying a man, one James Stewart, for the murder of a man of the name of Campbell, and the whole jury were Camp­bells except two; and that was the only instance where the Scotch have enjoyed the privilege of having the Lord Justice General sit in their Court. I deny even the competency of this Court to argue upon, or maintain their own competency, be­cause it is the servant pretending to dictate to the master. As [Page 13] well may it be said, we don't want a King, as for the Lord Jus­tice Clerk to say, we don't want a Lord Justice General.

I have met the laws, and I beg this may be taken under your serious consideration, for what I say this day will not be confined within these walls, it shall spread far and wide, and will undergo a revision of both Houses of Parliament in England. You al­ready know that there is an impeachment hanging over your heads—you know it is shortly promised to be brought forward. And, my Lords, I object upon another ground, in the criminality of which you are all implicated, for there is this difference be­tween the lieges and the judges, that a man is always presumed innocent till he is found guilty; but the moment there is the slightest imputation upon a judge, he is presumed to be criminal till his innocence is clearly proved. A judge ought to be like Caesar's wife, nor only spotless but even unsuspected: that is not the case with you, my Lords. We have the promise of many men in England of great respectability who will bring it for­ward, and you may, though you are now sitting upon that bench, be brought to atone upon your knees, perhaps with your lives, for any infraction of the Laws you may be guilty of. My Lords, we well know that Cambyses ordered an unjust judge to be flea'd, and the skin of that judge covered the seat of his suc­cessor. We also know, that in the reign of Alfred (and I hold my authority in my hand, and the history of England will fur­nish it to every one) that in one year, forty-four judges were hanged—and you well know the fate of Jefferys, who, though the slow hand of the law could not overtake him, was torn in pieces by the people. I don't mean to say that you are guilty— that remains for a higher decision than mine, at that tribunal where you must soon appear, to answer for those actions which you have committed; but you will remember, that there will be at that day a mixture of guilt and innocence—may the innocence appear predominant—I don't wish to be one of your accusers on that day.

My Lords, the objection that I have stated, it is impossible to get over, for that man is remarkably accurate, I mean the public Prosecutor, and if it was not necessary, he would not have in­serted it. I expect no mercy from him, neither shall I expect any thing like mercy from the court, in the situation in which I stand, if what I have heard be true.

My Lords, there is another objection also—I need Lord Jus­tice Clerk and Lord Henderland's testimonies, as exculpatory evidences: I wanted to bring them upon their oaths to the bar, but though it is the privilege of an Englishman—of a Briton I mean, for I wish the name of Englishman to be annihilated in that of Briton—it is a privilege granted to us by that Constitu­tion (which is so loudly trumpeted up upon every occasion), that a pannel at the bar, shall have the same compulsory method of bringing his witnesses that his prosecutor has, and that has [Page 14] been denied me. The man whose business it is to cite witnesses said, he would attend in court, and give his reasons why he did not dare to serve those judges with a citation. It is true, I men­tioned only the Lord Justice Clerk to him, and I charged him to tell the Lord Justice Clerk that I wanted his evidence, and I apprehend that you are not competent to determine upon this objection. I have obeyed the laws. This is not the high Court of Justiciary, inasamuch as it lacks the centre stone—inasmuch as it lacks the principal officer of the court, and the man who here should represent the King, and consequently the wording of the indictment is loose, and renders it null and void. I have done my duty, and I demand to be discharged from your bar sim­pliciter.

What do your Lordships say to this ob­jection?

My Lords, the objection as I understand it, is, that the Lord Justice General does not attend this court, and it is even said, that we are not competent to judge of the force and validity of that objection. Why, my Lord, with respect to that, if we are not competent to judge of it, who is to judge of it? It is from the necessity of things that we must judge of it— no other person can judge of it, and therefore I hold that objec­tion to be null and void. With respect to the attendance of the Lord Justice General—by Act of Parliament it is declared, that any three of this court shall be a quorum to try any criminal; consequently, though my Lord Justice General is absent, and even if your Lordships and I were absent, any other members of the court provided there are three, is a legal quorum sufficient for the trial; therefore I am of opinion that the objection should be repelled.

Does any of your Lordships think other­wise?—I dare say not. Repel the objection.

You will attend to the criminal libel that is to be read against you.

Before that is read, my Lords, I claim another privilege, which is, that of having my witnesses called over, and if there are any who do not attend, I insist—I demand—I don't ask it as a favour—I demand it—you are on the seat of justice, and take heed how you administer that justice—I demand it as my right, that a caption be granted against the absentees.

With respect to what Mr. Margarot has said of his witnesses, I dare say your Lordships would not hesitate at sending a messenger to serve even your Lordships, or any man in the kingdom with a citation. I hope it is not true, that the officer refused to cite your Lordships, it was his duty, and he ought to have done it.

Mr. Margarot, stand up and hear the cri­minal libel read against you.

What do you say to this? Are you guilty of the charges contained in it, or not guilty.

My Lord, guilt does not stand at your bar at present.

Are you guilty or not guilty? You must answer that question.

I am not guilty! but I don't understand what is done with the objection I have already made.

It is repelled.

Oh; it is repelled, is it; according to custom? then I must make an open declaration of my intention, to enter a protest against the proceedings of this court.

Have you any thing to offer as to the rele­vancy of the libel?

With regard to the libel, if any exactness is necessary in a criminal libel, it certainly is not relevant, and here is one thing, that alone is sufficient to quash it. But, my Lord, I desired that my witnesses might be called over, in order that I might have a fair and free trial, that if any of them did not at­tend, I might have a caption granted by the court; and that is an objection which is not to be done away so easily. I have not heard the answer of the court to that.

Have you any arguments to offer as to the relevancy of the indictment? if you have, you must mention them now.

If your Lordships will give me leave to state the objection about the witnesses afterwards, then I say, this libel states, that by the Laws of this Realm, Sedition is a crime of a heinous nature. I beseech your Lordship, to point out the Law which makes Sedition a crime, and also, that which shews the punishment that is due to it. I understand that some people think Sedition so well understood, as not to need explanation. I differ from them—I say it is not merely the authority of a judge that is sufficient—he must lay his finger upon the Law Book and point it out to the Subjects, that they may know where to find it when they are not before the judge. Is there any Law in the British Constitution, which points out Sedition, and affixes the punishment to it?

My Lords, in page three of the indictment are these words, which I understand to be taken from the Gazetteer. This is an excellent motion, and the event which it alludes to, ought to be the tocsin to the friends of liberty to assemble. In the Gazetteer it is, the friends to liberty—here it is the friends of liberty. Therefore, that is a flaw in the indictment, which quashes it at once.

My Lords, if you go according to justice, these are valid objec­tions; but if you think proper to repel them—if it is only to state an objection, and as soon as stated it is repelled, you may [Page 16] do as you think fit; but, if I have not impartial justice done me, I will sit down, not make any defence, but desire you to disband the jury, and pass sentence.

Have you any thing further to say as to the relevancy?

It is irrelevant in toto. Then, my Lords, again, at the conclusion of this libel I come back with my first objection —I see at the beginning and the end, and it is not a mere matter of form—no Act of Parliament can do it away, or if an Act of Parliament can do it away, why is not the Letter, as well as the Spirit of the Act maintained. It says here, all which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an assize be­fore our Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. It says so at the beginning—it says so at the end. My Lords, this is an inaccuracy that cannot be overlooked, it must not be overlooked; and, as you thought pro­per to repel it in the first instance, I urge it again in the second; it is a flaw in the indictment. There are three flaws, which I think sufficient to quash the indictment entirely.

Have you any more objections to make?

No, my Lords, three are as good as three thousand.

My Lords, in answer to what has fallen from the Pannel, his objections are so extravagant as hardly to merit an answer. The only appearance of any thing like a legal objection is this: the gentleman says he is accused of Sedition, and calls upon us to point out where Sedition is made a crime, and by what Law, and what is the punishment affixed to it. My answer to that is, that Sedition was made a crime not by any statute, but by the common Law of Scotland, and if the gentle­man wishes for authority, I refer him to the book called Regiam Majestatem, where Sedition is expressly stated to be a crime, and I would tell him, that it is there declared to be punishable as treason. That is in the oldest book that we have upon the Law of Scotland. Since that, Sedition has not been punished as trea­son, but remained upon the footing of the common Law, pu­nishable by what is called an arbitrary punishment. As to a de­finition of Sedition, your Lordship knows there are many crimes of so complex and so vague a nature, that it is hardly possible to give a general definition to comprehend them all. If I am called upon to give a definition of high treason, I don't know any that I could give, except by enumerating all the different cases of treason; or, suppose I was called upon to give a definition of falsehood or forgery, there are twenty different kinds of it; no definition can comprehend the whole. So also, I imagine it stands with regard to Sedition. At the same time, if a definition is wanted of the crime charged against that gentleman, I will read him Mr. Erskine's definition of it in his first Institute: He divides it into two parts, real Sedition and verbal Sedition: he [Page 17] says, real Sedition is generally committed by convocating toge­ther a considerable number of people without lawful authority, under pretence of redressing grievances to the destroying of the public peace. Then he says, general Sedition is inferred from the convocation of a number of people without lawful authority, tending to disturb the peace of the community. Is not this the very crime charged against this gentleman? if there was any lawful authority, the gentleman will tell us what it is. Can there be a doubt, that if the facts stated in this indictment be true, they not only tended to disturb the peace of the country, but to subvert the Constitution of Great Britain. Therefore, taking the charge as it stands, there cannot be a doubt with any of your Lordships that it does amount to a charge of Sedition, and that Sedition is a crime punishable by the Law of this country? If there is any other country in the world, where Sedition is not made a crime by the common Law, I wish these gentlemen next time they hold British Conventions would meet in that country, for in Scotland, I will assure them, there is a Law to punish them.

My Lords, I hold in my hand a definition of Mr. Erskine's, a little differing from what the gentleman has read; he says, ‘it consists in raising commotions or disturbances in the state; it is either verbal or real. Verbal Sedition or Leasing making, is inferred from the uttering of words, tend­ing to create discord between the king and his people,’ and I think it is that gentleman who is guilty of Sedition, inasmuch as he seeks to alienate the hearts of the subjects from their sove­reign. He says, ‘it was formerly punished by death and the forfeiture of goods, but now either by imprisonent, fine, or banishment, at the discretion of the judge.’ Now it seems to me, that that cannot be the Sedition which this gentleman means, for if I understand rightly, the Sedition I am charged with, is something like that of Messrs. Muir, Palmer, and Skir­ving. Now if their Sedition had been the Sedition that is meant here, they would have been punished by banishment and not by transportation; and therefore, there must have been some trif­ling mistake in that, my Lords. Now it says here, ‘for pre­venting riots and tumults it is enacted, that if any persons to the number of twelve shall assemble, and being required by a magistrate or constable to disperse, shall nevertheless continue together for an hour after such command, the persons disobey­ing shall suffer death.’ Therefore, that cannot be the Sedi­tion that I am charged with, for the indictment only pretends to know, what I am sure the Almighty never commissioned the Lord Advocate to enquire into, namely, our secret intentions. I did not know before that there was an inquisition in Scotland, and that he was Grand Inquisitor; for certainly otherwise, the minds of the people are only to be gathered from their behaviour.

My Lords, these meetings I will maintain were legal in the strictest sense of the word; for the claim of rights entitles the [Page 18] people to petition Parliament; and it is impossible they could petition Parliament without meeting. The general will cannot be collected as you gather taxes from door to door. Good God! what has become of the Constitution that you trumpet up so much, if you give us the name and take away the essence? if the people are not to meet to examine their rights, and proceed upon their rights.

My Lords, there is not one so barefaced as to pretend to deny our right to petition or address the King. The Lord Advocate himself has acknowledged, that it is our right. He himself is a reformer, and has held seditious meetings as well as us; but then indeed he brings forward a curious reason: when the Lord Advocate is out of place, reform is proper; when in place, it is highly improper; and that is the doctrine of Mr. Pitt. Be­cause we are poor, it is sedition in us; but when your County Meetings are held, it is no longer sedition; but it is a thing that is authorized. As long as they thought we were not sufficiently formidable, and that there was no danger of opening the eyes of the people, so long did Justice nod; and she only awoke when every man, hearing so much talk of the Constitution, began to examine what that Constitution was. And, to be sure, it is a curious fiction in law (and you have a great many) by which our happy constitution has wisely guarded the Prosecutor for the Crown; by which means the subject may at any time be oppressed and persecuted by the officer of the Crown, and he can obtain no damages, no redress whatever. Happy if he gets off; happy if his sentence does not come out of the pocket of a Minister of State. My Lords, our transactions have been legal. The illegal actions have been entirely on the part of our prose­cutors. We have experienced the fate of general warrants: we have experienced the fate of a State Inquisition. Good God! has not a man, living under the British Constitution, a right to examine that constitution, and to say, I am told, that it is the finest institution in the world; and yet I feel my pocket emptied daily with taxes; I feel my liberties taken away one after ano­ther; and yet I must not meet with my neighbours to the num­ber of twelve, to discuss those injuries that I daily feel, and to enquire after the means of obtaining redress, but immediately comes a Crown Lawyer, claps the word Sedition upon it, and I am punished. Then another man is charged with Sedition. My case is brought forward as a precedent, and therefore he must be punished in the same way. I say, my Lord, if every ar­ticle in this libel is proved, it redounds more to my honour than any thing else: it shews me the friend of my species; it shews me the friend of my country; it shews that I have done my duty as a good citizen; that I have endeavoured to procure that for every one of my fellow subjects that it is our right to enjoy; that I don't wish to enjoy a single thing alone, neither place nor pension; that I don't wish to enjoy any thing exclusively, but I [Page 19] seek a restitution of our rights, a renovation of our Constitution, as it is said here, by universal suffrage and annual parliaments.

My Lords, perhaps your memories may fail you, for it is some time back when Mr. Pitt, at the Thatched House Tavern, being a young man making his debut in Parliament, a young patriot making his entrée into the world, insisted upon a reform. It was then highly constitutional. My Lords, I have in my hand a reso­lution entered into at the Thatched House Tavern, on the 16th of May, 1782: ‘At a numerous and respectable meeting of Members of Parliament, friendly to a constitutional Reformation, and of members of several Committees of Counties and Cities.’ Here, Gentlemen, you see Delegates, here you see a Convention; though a Convention is nothing new in Scotland; because you have had the Borough Reform Convention, and the Lord Advo­cate is himself upon that list. My Lords, at the Thatched House Tavern were present the Duke of Richmond, Lord Surrey, Lord Mahon, the Lord Mayor. Here you see amongst them the first municipal officer in England, the Lord Mayor, Sir Watkin Lew­es, Mr. Duncomb, Sir Cecil Wray, Mr. Brand Hollis, Mr. Wi­thers, the Hon. William Pitt, whom I mean to adduce as an ex­culpatory evidence, if even the forms of justice are allowed me —the Reverend Mr. Wyvil, Major Cartwright, Mr. John Horne Tooke, Alderman Wilkes, Dr. Jebb, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Frost, &c. &c. all men of learning, who well knew what the Constitu­tion of this country is, and what it ought to be—men who re­quired not to be told what was sedition and what was not—men who would not have risked themselves, if they had not known that they were upon constitutional ground, and they resolve, ‘That the motion of the Hon. William Pitt, on the 7th instant, for the appointment of a Committee of the House of Commons, to enquire into the state of the representation of the people of Great Britain, and to report the same to the House; and also what steps it might be necessary to take having been defeated by a motion for the order of the day’—which is something similar to your repelling an objection of the Pannel, as soon as it is stated—‘having been defeated by a motion for the order of the day, it is become indispensably necessary that application should be made to Parliament by petitions from the collective body of the people in their respective districts.’—They were not to pour into the House eight millions of petitions, but as many petitions from as many districts as they could collect together, ‘requesting a substantial reformation of the Commons House of Parliament.’

‘Resolved unanimously, That this meeting, considering that a general application, by the collective body of the people, to the House of Commons cannot be made before the close of the present Session, is of opinion that the sense of the people should be taken.’ And how is the sense of the people to be taken, I would ask the learned gentlemen of the law, if they are [Page 20] not convened?—Who is to take the sense of the people, if it is to be done by going round from man to man? and if twelve form a seditious meeting, it will come, by and by, perhaps to two or three, and it will be dangerous for one neighbour to speak to another in the street, or any where else indeed; ‘that the sense of the people should be taken at such times as may be conve­nient during this summer, in order to lay their several peti­tions before parliament, early in the next session, with their proposals for a Parliamentary Reformation,’—Observe this, men of Scotland!—Observe this, Britons! ‘without which nei­ther the liberty of the nation can be preserved, nor the per­manence of a wise and virtuous administration can be secure,’ and I appeal to you all whether there is not truth and sound doc­trine in it? ‘may receive that ample and mature discussion which so momentous a question demands.’

My Lords, it seems to have been in the year 1782 a very lauda­ble and a very constitutional thing to assemble, to meet to con­sider of the grievances, and to plan a method by which they were to be redressed; in the year 1794, when the very man who planned, who first suggested this, who encouraged the people thereto, under his reign, I may call it, for he it the guide of the helm—the guide in the cabinet, while he is in absolute power, that shall be considered as Sedition, which he himself first set on foot, in order to procure himself that birth; and, now he has got it, he has altered his sentiments!—How ridiculous for a Crown Lawyer to attempt to impose upon a Court of Justice; or for any man to support such imposition, that what was constitu­tional in 1782 should be criminal in 1794.—Fellow citizens, and I fear not to call you by that name—we are fellow citizens of one society. By the word Citizen I mean a free man; a man enjoying all the rights and all the privileges, and paying his quota towards all the expence of Society. I say it is an insolent attempt upon your understandings, to endeavour to persuade you that that which was constitutional, that that which was right, that that which was justifiable in 1782 should be criminal in 1794. It is true that an English jury has sent to prison a man for only reprinting those Resolutions. Holt, I think his name is, the printer of the Newark Journal, for reprinting in his paper, which pays a daily tax to government, that which the person to whom he pays the tax was the author of. Thus you see how Crown Lawyers pervert the constitution. With high-sounding words they disguise the most innocent facts; they sport with the lives, and with that which ought to be infinitely more dear than their lives—with the liberties of his Majesty's Sub­jects. Men who feel wrongs cannot feel them without some degree of acrimony, and when those wrongs are repeated, this acrimony must increase; and these wrongs are done them in the King's name; but it is not the King, it is his servants who make use of his name; his seditious servants who separate the King [Page 21] from his people. My Lords, I know my doom. I am a willing and an already devoted victim. I have made objections, those objections have been repelled. I shall insist presently on the calling over of my witnesses. I shall then demand a caption against such as do not appear. If my just, my legal, my constitutional de­mands are repelled, I will sit down; I will beg the Gentlemen of the Jury not to give themselves any further trouble; I will protest against the proceedings of the Court, and beg of them to pass to sentence; which I know it will be no difficult matter for them to do.

My Lords, we are called upon to decide upon the relevancy of this indictment, which charges in the major proposition, that the crime of sedition, in this and every other well governed realm, is a crime of a heinous nature, and severely punishable. And, my Lord, the first part of it (to which it might be sufficient to confine myself at present) charges that this Society, calling themselves the British Convention of Delegates of the People, met under the pretence of Reform; that it was of a dangerous and destructive tendency, and was with the deliberate and determined intention to disturb the peace of the community, and to subvert the present constitution of the country; and that this gentleman, Maurice Margarot, did take an active and distinguishing part in their deliberations; and con­sequently, that he took an active and distinguishing part in the deliberations of a Society, met with a determined purpose to overturn the Constitution; that is the charge, true or false it is not our province at present to enquire; that must be left to the Jury. The criminality does, to be sure, consist in, that they met with a determined purpose to overturn the Constitution: and the Jury, when they come to decide upon it, must take into their view the several things charged in this indictment, rela­tive to this meeting. As to the form that they assumed, how far that was necessary to obtain a reform in Parliament, it is the province of the Jury to enquire; and under all the circumstances of the case, to lay their hands upon their heart, and upon their great oaths to say what was the purpose of that meeting, accor­ding to the facts before them. My Lord, if that is made out-which is the charge, and in considering the relevancy, I am, bound to hold the charge as proved, there cannot be a doubt that it amounts to sedition. I say it approaches to high treason: and I find in the cases tried in England, in 1745, it appears from Judge Foster's Report, the charges laid against the prisoners were very little different from those contained in the present indictment. It ran in these terms: ‘Also devising and as much as in them lay most wickedly and traiterously intending to change and subvert the rule of government of this king­dom, duly and happily established under our present Sovereign Lord the King, and also to depose and deprive our said pre­sent [Page 22] Sovereign Lord the King of his title,’ and so on. Now, my Lord, the charge is, that the purpose of this meeting was to subvert the Constitution; and if it was, where can the doubt be, that it does amount to Sedition. My Lord, I leave it to the sense of every man who hears me, if an intention to subvert the Constitution of a country is not Sedition. In matters of criminal law you must go by the understanding and the sense of mankind, and in this instance particularly the Jury are to determine upon the law as well as the fact.

My Lord, with respect to Sedition it is of various kinds; no doubt its general tendency is to resist and undermine, or attempt­ing to resist and undermine the Constitution of the country, and subvert the supreme power of the state. It may either be of a public or a private nature. When of a private nature, it is di­rected against matters of a private life, it may be in direct op­position to acts of parliament, with respect to inclosures, divi­sion of commonalties, turn pikes, and so on. But of a public nature is the crime which is charged against this Gentleman: an intention to subvert the Constitution. My Lord, sedition may be attended with tumult or without: with rising in arms, or without rising in arms. My Lord, sedition of a public kind, is as various as the ingenuity of wickedness can suggest. It may be committed by words, by writing, by painting, by medals, by allegories, by actions, by false insinuation, by false argument, by tumult and insurrection, by mobs, by cabals, by open and secret meetings; by conspiracies and by conventions. If the Jury are satisfied in their minds that the intention of this is to overturn the Constitution; it is Sedition. My Lord, it was said that there was no law against this. As to that, my Lord, every well regulated government must make it Sedition; because otherwise society could not exist. It always has been, and must remain a common law crime, and must be punishable by common law.

My Lord, having said so much, I think there can be no doubt that the Libel is relevant. The Pannel is at liberty to state what he pleases in his defence. To insist it was for a partial reform by legal means, and that nothing else was meant by this extra­ordinary guise that this convention took upon themselves to as­sume; the Jury will, upon the whole, judge whether this de­fence or whether the charge is relevant. In the mean time it is my humble opinion that it is relevant.

My Lord, as to the crime of Sedition, I cannot read the Indictment, nor I think any body else, and say that if this man was concerned in holding these meetings, for the pur­pose of disturbing the peace of the community, and subverting the constitution of the country, that that is not the crime of Se­dition. My Lord, it is not the province of such men as these to take upon themselves the amendment of the Government. The intention of their meeting, they say, was to obtain universal [Page 23] suffrage; or, in other words, to establish that every man living in this country is to have a vote to choose a Representative in Parliament; a thing that never did obtain, and that does not now obtain, and never can obtain in this country. But, my Lord, it seems that if an act should take place for the purpose of suppressing such illegal meetings, that this is to be their tocsin, and their alarm bell for the purpose of meeting, when, where, or how, is to be kept a deep secret—it is not to be divulged even among themselves; but it was to be consined to this gentleman, and two or three more, who were to call a Convention of Emer­gency, and they were to continue to assemble, and not to obey such act if it should pass. My Lord, if the charges in this Indict­ment are proved, it is impossible to deny my assent, that they do infer the crime of Sedition. I am of opinion that this libel is revelantly laid. I shall be exceedingly happy, if this gentle­man is found innocent; but that lies with the Jury, and not with us.

My Lord, the question that is now under our consideration is, whether this libel is relevant to infer the pains of law. And, my Lord, it has been so fully discussed, not only at this time, but upon the occasion of a very late trial, that it is perfectly unnecessary to go over the ground again that has been already gone over. But, my Lord, in this ease the indictment, states, that a motion was made, upon which the Pannel says, ‘This is an excellent motion. The event which it alludes to, ought to be the tocsin for the friends of liberty to assemble.’ My Lord, this is a very ill chosen word. What is this tocsin? It is an instrument made use by the people in France to assemble. It is borrowed from a place from which I would wish to borrow very little. For what purpose are they to assemble? They say to assert their rights. By what means? can any man be at a loss to make the answer? By violence and outrage, and no other in­terpretation can be given to it. My Lord, afterwards a propo­sal is made for a sealed letter to be given to the Delegates, which was not to be opened till a certain period: like an order that is sometimes given to ships when they sail, that they are not to open their instructions till they come to a certain latitude; and the meaning is, that those instructions shall not be known, for fear they should be prevented. There can be no other rea­son; and yet they afterwards say, we make no secrets of any thing. Then there is a resolution, that this Convention, consi­dering the calamitous consequence of any act of the Legislature, which may tend to deprive the people of their undoubted right to meet, declare before God and the world, that we shall follow the wholesome example of former times, by paying no regard to any act which shall militate against the Constitution of our coun­try. Is not this declaring that they will oppose the Legislature itself? My Lord, it does not require any proof of its being Se­dition. Then, my Lord, among other cases of emergency, on [Page 24] which they were to meet, it is mentioned, ‘or in case of an in­vasion.’ My Lord, for what purpose were they to meet pri­vately, in case of invasion? The Legislature, the executive part of government is to look after that. Every man must feel what they meant: that they should assemble the Delegates altogether at a particular time, and all at one time they should meet, in case of an invasion. My Lord, I gave my sentiments very fully this day se'n night upon the same question, and I have not altered them, but feel them stronger and stronger. I am sorry to see so many examples brought before us, and I hope there will be but few more; I am of opinion that the libel is relevant.

My Lord, the only question at present for our consideration is, whether the libel is relevant and is laid pro­perly. My Lord, the major proposition states the crime of Se­dition: the minor proposition specifies a variety of circumstances, which, if they come up to the crime of Sedition, the libel is relevant; and, my Lord, I have but one doubt upon this subject; and that is, whether in some of these particulars it is any thing short of the crime of high treason; but I think that it amounts to Sedition, there can be no doubt; and I think that the ordi­nary interlocutory ought to be pronounced.

My Lord, in this case, as to the objections to the relevancy it is the province of the Jury to enquire into the facts charged; and if those facts are brought home to this Pannel; particularly the resolutions, if they are brought home to him, I think the necessary conclusion is, that he is guilty of the highest species of Sedition that can be possibly com­mitted. I am of opinion that the libel ought to be found re­levant.

My Lords, I think it very unnecessary to add any thing to what your Lordships have said; but I think any man who knows any thing of the law of Scotland; or that has the least understanding, must think that the one half of what is charged here, if true, does amount to Sedition; and therefore I have no doubt in pronouncing the ordinary interlocutory, that the libel if found proven to the knowledge of an Assize is rele­vant, to infer the pains of law, which, the Jury will attend, is only an arbitrary punishment, and allowing the Pannel to prove all facts and circumstances that may tend to exculpate or alleviate his guilt.

My Lords, I may now put in my former claim, of having my witnesses called over.

Surely both Prosecutor and Pannel ought to see that their witnesses are all here. Let the Macer go now and see that they are here.

And likewise that the Court and the people at large may be informed the reason why I have not the privilege of having you as an exculpatory evidence, in consequence of the fear of the Messenger to deliver such a summons to you; that is a thing proper to be known.

If you have any thing that it is necessary for me to prove, you shall have the benefit of my testimony, and you shall not want it neither.

I am sure if the Messenger has refused to cite your Lordship, he has behaved most improperly.

I think his name is Hotcheson; he said he would be ready in Court to give a reason why he refused to do it.

There is likewise another thing: you did not take notice of the two objections to the wording of the in­dictment, which are material flaws. Your Lordships have not said a word to that.

The court have considered all you have said, and they are of opinion, upon the whole, that the libel is relevant.

Here is the list of my witnesses, my Lord.

You will be informed, that some of my witnesses live in England, that I have had the exculpatory letters served there, with what is called a subpoena in England and the affidavit at the back of the exculpatory letters, now in the hand of the Clerk of the Court, shews that they have been cited in a legal manner, and therefore, as they are material witnesses, I wish the list of them to be called over.

• Duke of Richmond
• Henry Dundas
• William Pitt
• John M'Intire
• John Wright.

As to the three that reside in England, this Court cannot go beyond their jurisdiction: they cannot compel any witness living in England to appear here; and there­fore a caption against witnesses residing in England, is a thing altogether incompetent and unheard of.

Your Lordship's objection is not valid, as will appear to yourself upon reflection, inasmuch as if you are not competent to give a second citation, you was not competent to the first. On the contrary, it appears that the letters of excul­pation found no difficulty in being backed by a Judge in Eng­land, and the subpoena was served upon them according to the laws of England; and therefore, by a second diligence, they will be pursued in the same manner; and that will be backed by a Judge, and the same compulsion will be excercised upon them in England as would be in Scotland, if they resided here.—And, my Lord, I will not permit this to be passed over easily, they are very material evidences—they are men of high station in the state—they are men of great responsibility—they are men whose actions are public, and the questions that [...] [Page 26] are of a very important nature.—There is again another thing —it seems you overlook somethings and pry very closely into others—it seems you are not competent to enforce the attend­ance of a witness from England, but it appears, by the libel, that you are competent to try offences committed in England. My Lord, mete with an equal measure—let my objection be at­tended to in a proper manner. It is a legal objection, founded in justice; and justice cannot deny it.—Grant me a caption for my absent witnesses. I demand it.

My Lords, if witnesses resided in Scotland within our jurisdiction, and did not attend, a caption might be granted; but my doubt is, whether it is competent to the Court to grant a second diligence, because in this case it must be alto­gether nugatory.

My Lords, I don't know an instance existing, either in the civil or criminal courts, of a warrant being granted to bring a witness from England, to apprehend him by Habeas Corpus: that is the only jurisdiction we can exercise. My Lords, I understand in England it is not an easy matter to obtain wit­nesses, before their own courts; but of that I profess myself ig­norant: but I know of no instance in which this court have taken cognizance of the non-attendance of witnesses, resident in a foreign country; for England, with respect to the law, is as much a foreign country, as Germany, Italy, or any other coun­try.—

By our laws we cannot grant a caption against a witness from a foreign country, and we cannot go beyond our power. It is clear to me, that it was not our fault that they did not attend—as to those that are lawfully summoned here, we can lay a fine upon them.

My Lords, this Court ought not to be treated with contempt, and therefore your Lordships would be careful to issue no warrant that you cannot enforce. The authority of this Court cannot go beyond their jurisdiction, which is confined to Scotland.

By the laws of this country we have no au­thority over persons residing in any other country.—

We cannot possibly differ upon this mat­ter;—it is a downright absurdity, to issue a second diligence against witnesses residing in another country.—I am sorry for it; but he has got affair trial by the laws of this country.—As to what dropped from the Pannel just now, he must be very much mistaken, if he thinks he is tried for a crime committed in Eng­land: that is by no means the ease; he is tried for what he did after he came to this country; but it was very proper, in order to shew the intention with which he came here, to state the fact, that he came as a delegate from a Convention of the same kind in England; but it is for the crime that he committed in this country alone, that he now stands at the bar.

My Lords, I don't require the forms of justice, I require the essence of justice—It seems that a Pannel is entitled to the same compulsory method of adducing witnesses in his fa­vour, as the prosecutor has to adduce evidence against him.— Now general warrants have been issued to adduce evidence against me:—general warrants, I say it, have been issued to adduce evi­dence against me.—Now I demand nothing more than the regu­lar forms of the Court, that your caption may be granted, and see whether they will obey the laws of their country or not.— And I am sorry to hear it come from the Bench, that it would be nugatory; which implies, that there are men in England above the law.—Look to it, my friends—where is your boasted Con­stitution?—If the first man in England is not as amenable to the laws of the country as the meanest of you, you are slaves.

You come here to speak to the Court, and not to harangue the mob.

Do you call this audience a mob, my Lord?

You are not to harangue the multitude.

I understand that the Judges have harangued the multitude too, and they have gone into a series of accusation against me, which I did not know was a part of the duty of a Judge who ought jus dicere, not jus facere. It has been said too, that England is as much a foreign country as Germany or Italy; —that I don't understand—if this country is as foreign as Ger­many—don't talk, for God's sake, of the English Constitution; it does not belong to you—It is your duty, my Lords, to grant me in whole what you offer me in part.—As to those that reside in Scotland, you say we can punish them, but not those in Eng­land; and yet you could cite those that were in England: and it was backed by a Judge in England; and if you grant a second diligence, the same form will be gone through again; and if, after a certain time, for I do not wish to avoid a trial—no, I wish to come before my country, as every good citizen ought, to obey the laws of his country; and I do it with a conscious heart that I am totally innocent, and that I deserve praise instead of blame or punishment; — therefore, I say I will concede to you a part of the justice that I demand.—I have exculpatory witnesses of great importance, living in England, cited by your authority; in con­sequence of that authority it has been supported by the English Judges—the English Judges will support your authority in a se­cond instance.—Let them be cited;—let a proper time be given me, and if they don't appear at the second citing, I will consent to go to trial without them. But, my Lords, let justice take place;—remember you have, in the course of this trial, to praise the Constitution, it will be told the people how happily they live under it—how free and happy every man is living under his own vine and his own fig-tree. Let it be proved; let it be proved that a Court of Justice does every thing in favour of the Pannel, as much as in favour of the Prosecutor. The objections [Page 28] that I made have been repelled; but they will be noticed in a superior Court.—There is a Court superior to your's, and there must be, in every well regulated government, an appeal to a superior Court, from whence the abuses of the servants of the Crown may be rectified.

I think you seem to be unacquainted with the laws of any well governed state, and if you were not a fo­reigner and a stranger, we would not have suffered you to have said one half of what you have said.

I demand a caption.

The court have repelled it.

Oh! very well, my Lords.—however permit me one question, and I will put it to the generosity of the public prosecutor to answer it. My Lord Advocate, is it in your power or not to bring a witness on the part of the prosecution from Eng­land, upon your honour answer me?

No more than you can.

Does not an outlawry extend to England?

For a crime it certainly does, but not as to a witness.—Supposing a Scotchman to be tried before a Court in England, and in place of seeking the assistance of some English Counsel, as he ought to do, he were to utter things of the same kind that this Pannel has done, I doubt whether he would be heard with the same patience with which your Lord­ship has heard him.

Do you wish a caption against those two witnesses who reside in Scotland?

No, my Lords,—I don't wish to punish two poor men, and let three rich men go unpunished.—There is another thing which I believe takes place before the impannel­ling of the Jury, which respects the opening of the doors of this place. In looking over the claim of rights, in the 27th chapter, I find it is said, that in criminal trials, which are of so great im­port, the doors of the Court shall be thrown open.—I demand therefore that the doors of this place may be opened, in order that the people may partake of what passes.

It would be a very pretty opening, I think.

The doors are shut, and I understand it is the custom of the door-keepers to take money, which is contrary to the laws of the land.

That you have no business with.

• James Gordon, Brewer in Edinburgh.
• Thomas Hotclikis, Brewer.
• Samuel Gilmour, Ropemaker.
• James Clark, Farrier.
• James Mill, Tanner.

Do you object to any of these Gentlemen?

I have no personal objection, but I must beg [Page 29] to know by what law you have the picking of the Jury, and that you alone have the picking of them.

His Lordship is not picking but naming the Jury, according to the established law and the established Con­stitution of the country; and the gentleman at the bar has no right to put such a question.

• William Smith, stabler.
• Charles Robertson, painter.
• John Balfour, merchant.
• John Wilson, coachmaker.
• William Ainslie, sadler.
• William Pirnie, architect.
• Samuel Anderson, banker.
• Robert Burns, architect.
• Macduff Hart, shoemaker.
• John White, merchant.

Have you any objection to this witness?

According to the method in which you pro­ceed, it appears to me very needless to make objections; other­wise, undoubtedly, my Lord, under the British Constitution, acting up to the spirit of it, that witness is not competent; he is a dependant, or hanger on upon the public prosecutor, and in fact, acts as deputy public prosecutor; you may repel it or not as you please.

I dare say, your Lordships will please to repel that objection.

Do you recollect on the evening of the 5th of December last, going to apprehend the Pannel for examination?—A. I do.

Was you present when he was brought up for examination?

I employed Lion, the messenger, to apprehend him, and was present at the Sheriff Clerk's office, when he was examined.

Did he upon that occasion make a declaration?—A. He did.

Did he appear to be sober and of sound mind, at the time he emitted that declaration? —A. Yes.

Freely, and without compulsion?—A. Yes.

Did you subscribe your witness to that declaration?

I did.

Look if that is your subscription.

That is the declaration.

Were any papers at that time produced, claimed by the Pannel?

The officer who executed the warrant reported to me, that he sound Mr. Margarot and Mr. Gerald in the same room, [Page 30] that he had taken into his possession several papers, part of them he described to be Mr. Gerald's, part of them to be Mr. Marga­rot's; they were put into a trunk together, this trunk was brought to the office, and after he was examined, he was desired to give the key, that it might be opened; he declined to do so, upon which we applied for a warrant to have the trunk opened, which was carried into execution; it was inspected in the pre­sence of Mr. Margarot and Mr. Gerald. He was brought to the office upon a second warrant, and Mr. Gerald also attended, he refused then to give it up without force, and he held it in his hand and said, I will not give it up, but you may take it; he said, he would not witness the trunk being opened, and turned round and looked out of the window. Upon the trunk being opened, there were some articles that did not relate to the business in hand, particularly a pocket-book of Mr. Margarot's, and some­thing of Mr. Gerald's, which were restored; and those that were considered relative to the business were entered into an inventory.

Did you subscribe that inventory?—A. I did.

Do you know that to be the same (shewing him the in­ventory)?

This is the same, it is signed by Mr. Gerald and me on every page, but Mr. Margarot declined signing it.

Did you at that time identify the papers that you found?

I did.

Will you take the trouble of looking over these papers, and see if they are the same, and go through them accurately?

The first is a paper containing two letters signed William Skirving.

These are the papers Mr. Margarot claimed as his?

Yes.

The second is a manuscript of a plan for supporting the Ga­zetteer, submitted to the consideration of the friends of the peo­ple, which is signed in the same manner.

The third, is a bundle of papers tied up, and labelled papers for the Committee of Union.

The fourth, is a letter dated the 15th November, 1793, signed Thomas Hardy, secretary, addressed to Citizen Margarot and Citizen Gerald, delegates.

The fifth, is a letter from ditto to ditto, 22d November, ad­dressed Citizen Margarot and Citizen Gerald.

The sixth, is another letter, the 29th of November, addressed to Maurice Margarot and Joseph Gerald, delegates.

The seventh, is another letter from Thomas Hardy, dated the 28th November, addressed to Mr. Margarot and Mr. Gerald, de­legates from London.

The eighth, two pages of manuscript, beginning, organization of primary assemblies, assembled for the purpose of electing re­presentatives.

The ninth, a manuscript entitled the constitution, and in it [Page 31] were found other papers relative to the regulations to be adopt­ed in the Convention.

Have you now gone through the articles claimed by Mr. Margarot?—A. Yes.

Were there several articles claimed by Mr. Gerald?

Yes.

Were they identified in the same manner?

They were.

In the declaration you heard emitted by the Pannel, of the 5th of December, did he refer to any motion?

If your Lordship will cause the declaration to be read, I shall be better able to tell you.

Was there any reference to a motion?—A. Yes.

Was any paper found in the Pannel's possession?

There was a paper found when Mr. Skirving was appre­hended; then amongst other papers this motion was found, and when this gentleman was examined, this paper was shewn to him, and the question stated in the declaration put to him; it was found in the possession of Mr. Skirving, the secretary to the Convention, upon the same morning that Mr. Margarot was taken up.

Did you put any mark upon that paper, by which you should know it again?

Yes, I put my initials upon it; it is a motion signed by Mr. Margarot and seconded by John Wardlaw.

At the time the secretary's papers came to be inspected in your presence, was there a paper discovered amongst them, bearing to be the minutes of the Convention?—A. There was.

Did you put any mark or subscription upon that at the time, so that you should know it again?—A. I did.

Did you look through it?—A. I did read the whole of it.

How were these papers of the secretary brought before you?

By a warrant. The papers were found sealed in the secre­tary's house, and were brought in that situation to the Sheriff Clerk's office, and they were there with the rest.

Did you attend the magistrates of this city on the even­ing of the 5th of December, when they went to disperse this con­vention?

No, I did on the 6th, the Convention had assembled; the Provost went along with the sheriff's substitute, Mr. Davidson, and the magistrates, and I accompanied them upon that occa­sion. I found Mr. Margarot standing by a table, and the chair was standing empty. The first thing that I heard was, Mr. Mar­garot said, they were met for a constitutional purpose; they were going to petition either the King or Parliament, I cannot say which; and it was said by somebody, that they could not proceed to business till the chair was taken: Mr. Margarot was [Page 32] called upon to take the chair, which he accordingly did. Mr. Da­vidson asked, if it was the British Convention? upon being told it was, he told them that they came for the purpose of dismissing them, and that they should not proceed to any business; the answer was, that they would not till force was used, and parti­ticularly the Pannel said, that he would not leave the chair, as he was then discharging his duty, till force was used; to that Mr. Davidson said, he supposed any thing that had that appear­ance would be satisfactory, and took Mr. Margarot by the hand, upon which he left the chair: upon his leaving the chair, there was a call for Mr. Gerald to take the chair, which he according­ly did, and the same form was used with regard to him: Mr. Da­vidson took him by the hand, and it was then called out that they never dismissed without prayer, and Mr. Gerald prayed and then came out of the chair; it was then said by somebody, that though they were now dismissed, they would remember that they were permanent, that they had voted themselves per­manent the night before.

Did this happen the day after the Pannel had been exam­ined before the Sheriff, and liberated upon his finding bail?

Yes.

Was it on account of a charge of seditious practices of the same nature that he was brought before the Sheriff?

It was for being a member of that Convention.

By virtue of what authority did you employ Lyon, the messenger, to arrest me?

By virtue of a warrant which I had obtained from the Sheriff of Edinburgh, as Procurator-Fiscal.

Was that warrant granted at your requisition?

It was.

Now answer me seriously one question: from whom did you receive the order to apply for that requisition?

That certainly has not any connection with the present business; and I think I am not bound to answer that question.

It has, Sir! and you must answer it, as you appear before God at the great day. (The witness hesitated).

My Lord, I must have the protection of the Court.

I don't think it proper he should tell who gave the information.

I am of the same opinion.

He acted as Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh, and therefore he is no more liable, or bound to say, who was his private informer, than my Lord Advocate is.

It is entering into an investigation which the Pannel has no right to make.

I am of the same opinion.

My Lords, I hope I have not put an improper [Page 33] question: I know it is customary at Venice; they have a lion's mouth to receive all private secret information, but I did not know that it was so here; I thought that justice was open.

I am sorry to observe, that from the begin­ning of this trial, the Pannel has betrayed the grossest ignorance of the laws of this country; and I must regret that he has not had the advice of those who know better; but if he is to object to things in this way, I trust he will do it, for his own sake, in a decent manner.

Then I am to understand that the reception of secret information, is a part of the laws of the country. The officer found Mr. Gerald and me in the same room?

I was told so; but that is only from report.

Where was that room; at the Black Bull?

Yes; I was told so.

At a public inn?—

Yes.

Was the door locked?—

I cannot say.

How do you ascertain that those papers were mine which you have just now produced?

I have told all that I can; it was from Mr. Gerald's and your own pointing them out.

I understand you have said that I emitted a declaration: a declaration, if I understand it rightly, is a certain verbal ac­knowledgment?

A declaration may be negative, and it is still a declaration.

You may make a declaration that you are innocent as well as that you are guilty.

It would have much the same effect. What reason did I allege for refusing to emit a declaration?

I don't recollect.

In the course of your practice do you know any law which enforces a private interrogatory?

If the gentleman is an attorney, as I am told, I should like to know whether he would be suffered to go on in this way in the courts of Westminster-Hall?

It is certainly not a question sit for the wit­ness to answer.

Have you any mode of distinguishing those papers found in my trunk from those that belonged to Mr. Ge­rald in the same trunk?—

I cannot say.

Then it may happen that you may have intermixed a pa­per of Mr. Gerald's and a paper of mine?

No; they were taken down distinctly, and marked with your own initials in your own presence.

Who arranged the papers?

I arranged them in your presence; I took them out at least.

Did you not say, the Pannel picked out his papers and Mr. Gerald his?

Yes; there was a paper put in, and all below that be­longed to the Pannel.

Did I not observe to you at the time, that being in an inn, we could not be answerable for what papers were found in our room?—

I dare say you did.

Did I not say, that even the messenger might bring that paper, if he thought proper, and hustle them into the trunk at once?—

So you did.

By what means are you certain, that the papers which you found in Mr. Skirving's possession were minutes of the con­vention?

From various circumstances; but I submit again to the court, whether it is proper to answer that?

Yes; you must give answers to legal ques­tions.

The minutes were established to be minutes of the Con­vention, by some of the members.

You accompanied the Sheriff to Mr. Laing's room.

Yes.

Did I say any thing to you at the time?

Yes; you was the first person that called to me, handed me a motion, and desired I would read it; I told him I had no­thing to do with it: it was a motion to petition the King, or something of that kind.

Do you recollect the Sheriff Substitute saying, that he acted by orders?

I cannot say; but he certainly told you, he came for the express purpose of dismissing that meeting, and that you must do no business as a British Convention.

Did I not speak to you; and you afterwards answered me, that you was doing your duty?

Yes; by attending the Sheriffs.

You say that the meeting ended with prayer; can you recollect that prayer?—

I cannot.

Does beginning and closing a meeting, for obtaining a reform in Parliament, with prayer, apply to the word Sedition?

That is a very improper question.

Did the petition for the warrant state, that I had met with others in Laing's workshop, that I had been forced from the chair, that we had said that we were assembled for petition­ing a reform of parliament, and closed with prayer? Was that warrant which took me up then the same as before?

The warrant could not mention it, because the petition was two days before the warrant was obtained; it could not mention that which did not take place for two days afterwards.

Do you recollect the Pannel being brought before you the 5th of December for examination?—

I do.

Did he at that time emit a declaration in your presence?

He did.

Did he do it voluntarily, and without compulsion?

Yes.

Was he sober, and of sound mind?—

Yes.

Did you subscribe that declaration?—

I did.

Look and see if that is it.—It is the same.

Is there any reference in that declaration to a motion?

Yes.

Was there a paper found in the secretary's possession which appeared to be that motion?—

Yes.

Did you put any mark upon the paper so as to know it again?—

Yes; this is it.

Do you recollect any other papers having been produced at that examination or afterwards?

There were no papers produced that day; the next day there were papers taken from a trunk of his, of which an inven­tory was made, which I identified.

Was that trunk brought along with him?—

Yes.

Was he asked for the key of that trunk?

Yes; and he declined giving it up.

Was there any seal put upon it?

Not in my presence; I understand there was.

When it was opened the following day, was any inven­tory made of the contents?—

Yes.

Were there any papers other than those claimed by the Pannel?—

Yes; papers belonging to Mr. Gerald.

Were those claimed by the Pannel separated from those claimed by Mr. Gerald?

Yes; and an inventory was made of both, and they ac­quiesced in both.

And was it done in their presence?—

Yes.

Did you subscribe that inventory?—

Yes.

Did you likewise put any mark upon the articles which it contains?—

Yes.

Did you compare those articles which have your super­scription with the articles which are in the inventory?

Yes; it was only those that were relating to the business in hand that were put in the inventory. (Examines and compares them.) They are all marked by me.

Do you recollect why Mr. Margarot was liberated?

Upon finding bail.

What was the nature of the charge against him for which he was brought before you for examination?

For seditious practices, as being a member of the meeting calling themselves the British Convention of the Delegates of the Friends of the people.

Do you recollect to have gone in the execution of your duty to a wright's shop on the south side of the town, the 6th of December, with a view of dispersing this meeting?—

I did.

Be so obliging to mention to the Court and Jury what passed when you so went to that meeting.

It was on Friday evening, the 6th of December, I went and attended the Lord Provost, with the magistrates of the city; a great number of people were assembled in a wright's shop, and I went immediately up to the table, where I saw some people whose faces I recognized; Mr. Skirving, Mr. Brown, Mr. Margarot, and several others; I asked what the meeting was? I did not get a direct answer; I asked if it was the British Convention? One of the members, and I think it was Mr. Margarot, said that it was; I told him that I was Sheriff Substi­tute for the county, and that I came there to disperse that meet­ing, which was an illegal one, upon this some conversation took place; and I think Mr. Margarot was the man who spoke most on account of the Convention; he said, they were met peacea­bly, that it was a legal Constitutional Meeting, and that they were then met for a petition to Parliament. I told him, that my resolution had been taken before I came there; that I came with a determination to disperse that meeting; that no words were necessary, no argument that they could use could alter my determination: some more conversation took place. Mr. Mar­garot, finding I was determined upon it, said that he would take the chair, with the approbation of the meeting, which was then empty; accordingly upon this, he was unanimously called to the chair: I think before he took the chair, he said, the meeting would not disperse without force was used; I told him, I hoped it would be unnecessary to use force, but if it was ne­cessary, I should certainly make use of it. He took the chair, and finding they would not disperse without some force, I took him by the arm, which he considered as force, and he came out of the chair; immediately upon his doing so, Mr. Gerald, another of the gentlemen present, took the chair; I told him I really thought that it was improper that another person should do the same thing, if they were all to take the chair one after another; I hoped they would not think that necessary; however I took the same method of forcing Mr. Gerald from the chair that I did Mr. Margarot: Mr. Gerald then made an extem­pore prayer, and left the chair. Mr. Margarot, amongst other things that he mentioned, said, the meeting of the Con­vention had declared themselves permament. I told him it might be so, but I was determined they should not meet within the county where I had a jurisdiction. I think they called out for the gentlemen to disperse, and by degrees they dispersed; and I saw the last person out, and saw the door locked, and took the key.

You said you recognized several persons; among others, the Pannel at the bar, and Mr. Gerald; how came you to recog­nize the Pannel particularly?

Because he had been before me the night before, and had been examined upon the charge I have already mentioned.

You had granted bail?

Yes.

How are you sure that the motion which you found in the possession of Mr. Skirving is in my handwriting, as you have declared it to be?

I did not assert that it was your handwriting, at least I did not mean to say so.

Did I not give one uniform reason for declining to emit a declaration, for refusing to give up the key of my trunk, and for asserting the right of the Convention to meet; did I not say, that the proceedings against them were illegal?—

You cer­tainly did.

Did I not ask you, why you would interrupt us in our le­gal proceedings? and did you not answer me, that you acted according to order? Remember, Sir, that you are upon your oath.

I cannot say that I recollect, whether I said by order; as Sheriff substitute of the County, I acted by my own authority; I do not recollect the precise words I may have used, but I was certainly acting as Sheriff of the County.

What could induce you to think that a meeting like that was illegal?

That is not a proper question.

It only hinges upon another. Did you see at the time of your entrance there, any confusion, riot, or disorder?

I did not.

Did you on the contrary, perceive the business of the even­ing carried on with regularity?

There was but little business going on after I came in, Mr. Gerald was upon his legs speaking, and I certainly inter­rupted him.

Was prayer called for?

It was, I do not know whether it was not you that said it was not usual that the meeting should depart without prayer; and I believe I gave consent that prayer should be made.

O, you did consent to that? Do you recollect the subject of the debate?

I think you, or some other person, put into my hand a small piece of paper, upon which was wrote a petition to Par­liament, which you said was the subject of the—

Of the order of the day.

That the purpose of their meeting was to petition Parlia­ment.

I hope the order of the day is not an offence, because I believe it is made use of sometimes in the House of Commons.

The witness has spoke of the motion referred to in the declaration. Was there any paper sound in [Page 38] Mr. Skirving's possession, which was entitled Minutes of the Convention.

There were a number of things found in Mr. Skirving's possession; amongst which, a scroll of the Minutes of the Con­vention.

Should you know it again?—

Yes.

Look at that and see if that is it?—

It is.

How are you certain that these are the mi­nutes of the British Convention.

I can only say, that these are papers which were found in Mr. Skirving's possession, and they were acknowledged to be so by various people, who were examined before me; that is the only reason I have: I did not see them in the Convention.

There is another question which I hope your Lordships will not think improper. In your office as Sheriff, have you to the best of your judgment acted according to the laws of your country, or have you acted by superior orders?

I certainly would execute no orders, unless I was certain they were according to the laws of my country.

Am I to infer from hence, that you received orders?

It is not a proper subject of evidence.

I put myself under your correction at the time I started the question; however, it may not be amiss that the question was started, though it is not answered.

Joseph Mack sworn.

Do you recollect being present when Mr. Skirving, the late Secretary of the Convention of the Friends of the People, was brought before the sheriff for examination?—

Yes.

Were there certain bags of papers brought along with him for inspection?—

Yes.

Was you present when those bags were opened?

I was, when they were put into the inventory, which was very soon after or immediately after they were opened.

Was Skirving present?—

Yes.

Do you recollect among other papers found in this bag, one being found, entitled the Scroll of the Minutes of the Con­vention?—

Yes.

Was it in your hand, that you had an opportunity of ob­serving it at that time?

I both saw it then, and at Mr. Skirving's house; they were carried in a bag from his house to the sheriff clerk's office, and there entered into an inventory—that is the paper.

And you now recognize it as the same?

Yes, it is the same.

You act as notary, do you not?—

No, I do not

Or as clerk to the sheriff?

Yes, writing clerk to the sheriff.

Did you hear me protest against the illegality of all the proceedings which had taken place?

You offered to make a protest, but it was refused to you.

You are certain that I offered to make one?—

Yes.

A written one?

I do not recollect whether it was written or not: I think it is probable it was, but I cannot say—I was not a notary.

I have objections to that witness, on account of certain expressions of his, and I have a witness now attending to prove those words. I don't know whether that witness should be brought in at present to prove this, or whether it should be kept back till the witnesses for the prosecution are gone through.

What do you propose to prove?

That he considered himself as my enemy; these are nearly the words, I look upon myself to be your enemy; or something to that effect.

Can you condescend upon any reason, why he should have any enmity to you?

I have not the skill of other people; I cannot dive into mens hearts; I find him a very officious time-serving man.

He must answer that question upon oath, whether he has any malice or ill will.

(Sworn.)

Look upon the pannel at the bar; have you any malice or ill-will against that person?

None at all.

Did you ever say that you were his enemy?—

Never.

You may ask him the question again, Mr. Margarot.

I would wish to have my witness produced in court; it is not my asking him the question merely, Do you not recollect saying one day that you considered yourself as my enemy?—

Not at all.

The court have uniformly laid this down as a rule, that no general charge of a witness making use of an ex­pression of that nature shall be sufficient to invalidate his testi­mony, and for this reason, that it would put it in the power of cry witness whatever, if he wished to favour the pannel, to dis­qualify himself by uttering some vague expression of ill-will.

What are you?—

A messenger.

Did you execute a warrant against the pannel?

Yes.

And against any body else?

Yes; Mr. Gerald.

Q Where was you informed these persons resided?

At the Black Bull.

Were you to take into your custody any papers that you found?—

Yes.

At what time in the morning was it?

To the best of my knowledge about seven o'clock.

Tell the court and jury what passed.

I asked for such gentlemen, I asked for their rooms; the waiter declined shewing me, but told me the number of their rooms; I went into the room where Mr. Gerald and Mr. Mar­garot were; they were each in separate beds in the same room.

Q Did you tell them you had a warrant against them?

Yes; then I went to Mr. Sinclair's room, and locked up all Mr. Margarot's papers, and Mr. Gerald's and Mr. Sinclair's also; Mr. Margarot said he would put his papers into a little trunk, which I did not object to.

Did he accordingly do so?

He asked Mr. Gerald if he would put his in, upon which he agreed to it, and the papers were put in; and when I was away and came back for them, he said he would not give them me; I said I would take them; he said I might take them at my peril, and I said I should not make any scruple about it.

Did the key remain in his possession after the paper was taken away?

Yes, the trunk was locked and he kept the key.

Did you take the trunk and him with you to the sheriff's?

Yes, and Mr. Gerald.

Was you present when the trunk was opened and the contents examined?—

I was.

Did the pannel agree to open the trunk himself, or was it opened?

The next day when he was before the sheriff, he held the key in his hand; he said he would not give it up, but we might take it from him; upon which the sheriff substitute desired me to take it from him, which I did; the trunk was then opened and inspected.

Were those belonging to the pannel distinguished from those belonging to Mr. Gerald?

Each of them claimed separately what belonged to him­self.

Was there any inventory made of those papers?

Yes.

Did you put any mark upon those papers? —A. I did.

Look at those papers deliberately, and see if they are the same?

Yes, they are the same; they have my initial.

When you went to the Black Bull had you any assistants with you?

Yes, John M'Donald and Neil M'Glashan were both in the room along with me.

You found us in bed?—A. Yes.

Did we show any disposition of resistance, or rather tes­tify the greatest alacrity to go with you?

You shewed no disposition to make any resistance; you did not refuse to come along with us.

Did we make you wait long in dressing?—A. No.

Did you shew us the warrants?

No, nor you did ask it.

Did we never ask you to see the warrant?—A. No.

Where did you find the papers in the room?

I found some upon the top of the drawers' head, some in the drawers, and some out in a trunk.

Were the drawers locked?—A. No.

Was the door of the room locked?

No, I knocked at the door, and you desired me to come in, and of course I opened the door.

Were the papers in a state of arrangement when you took them off the drawers, and out of the drawers?

No, by no means.

Were they not rather confused?

Yes; they were a little confused.

Were there some in one place, and others in others?

Yes, some I got out of the trunk, and some in the draw­ers, and some off the drawers.

Were there papers in more than one drawer?

I believe there were; I cannot say.

But the drawers were not locked?

I believe not; at least I broke none of them open.

Did you go along with Mr. Lyon, the messenger, to assist him to execute a warrant against the Pannel at the bar, on the 5th December last?—

Yes.

Where did you go?

To the Black Bull, at the head of Leith Walk.

Tell us, as far as you recollect, what passed upon that occasion?

I went into the house, and stood there till the door was opened; Mr. Lyon went in; he went up the stair, and this gentleman and another were in the bed-room, but had not got their clothes on, and we stood at the door till they were ready; [Page 42] and Mr. Lyon took what papers he could find, and they were put into a trunk; the trunk was locked, and he put the key in his pocket, and there was a coach at the door; and I took down the trunk, and put in the chaise, and he came along with us, and I got at the back of the chaise, and went to the Sheriff Clerk's Office, and left the trunk at the office.

You have mentioned what passed in the room, and the manner in which the papers were put in the trunk; now, did the Pannel himself put any of the papers in?

Yes, he was helping.

Did Mr. Gerald likewise assist to put the papers in the trunk?

Yes; Mr. Gerald's papers were put in first, and then Mr. Margarot's, and then the trunk was locked and carried to the Sheriff Clerk's Office.

Could you at that time discriminate which were my pa­pers and which were those of Mr. Gerald?

I can neither tell which were yours, nor which were his; but, it is my opinion, your's were put in first.

Were the drawers locked?—

No.

You did not see a key in those drawers?—

No.

Was the room door locked?

No, it was open when I came in; you was apprehended, I dare say, before I came in.

Were the papers put into the trunk tied up in parcels or loosely?

Some were tied up, and some were loose.

Did we tie up any of them before you

I did not see any string tied on them.

Who took them out of the drawers?

Mr. Lyon took them out.

Do you recollect the reason why Mr. Lyon would not shew me the warrant?

You did not insist upon shewing it much.

Did he shew it? and remember you are upon your oath.

I cannot recollect.

You well recollect that I asked him to produce it?

Yes.

And you are not certain that he did shew it?—

No.

But you perfectly recollect that I asked him to shew it?

Yes.

Have you any objection to this witness?

No, my Lord, he looks honest. (Sworn).

Are you a member of any of the Societies of Friends of the People?—

I was.

Was you a Delegate from that society to the British Convention?

Yes, I was a member of both.

Did you attend regularly their meeting?

My business did not allow me a regular attendance, but I attended as often as I could.

Do you recollect, during your attendance at those meet­ings, whether there was any subdivision, any smaller meetings that the Convention was divided into?—

Yes.

What were they called?

The first name they got, was Divisions; but they were afterwards called Sections.

What terms did the members of the Convention gene­rally address each other by?

The terms were different; but the general term was, Citizen.

Do you recollect that you had different Committees ap­pointed in that Convention for the forwarding of business?

I don't recollect several Committees.

But some?

I have heard some mentioned.

And what were they called?

That that I recollect most, at present, was the Committee of Union.

Did you ever hear of a Committee of Secrecy?—

Yes.

A Convention of Emergency?

I don't recollect the hearing of that.

Do you recollect hearing the term organization men­tioned? —

I don't remember.

Had you primary assemblies to refer to?

I cannot say.

How were your meetings called?

It was generally called the British Convention.

But when you met on a particular night, and talked about it the next day, what name did you give it?

The British Convention.

Did you ever use the name of sittings?

Yes, frequently.

You say you attended as often as your business permitted?

Yes.

Have you had occasion to see the pannel there?

Yes, frequently.

Did you ever see him act as Preses or Chairman at these meetings?—

Yes.

Did you ever hear him move any resolutions at these meetings, of any kind?

I have very frequently heard Mr. Margarot speak; but unless some particular resolution be mentioned, I cannot say.

Do you recollect at any time, any motion or proposal for a Committee of Union?

No; I was not present then.

Do you recollect his having delivered a speech, at any of the meetings you have attended, that had any relation to a Convention Bill?—

I don't recollect.

With any reference to such a bill as had passed in Ireland?

No:

Do you remember a motion being made by Mr. Calendar?—

Yes.

Do you remember any thing what it was about?

I remember one of the motions, about the people meet­ing in defence of their liberties, in case of any bill being brought into Parliament, similar to a Convention Bill in Ireland against the Constitution of the country.

What did Mr. Calendar propose that your Convention should do in that case?

I recollect a motion of that import being introduced, and that Mr. Calendar acknowledged the motion as his; but as to any thing relative to that motion, I do not know.

Was you present when the motion was made?

There was a rule in the Convention, that no motion should be discussed the same night on which it was made; I was pre­sent when it was brought in by Mr. Calendar.

What was it that Mr. Calendar proposed should be done in case such a bill should be brought into the British Par­liament?

I object to that question, as it respects Mr. Calendar, and not me.

It is charged in the indictment against this very pannel; and, therefore, I will repeat the question. What was it that Mr. Calendar proposed should be done, in case it should be brought into the British Parliament?

That the people should meet to assert their right, so far as I recollect.

Was there any debate upon it that night?

It is a rule that there shall be no debate when a question is proposed.

Was you present when it was discussed?

Not when it was discussed in that shape in which Mr. Callendar introduced it; but I was when it was amended: so far as I recollect, the spirit of Mr. Calendar's motion was retained; but it was very much extended: there was a proposal of what, in certain events, should take place. I don't clearly remember the circumstances about it; but it was a motion for a Secret Com­mittee, in case those events should take place.

Was it proposed that the Convention should assemble in certain events?

Yes, it was, that they should meet in a certain place, in certain events.

Now, be so good as tell us what those events were, as far as you remember them?

The one already named, was that of a bill being brought into Parliament similar to the Convention Bill in Ireland; as to the other, I cannot remember.

Was any thing said about the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?—

I think there was.

Was there any thing said about the repeal of the Scotch Act, 1701, of wrongous imprisonment?

I don't recollect that.

Was any thing said in case of an invasion of foreign troops?

I think I remember that.

Was any place fixed upon for the meetings? how was that determined upon?

There was a motion that a place should be fixed upon by a Secret Committee; they were to find out a way of letting the Delegates know of it.

Q Was it not to be published?—

No.

Was it to be told them immediately, or only told them when that emergency should happen?

There was a mention of a sealed letter to be given to each Delegate.

Who made this motion with respect to the place of meet­ing?—

I cannot recollect.

Read that paper.

"Citizen Margarot proposed the following motion: That a Secret Committee of three, with the Secretary, be appointed to determine the place where such Convention of Emergency shall meet; and such place shall remain a secret with them, and with the Secretary of this Convention; and, that the Delegates shall, at the breaking up of the present session, be entrusted with a sealed letter, containing the name of the place of meeting. This letter shall be delivered unopened to their constituents; the receipt of which shall be acknowledged by a letter to the Secre­tary, preserved in the same state, until the period shall arive at which it shall be deemed necessary for the Delegates to set off. This motion was seconded by Citizen Moffat."

Is that the motion?

To the best of my recollection there was a motion of a similar import to that.

Do you know who were the Members of this Secret Committee?

I recollect some of them.

Was Mr. Margarot one of them?

To the best of my recollection, he was one of them.

Do you remember Mr. Margarot making any speech to the Convention before he had made his motion?—

I do not.

Do you remember his saying any thing at all about its being a tocsin?—

I do not.

You remember that the case of the Convention Bill was one of the cases of emergency?—

Yes.

And of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?

I heard that mentioned.

You also recollect something about an invasion being mentioned?—

I think I do.

Did you hear any proposal during the time you attended this meeting, that this Convention should act in case they should be dispersed?—

Yes.

Who made that motion?

I do not recollect at present.

Do you think Mr. Margarot made a motion of that kind?

It runs in my mind that he did; but I cannot swear that it was him.

Did you hear Mr. Margarot make any speech that had a reference to that case?

I think I recollect something of Mr. Margarot speaking as to the propriety of such a thing.

Are you sure?

I cannot be particular; but there is a conceit in my mind that he did.

Do you remember Mr. Sinclair making a motion of that kind?—

I think I do.

Do you remember any thing particular about the passing of that?

So far as my recollection serves me, we were pretty una­nimous.

Do you recollect all the Convention standing up at the time they passed it?—

Yes; I think I do.

Did it contain any particular expressions of their declar­ing before God and the world that they would do so and so? Do you recollect that that made a part of the motion?

Certainly these words were mentioned, but I am not cer­tain whether it was the decided resolution of the Convention or not.

Do you remember whether this motion, or the resolution of the Convention, bore any thing that they declared before God and the world that we should follow the wholesome ex­ample of former times?

I cannot say; I don't remember it.

Did it say any thing about paying no attention to a Con­vention Bill if it should be passed?

I think there was a mention of something similar to this, but whether it was made a part of the final resolution of the [Page 47] Committee, I cannot tell: there was a great deal of loose ex­pressions made use of.

Did you hear any thing said in the Convention about burning that resolution of Sinclair's?

No, I heard nothing of that.

Did you hear any thing said about burning any of the other motions?

I don't recollect; they seemed, to be confident of what they were doing, and were not acting, under the apprehension of fear.

Was there any thing said about destroying or not insert­ing it in the minutes?—

I don't recollect.

At the time this Secret Committee was appointed, was there any opposition made to it?—

I don't recollect.

It seems you are a member of the British Convention?

I was.

What is your profession?

My profession is partly a manufacturer in the weaving line, and partly a merchant.

Q Do you pay any taxes?—I do.

Do you find these taxes heavy?

I have very often thought them very heavy.

You are a member of the Friends of the People?—

Yes.

What was your reason for joining the Friends of the People?

The reason was, a thorough conviction of the necessity of a Reform in the British House of Commons.

What was your reason of accepting the office of delegate in the British Convention?

It was to help forward that great and grand object that so forcibly struck my mind.

Did you mean to help it forward by legal means or force of arms?

Force of arms was never mentioned in the Convention, and it is the last thing that I should wish, to see a drop of blood spilt in the cause.

In the British Convention did you ever see any tendency to have recourse to open force?

It was diametrically opposite to my views to have the least recourse to open force, nor was it the subject of discussion in the Convention.

Have you heard of a committee of Union?—

Yes.

What was to be the purport of that Committee of Union?

So far as I recollect, the design of that Committee was to draw up regulations, by which the people of England and Scot­land, [Page 48] of the same sentiments, might join in their endeavours to obtain that object.

You have heard of a Convention of Secrecy likewise?

Of a Committee of Secrecy I have.

Have you ever seen it customary in any Clubs, if you ever belonged to any, that there should be a certain degree of trust reposed in a small number of confidential men, who should form a Committee and retain some secrets to themselves, not to be divulged to the world? Have you ever witnessed any such thing, or does it strike you as an unprecedented thing?

So far from striking me as an unprecedented thing, that it strikes me upon many occasions as a necessary thing, pruden­tially to keep secrets of every society when it is necessary for their interest.

Have you ever heard of a Committee of Organization in the Convention?—

Yes, I think I have.

What was the drift of that Committee of Organization?

What I conceive to be the direct design of the Committee was to form rules, by which the Convention might regulate themselves in their present and in their subsequent meetings, if they should see occasion for any.

Do you think that the Committee of Organization did not likewise refer to the internal regulation of the Convention?

As I meant to express in my last answer, I considered the committee of Organization to refer chiefly to the internal af­fairs of the Convention, and with respect to future Conven­tions, if there should be such.

It seems that you have heard that meetings of the Con­vention were at times called sittings; do you imagine that that expression was adopted as borrowed from a neighbouring country, or that is was an expression which followed of course, and to which we are thoroughly accustomed in the English lan­guage?

However the reading of newspapers might lead us to make use of terms, I cannot say; but it was certainly a word that it was very natural to make use of.

You have seen me act as Preses?—

Yes.

That word is Latin, is it not?

I am very little acquainted with Latin▪ I meant President.

You are sufficiently acquainted with it to know that at present Rome is the seat of the Pope, are you not?

We have no doubt of that.

Consequently if there is any criminality in adopting a French word, do you think there is not an equal criminality in using a Latin one▪

These things appeared to me to be so trifling, that I did not think it worth my while to make any objection to them: some were of French origin, and some of British, and some of La­tin; but I did not think it worth while to make any objection to it.

You have heard of a motion proposed by Mr. Callender; you were present when it was originally moved, that the peo­ple should meet to assert their rights in the Convention?

Assert their rights, were the words, to the best of my re­collection.

What do you understand by a Convention?

What I understand by a Convention is a meeting of men for any purpose that they propose.

Are the men who meet in Convention supposed to be de­legated by a larger body of men?

I cannot pretend a particular disquisition of these points, but it strikes me so.

By the word Convention, and meeting in Convention, did you understand a peaceable assembly of men assembled to deliberate, or did you understand by it, an assembly of men going to adopt violent measures, and to carry them into execu­tion themselves?

What I understand by Convention was, that they met with a sincere and hearty design to promote the good of the country, by a thorough reform in the British House of Commons, and that they meant to do this by peaceable means.

Do you imagine there are sufficient abuses at present in the legislature of this kingdom, to legalize our attempting to address them by petition, or any form that might be legal and constitutional?

I have already said that I am deeply impressed with the idea of the necessity of it: I see the most glaring abuses in it.

Do you imagine that if a Convention Bill was to be passed, or was even to be brought into the House of Commons, that it would not shew a disposition in the House of Commons to extend their privileges, and to encroach upon our rights?

Such a Bill has always struck me as sapping the very foun­dations of Civil Liberty; and, indeed going beyond the power of the legislators themselves, to deprive the people of their na­tural rights.

You say it is your opinion that there are already suffi­cient grounds for the good people of this country to demand a Reform in Parliament; do you think those grounds would not be increased by two such events as the bringing in of a Conven­tion Bill, or a motion for suspending the Habeas Corpus act, which is one of the greatest privileges a subject of Britain en­joys, or the Bill for preventing wrongous imprisonment; do you think that would not make a very considerable addition to our complaints?

I am satisfied in my own mind, that it would increase the grievances of the people, and be like a grave stone to their li­berties.

In what light did you look upon the members of the Bri­tish Convention? Did you look upon them as a turbulent set of vagabonds, or did you look upon them as a body of men dele­gated by some of their fellow subjects for a certain purpose, and that these men so delegated were industrious, peaceable, cre­ditable men?

Their design, I have to reason no call in question, was the good of their country: as to characters, there is always a mixture in all assemblies; but I believe, taking the whole toge­ther, there was a great degree of respectability with respect to characters.

Then they did not appear to you to come under the description of swine, rabble, or wretches?

As the friends of their country, I believe not.

When is the properest time for men to assemble and de­liberate? It in time of danger, or prosperity? It appears that the Convention was to assemble in this manner, in the moment that an invasion of foreign troops should take place in Great Britain. Do you conceive that to be a time of danger, and call­ing for the attention of all Britons throughout the island; or do you think it a time for them to sit idle and suffer themselves to be enslaved by a foreign power?

I think it is high time that a Reform had taken place, as it ought to have done long since.

When you have any thing that interests you very much, do you publish it all through your house, and different parts of your family, or sometimes keep a secret to yourself in your pri­vate affairs?

Yes, no doubt; and every person endued with any de­gree of prudence will find occasion to keep their secrets.

If you had a particular piece of business to do, and that you was apprehensive that a superior power, inimical to your design and to your welfare, would prevent you from doing that particular business at such a place, would you inform that inimi­cal power where you was to meet to do that business?

I should certainly do every thing in my power, from com­mon prudence, to keep it from him.

When you send a letter by the post to a friend do you ever attach any degree of criminality to sealing that letter till he gets into the country, especially if you wish the contents not to be known to him till a certain period?

No.

Can you discover any thing of a seditious nature in a Con­vention standing up to pass a resolution?

No.

I find here something which I don't know, whether it is thoroughly assented to by you, that there was a declaration be­fore God and the world, that they would follow the wholesome [Page 51] example of their forefathers; what is the characteristic of Bri­tons?

That they are strongly attached to the cause of li­berty.

How came we by the Revolution? was it by any exertion of our forefathers?

It no doubt was.

Q How came we by the Magna Charta?

So far as I understand the subject, it was entirely by the same means.

Did your forefathers do wrong in so exerting themselves?

My opinion is that they did not do enough.

Do you think it impossible for a House of Commons to do an unconstitutional act?

There has been many things done in the House of Com­mons which I sincerely regret.

We had originally Parliaments, or some time back, Par­liaments of three years; now by an Act of Parliament they are lengthened to seven years; suppose another Act should make them during life, and a third Act should make them hereditary, do you imagine that would be an unconstitutional act?

It has always struck me as a thing beyond their power to alter or destroy the fundamental rights of the people, or any thing that would extend their own power.

Do you imagine that the power originates with the peo­ple?

I do so.

Do you imagine it to be either in the Bill of Rights, or the claim of rights, expressed, that the people should be at li­berty to meet to communicate to each other their grievances, and plan methods for obtaining redress?

I have often wished to see the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, and all those things; but I have never had it in my power; but in my opinion, the object of all government is the good of the people, and that the liberties of the people ought to be carefully guarded by them.

It appears by what has passed here, that the Convention had some notion of a God: did they ever pray in their meetings?

They did.

Did you ever see any disorderly behaviour there? were they riotous or tumultuous?

Considering their numbers, they were free of that beyond many meetings that I have seen of the same number: I saw no riotous meetings: there were sometimes disputes, but no riots.

As to the burning of the motion, you said they were not acting under the apprehension of fear: did you suppose they could justify their proceedings?

I always considered, that in the Convention the Members that had occasion to speak, always spoke freely, believing that they had nothing essentially secret to keep to themselves, but that their great object was the good of their country.

Did you ever discover in the Convention or in the mem­bers of it, either in or out of the Convention, any propensity to sedition, treason, or rebellion?

I have always said, that as far as I could discover the de­sign of the Convention, it was to obtain a thorough Reform in the British House of Commons, by peaceable and legal means.

sworn.

Have you any malice or ill-will against the pannel at the bar?

It is impossible I should, my Lord: on the contrary, I es­teem him a second Sydney.—I am very much obliged to the pub­lic prosecutor, on account of my family, otherwise, I would much sooner appear here as the pannel at your Lordships' bar, than as a witness.

Were you a Member of the British Convention?

Yes; of all the three Conventions I had the honour to be a Delegate from the Canongate Society; the Delegates, consi­dering themselves as Delegates for six months, adjourned their meeting; but upon account of the coming down of the English Delegates, they resumed it again.

That was in November last.—

Yes.

Who were the English Delegates?

There were four or five of them; there was Citizen Margarot, Citizen Sinclair, Citizen Gerald from London, and Citizen Brown from Sheffield.

Now did you act as secretary or assistant secretary?

Yes; assistant secretary.

Were there a scroll of minutes drawn up?—

Yes.

Look at that, and see if any part of it is your hand-writ­ing?

Yes; a very great part of it; but there were some others who wrote.

Who were they?

George Ross, and afterwards the Convention appointed three assistants daily.

Who is George Ross?

Clerk in the Gazetteer Office.

This scroll of minutes, did they contain, to far as you could judge, a fair and distinct account of what happened in the Convention?

To the best of my knowledge and belief they did; I should have been guilty of palming falshood upon the public and [Page 53] the Convention if they did not: but there may have been mis­takes.

Were they corrected the day after they were made out?

By no means: they were postponed till a future day, till a committee should be appointed to revise them.

Was Mr. Margarot present at these meetings commonly?

As far as I observed he was a regular attendant.

Was he sometimes Chairman at the meetings?

Once he certainly was.

Look at that: whose hand-writing is it?

It is mine

Citizen Margarot moved that a Committtee be appointed to consider of the means, and draw up the outlines of a proper plan for a general union between the two nations, as before proposed.

Did Mr. Margarot make that motion?

He certainly did, or I should not have minuted it down: a simple fact like that I cannot be mistaken in; but in a speech, viva voce, I might have made a mistake

and give me leave to add, I expected from Mr. Margarot's abilities and the spirit of the times, a more perfect system than was made up by a sycophant faction in the reign of queen Anne.

Look at that.

Citizen A. Callendar moved, That in case the Minister bring into the Commons' House a motion for a Conven­tion Bill, it shall be noticed immediately to the Delegates. The words shall be noticed immediately to the Delegates, are in my hand-writing.

Do you remember any discussion in the Convention upon that motion; particularly, did Mr. Margarot speak upon the occasion?

Indeed my memory is so treacherous that I cannot recol­lect any thing, especially when I am taking notes: if I don't write at all, I remember tolerably well the chief facts, but if I do write, I recollect nothing.

Was there any thing said about that event being a tocsin to the friends of liberty?

I never heard the word tocsin mentioned in the Conven­tion.

Do you remember any amendment or alteration upon Mr. Callendar's motion, or if it gave rise to any other motion in the Convention?

Such things may have happened, but I cannot recollect.

Do you know of a motion being-made by Mr. Sinclair in consequence of, and following up Mr. Callendar's motion?

I was absent a variety of nights, when I wished to be pre­sent, but particular business kept me away.

But did you hear Mr. Margarot make any motion in con­sequence of Mr. Callendar's?

'Tis impossible that I can say.

Did Mr. Sinclair make any motion about the Convention meeting on certain events?

Yes; there was a motion made, at least I understood so. I came in one evening pretty late, and Mr. Sinclair, or some person, had made a motion, and as soon as I had taken my seat, Mr. Sinclair made a motion, that something that had passed be­fore should be burned, and I was surprised, and got up and op­posed it, and was seconded—upon the ground, that as every thing we had done before was open to the public, we should do nothing secret, and therefore the motion was not carried.

Did that motion relate to the Delegates' meeting?

I was surprised and alarmed at any thing being secret; but when I understood that nothing more was meant by it than merely concealing the place where they were to meet, I thought there was nothing at all in it.

Did you hear any thing of a Committee of Secrecy?

I enquired next day, and was told the nature of it, that it was merely to conceal the intended place of meeting, in case of opposition, and in case of necessity.

Did you hear any thing about the Convention of Emer­gency at all in the meeting?

Yes; at the sections and among our friends.

Read that.

Citizen Margarot read and proposed the following motion: That a Secret Committee of three, and the Secretary, be appointed to determine the place where such Convention of Emergency shall meet; and such place shall remain a secret with them and the Secretary of this Con­vention, and that each Delegate shall, at the breaking up of the present session, be entrusted with a sealed letter, containing the name of the place of the meeting; this letter shall be delivered unopened to his constituents, the receipt of which shall be ac­knowledged by a letter to the Secretary, preserved in the same state, until the period shall arrive at which it shall be deemed necessary for the Delegates to set off; this motion was seconded by Citizen Moffat: the greater part of that is my own hand-writing.

You see mention is there made of a Convention of Emer­gency: now I want to know, as far as you recollect, the cases in which they were to meet?

As far as I recollect, they were to meet in case a motion was made in Parliament to bring in a bill similar to that passed in Ireland, to prevent our having any meetings.

Was one of the cases the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?

I don't recollect.

Was the case of an invasion of foreign troops mentioned?

Yes.

Do you recollect any other case of Emergency in which the Convention were to meet?

I don't recollect any other.

Was there another case, if any attempt should be made to disperse the Convention? was that a case in which they were to meet?

I cannot say that I recollect that.

Was you in the Convention the evening before the ap­prehension of Mr. Margarot and Skirving, and the other per­sons?

I might, very possibly; but I don't recollect I was pre­sent that evening after they had been apprehended in the morning.

But do you recollect whether you was in the Conven­tion the preceding evening?

I cannot charge my memory with it.

Look at that?

The whole of that is written by another person

Citizen Margarot begs leave to bring in a motion, to the effect, that the moment of any illegal dispersion of the present Convention shall be considered as a summons to the Delegates to repair to the place of meeting appointed for the Convention of Emergency by the Secret Committee; that the Secret Committee is instructed to proceed, without delay, to fix the place of meeting; and that the same motion be consider­ed next evening; which was accordingly granted. My Lords, I observe, from the whole of this being written by another per­son, that I was not present at all that evening.

Look at the first of these papers, Num­ber 3. of the general inventory, and tell me if you ever saw it before?

I think it is a most excellent motion, my Lord, and am very sorry it was not followed up.

I did not ask you for your opinion, Sir.

My Lords, I beg to say, this persecution, and all of them, are for opinions; and I must, before God, in justice to my coun­try, declare, that it is for opinions as well as facts.

Gentlemen of the Jury, 'Tis a prosecution for opinions.

Look at that paper which has your mark upon it.

It has, but it is not my writing.

Where did you receive it?

From the Convention; I remember reading it from the beginning to the end.

Who is James Gartley?

He was Delegate from Glasgow.

Is it your hand-writing upon the back of it?

Yes; it is.

Had you an opportunity of seeing the newspapers in which the proceedings of the Convention were published to the world?

I had an opportunity; but was so extremely hurried at that time with my own business, and that of the Convention, that I could not read them, but laid them by to be a treasure of entertainment at some future time; for four weeks, at that time, I did not read a single article in the Gazetteer.

Have you read them since?

Only in the Sheriff Clerk's Chamber; and that seemed to contain a very accurate account.

And corresponded with the Minutes you yourself had taken?—

Yes.

You was a member of the British Convention?—

Yes.

Was you, prior to that, a Member of the Friends of the People?—

Yes, long prior.

What was your motive for associating with the Friends of the People?

The public good, which I hope I will always have at heart.

What do you understand by the public good.

I understand, by the public good, that grievances should be redressed, and every man made as happy as possible.

Had you any specific plan?

Yes, we had just two objects; these two objects were, a shorter duration of Parliaments, and a more frequent election of Representatives; because we considered the length of parlia­ments, and the slow return of elections, to be the two great and fundamental causes of all the grievances which the nation labours under.

What sort of men were these with whom you associated, the Friends of the People? I don't particularly mean what class, high or low, rich or poor; but what morals, what temper, what behaviour; in short, what opinion do you form of them in ge­neral?

I considered them to be a good, moral, respectable set of people; not respectable in point of riches, but in that respect which will be looked at by the all-seeing-eye of the Almighty; respectable in point of morals.

Did they ever shew any disposition to treason, sedition, or felony?—

Not that I ever saw.

Was you delegated by a Society of the Friends of the People to the Convention?

I was some time.

Did the other Members of the Convention represent a number of men from here?—A Yes.

Did it appear to you, that the Convention adhered to the spirit of reform which was set on foot by the Friends of the People?

They certainly did, to the best of my ideas; and even when they followed up the primary idea of shorter duration of Parliaments, and more frequent elections, and adopted the idea of universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, they went cer­tainly no further than the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt had gone before.

You must take care not to mention the word primary, be­cause it may inculpate me further; for that is one word that is charged against me.

I consider all words in our Dictionary lawful to be used; and it is a dreadful crisis that we are come to, if a man is to be criminated for a word.

You spoke of the English Delegates; you don't mean that they represented the people of England?

Certainly, only those who sent them; I understood that Mr. Margarot and Mr. Sinclair represented about 5000 people, and Mr. Brown about 5000 from Sheffield.

You have not positivey sworn to the entire scroll of Mi­nutes shewn to you; some part of it you don't acknowledge.

I can only swear to that that was wrote by myself; and so far as my ideas led me to think, I was right in writing them.

Though the name of Minutes is given to them, are they, in fact, the Minutes of the Convention till they have received the revisal of the Committee?

Certainly not; to correct and to expunge all errors what­ever.

Were they ever offered, or sent forth to the world by way of publication?

Not that I know of.

Were they ever corrected by authority of the Conven­tion?

A I never heard of it.

Are there any erasures, any interlineations in them?

Several emendations were made upon the motions of one or two Members; but when several emendation were proposed, it was said, you may leave that to the Committee.

To the best of your recollection (I made a motion about the union of the two kingdoms), did it appear to you that that motion had a seditious tendency?

On the contrary, I conceive it would be for the good of mankind, and the salvation of these kingdoms.

Do you look upon tocsin to be a French word?

I suppose so: but I cannot say that it is: I never heard it made use of in the Convention.

Are you sure that it is not instead of one French word, two Chinese words?

I cannot say; I know nothing about the Chinese.

I have a notion 'tis; then, all the knowledge you gained of a Secret Committee, was the next day among the Sections, and among the Friends?

That reminds me of a mistake I made before; for I find that I have recorded that very motion which Mr. Sinclair moved to be burnt, and which was afterwards agreed not to be burnt; and I heard further of the business next day.

There was a motion made for a Convention of Emergen­cy; did the Convention ever fix upon or delineate the plan by which they were to act, or did that Convention ever take place?

Not that I know of.

In joining the Friends of the People, and in joining the British Convention, for the purpose of obtaining a reform, did you think yourselves warranted by the Constitution to endea­vour to obtain a redress of grievances?

Perfectly; and I would think so still, if I were to be sent to Botany Bay for it.

Are those grievances done away?

By no means; and I am sorry for it.

Are you of opinion, that if a Convention Bill was passed in the British Parliament, it would tend to lessen those grievances.

It would extend them tenfold.

What would be the consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and of the Act for preventing wrongous imprisonment?

It would be certainly a great encroachment upon the pri­vilege of Britons.

Might not every peaceable inhabitant of these realms run great danger, in case of a foreign invasion, of losing his property, by the enemies plundering him of it, if they were successful?—

I have no doubt of that.

Do you think it would be more constitutional in English­men, more constitutional in Scotchmen, more constitutional in Britons, to sit idle and look at a foreign invasion, or attend a Convention of Emergency.

I dare say the whole Court, and all the audience will a­gree, that to meet upon such an occasion, would be a work of necessity.

Was foreign invasion the expression that was made use of, or was a French invasion ever mentioned?

As far as I recollect, French invasion was mentioned in some person's motion; but I cannot say in whose motion, or whether it was in doors, or out of doors; or in the Conven­tion, or out of the Convention, I cannot say.

Then you mean to say, that an Invasion from France was uppermost in the minds of the Convention?

I cannot say what was uppermost; but I know I have heard that expression, but I believe it was out of the Convention.

Was it customary for the motions to be handed to the table, which were not passed in the Convention?

Many such were handed in, and many not passed, and not taken notice of at all.

Are you certain, that the two motions shewn you just now, and which were indorsed by you, and, I presume, were given into you in that manner, are you sure they were ever read in the Convention?

Be so good as shew me them again

One of these motions is certainly new to me since I came before the Court: a person might say to me, there is a question concerning union, and I might indorse it so without ever reading it.

What was the mode of proceeding in opening and closing the business of the day?

As the business of all Christian people should be, it was begun and ended by prayer.

Did you ever observe any thing of a seditious or riotous appearance in the Convention?—

Not in the least.

Did you ever hear any thing mentioned, or whispered in the Convention, that might tend to overturn the Constitution?

Never.

Did you ever hear any thing mentioned there against the King?—

Never.

Did you ever hear any thing mentioned there against place-men and pensioners?—

Often.

That, I suppose, is the Sedition that is meant to be charg­ed.

I thought it very hard that the Lord Advocate, when I was here before, should charge me with falshood. I hope he will not do so now.

What profession are you of?

Clerk in the Gazetteer office.

How long have you been in that profession?

Seven or eight years.

Was you a Member of the meeting of the Friends of the People?—

Yes.

Was you a Member of the British Convention?—

Yes.

Delegate from what society?

From the Canongate Society.

Did you act in any particular office in the Convention?

I sometimes acted as Assistant Secretary?

Who else assisted the Secretary?—

Several persons.

Were there any persons who wrote short-hand and took down the debates?—

Yes, my brother.

Look at these Minutes, and see if you can find your own hand-writing?—

Yes.

Did you take down, to the best of your abilities, what did really pass in the Convention?

I certainly would take nothing down that I thought im­proper.

And you would take down nothing but what passed?

No.

Do you recollect, if it was the practice at the commence­ment of the meeting, to read over the scroll of the Minutes?

I have seen it done sometimes, and sometimes not.

Do you recollect whether it was ever usual to correct them upon reading them over?

I think, I recollect one night, there were some corrections.

Are you acquainted with that Gentleman?

I have had the honour to see Mr. Margarot many times, and been in his company.

Was he a Member of the Convention?—

Yes.

Have you heard him speak?

Yes, I have heard him propose motions.

Did you ever see him act as Chairman?

I cannot recollect to a certainty, whether he was or not.

Do you recollect any motion in the Convention with res­pect to a union between England and Scotland?

I recollect the union with the Societies of the Friends of the People in England.

Read that?

Margarot moved, that a committee be appointed to consider.

I don't recollect that.

Whose hand-writing is it?

I believe it is Mr. Aitcheson's.

You recollect there was such a motion?

Yes, that there was a union to take place between the English societies and the Scotch.

Do you remember any motion being made of a Conven­tion of Emergency?—

Yes.

Do you remember any thing about the purpose of that Convention; of the events in which they were to meet?

To remonstrate to Parliament against a Bill, such as a Convention Bill.

Were there any particular persons who made a motion respecting it?—

I believe it was made by Mr. Callendar.

Do you recollect that that motion was made?

A. Yes it is my hand-writing.

Do you remember the events that were to happen.

That, in case of a Convention Bill, they were to meet in order to draw up a remonstrance to Parliament.

Was any other event mentioned? any thing about the Habeas Corpus Act?—

I don't at present recollect.

Do you recollect any thing about a foreign invasion, or any thing about foreign troops?

Yes, about the Hessians and Hanoverians being brought over.

You spoke about Mr. Callendar's motion: when was it taken up? the next day?—

I cannot say.

Was the Convention used to take notice of the motions at the time they were made, or did they lie over?

They generally laid over.

Was that motion of Mr. Callendar's taken up afterwards?

I cannot say.

Was there any debate about Mr. Callendar's motion res­pecting the Convention Bill? and recollect yourself before you give an answer?—

I cannot be particular.

Were there any amendments proposed to that motion?

I believe there were.

What resolution was come to in consequence of the amendment?—

I don't know particularly; I don't recollect.

Is that your writing?

Yes,

Citizen Sinclair read the amendments upon Citizen Callendar's motion; and then there comes some other person's writing; and, it was agreed, that the house should re­solve itself into a Committee, to consider of the amendments proposed; the Convention being resumed, and the amendments being read over, the members stood upon their legs, and so­lemnly and unanimously passed the following resolution.

Now recollect yourself, and tell us what passed at that time. Was it a resolution upon Citizen Callendar's motion?

Yes.

Now recollect what that motion was?

I cannot recollect.

Look if it is mentioned there?

No, there is a blank page follows it. The resolution then passed, was reserved to be entered 'till the end of the Minutes.

It is very material that the Jury should take down these words; for it is that upon which I shall found a very material part of what I shall have to say to them. Repeat it again.

I think the Resolution that was then passed, was left to be entered at the last part of the Minutes.

Look, and see if you find any more blanks?

I believe there are not

Yes, here is a blank of four lines.

Do you remember any proposal being made about burn­ing any part of the written evidence, or destroying any motion or resolution the Convention had come to?

No, I don't recollect.

Do you know Mr. Aitcheson?

Yes.

Do you recollect any objection being made by him to burning or destroying any resolution that they might have come to?

No, I do not.

Do you recollect any other person, a Member of that Convention, objecting to that measure?

I do not recollect any such thing.

Do you remember a motion being made for a Secret Committee?—

Yes.

Who was it that proposed that motion, which passed solemnly and unanimously?—

I cannot say.

Did the members all stand up when that motion passed so solemnly?

I don't recollect; but I should suppose so, from what is written here.

Do you remember any thing about declaring before God and the world, any thing?—

I cannot say.

Do you remember any thing that was said about calami­tous circumstances?

No; there was a resolution in case of a Convention Bill.

Do you remember any thing about paying no regard to such an act if it passed?—

I never would agree to that.

Do you remember any speech or motion being made as to what the Convention were to do, upon the meeting being dis­persed?

If they were dispered they were to meet in another place.

Who was it that spoke with regard to that; did Mr. Mar­garot say any thing, or make a speech upon that subject? recol­lect yourself?—

I cannot recollect.

Was is debated? Was there any difference of opinion upon that subject?

I cannot recollect.

Do you remember any motion being made with regard to it?

I believe there was.

Was it Mr. Margarot that made the motion?

I am not very certain whether he did or not, but I rather suspect he did.

Look at that paper (a motion for appointing a place of meet­ing). Did you ever see that paper before?

Yes in the Court.

Do you recollect such a motion being made, and if Mr. Margarot was the person that made it?—

Yes.

You said sometime ago that you acted as Clerk in the Ga­zetteer Office, and that your brother took notes in short-hand of the debates in the Convention? now, were they printed?

A, My brother took the notes.

Did you read them?

Yes, after they were printed.

So far as yourself read, were they accurate?

They were pretty exact.

Was any thing said, so far as you remember, in the printed paper which had not passed in the Convention?

I cannot say.

Was the statement given in the Gazetteer accurate of those motions and resolutions which you yourself heard?

I believe they were.

Do you recollect any speech by Mr. Margarot, or any body else, in which spies were mentioned?—

No, I do not.

Who is the manager of the Gazetteer?—

Mr. Scott.

This is a paper which is printed in the Gazetteer Office, I suppose?—It looks like it.

Is it a copy of the Gazetteer?—

Yes.

Are you a judge of sedition

I don't know what sedition is.

Have you any idea of treason?—

Yes, I have.

Q What is your opinion of loyalty?

Loyalty is certainly to be true to the constitution of the country.

Have you ever seen any thing in my behaviour of a sedi­tious tendency?

I don't know what sedition is; if you will tell me what sedition is, I will tell you.

That is a difficult thing; it seems nobody is agreed upon that here. Have you ever seen me behave in an outrageous in­decent manner?

No; you expressed a wish to have grievances redressed.

Did I ever express a wish to overturn the constitution, or bring it back to its original purity?

To bring it back to its original purity.

Did I ever express wish to throw every thing into con­fusion, or to obtain a reform in parliament?

That was what you always wished, to petition for a re­form.

Was my behaviour consonant to my professions in that respect?—

Yes.

Have you ever seen me drunk?—

Never.

Have you ever seen me in a passion?—

I never did.

Have I ever had any revising of what has here been called the Minutes of the Convention, in the Office of the Gazet­teer?

Never that I know of.

Among your ideas of the Convention of Emergency, did you imagine that the convention was to proceed to open force, or rather that it was to meet to deliberate?

To meet and petition parliament for a redress of griev­ances.

You heard me, it seems, mention spies; did I ever express any fear of them?

No, I don't recollect hearing you mention spies.

I understood that you said so?—

No.

Did you ever see any thing in the Convention but what was perfectly peaceable and orderly?

I never saw any member behave disorderly or unpeacea­bly.

Were there not some regulations drawn up for the more orderly regulation of the Committee? Was not that the busi­ness which we first set about?

I don't recollect exactly; but I think there was a Com­mittee of Regulation.

The question I am going to put, will require your recol­lection, and the attention of the Jury. Have you ever heard any man declare himself my enemy?

I have heard several people declare themselves enemies to us, as the British Convention; but I cannot condescend to re­collect any particular person.

Was you in the Sheriff's Office the same day that I was?

Yes.

Did you hear me converse with any of the messengers there?

I recollect being in the Sheriff's Chamber when there were some messengers there; one of them and you had some words.

What did he say?

I don't recollect the particular word he said, but I know he said something which I thought improper at the time; I think it was one Lyon, if I recollect aright.

You cannot recollect what that man said.—

No.

What was the subject of the dispute; you say there were words between us.

I believe the substance of it was his manner of seizing you; that he would not shew you the warrant he had to take you up, or something of that

And have you entirely forgot his expression?—

Yes.

You have been asked about burning or destroying a mo­tion. Did you ever hear me say any thing to that purpose?

No.

Did you say I was chosen a member of the Secret Com­mittee?—

I cannot say.

Did that Secret Committee ever act to your knowledge?

Not that I know of.

Have you ever seen me act as preses or chairman?

I am not very certain.

What is the business of a President of the Convention?

To keep order.

Is he merely to regulate the speech or the behaviour of the Convention?

Merely to regulate the behaviour of the Convention.

His powers go no further.—

No.

It appears that the blank that is left in the Minutes, that the writing just before it is your hand-writing?

No; that was another blank for four lines.

What profession are you of?

Clerk in the Gazetteer Office.

Was you a member of the meeting of the Friends of the People?—A Yes.

Was you a member of their society when it got the name of the British Convention?—

Yes.

Was Mr. Margarot a member?

He was there, and I understand him to be a Member.

Do you know who acted as Secretary to the Committee?

Mr. Skirving.

Had Mr. Skirving any assistance?

I have seen my brother taking notes.

Did you ever take notes?

Never as assistant to the Secretary.

And what was your reason for taking notes?

For my own amusement, and for publication.

Do you write short-hand?—

Yes.

Did you take them in short hand upon the occasion?

Yes.

Recollect, if what you took down was an accurate state­ment, as far as your abilities went, of what passed in the Con­vention?

I don't know whether it was an accurate statement; I did not make it wilfully inaccurate: I was taken with a cold, and did not hear well.

You wished to make it accurate?

I did not wish to make it inaccurate.

Were they afterwards published in the Gazetteer?

Yes, from the notes that I took, I drew out an account, which was published in the Gazetteer.

Does it consist with your knowledge, that the minutes were read over to the Convention, the next day after?

No.

Had you occasion to revise your notes in the Gazetteer after they were thrown off?—

Yes.

Did it appear to be an accurate statement of what had passed in the Convention?—

Exactly, as far as I recollect.

Have you ever had occasion to see the scroll of the Mi­nutes [Page 66] of the Convention? should you know them again if you should see them?—

I have seen them lying there.

Should you know your brother's hand-writing.—

Yes.

Was Mr. Callendar a member of the Convention?

He used to attend there.

Did you ever hear any thing of a motion made by him respecting the Convention Bill?

I recollect such a motion being made in the Convention.

Who was it made by?—

I am not certain.

Do you remember hearing a debate on the motion re­specting the Convention Bill?

I recollect there was a debate upon that motion, but I don't recollect the particulars.

Do you remember any thing mentioned in that debate respecting a Convention of Emergency?

I think it was at the same time that the Convention of Emergency was mentioned?

Do you remember any other event in which case it was to take place?—

I don't recollect.

Do you remember any thing having been said about a fo­reign invasion in that debate?

I believe there was something said about a foreign invasion.

Are you sure nothing was said as to a French invasion?

No.

Was any thing said about Hessians and Hanoverians?

I don't recollect that; it was, in general, troops, and foreign invasion.

Was any thing said of foreign troops landing in this country?

I believe there was, but I cannot say I heard mention made of both.

Did you hear of the Habeas Corpus Act?

Yes; on the same occasion.

Do you remember any motion, or any speech having been made with respect to the dispersion of the meeting, and what was to be done in thot event?

I recollect something being said about the dispersion of the Meeting; that if they were illegally dismissed, the Conven­tion should meet.

Do you mean the Convention of Emer­gency?

I suppose it meant the members then present.

Do you recollect who it was that spoke with regard to the dispersion of the meeting?

A number of persons spoke, but I cannot recollect who it was.

Did Mr. Margarot make a speech upon that subject?

I think he did.

Did you hear of any motion being made with regard to a Secret Committee?—

Yes.

How many did it consist of?

I don't recollect the number.

Do you remember who made the motion with regard to it?—

I don't recollect.

Was Mr. Margarot a Member of the Secret Committee?

I don't recollect whether he was or not.

Look at that paper; did you see it in the Convention at any time?—

I never did.

Did you hear that motion made for a Convention of Emergency?

I recollect a motion to that purpose having been made.

Do you remember any thing of a Secret Committee being appointed?—

Yes.

Was Mr. Margarot a member of it?

I do not recollect.

Look if they were published at your Office?—

Yes.

Were these publications known to the Convention?—

They were to individuals in the Convention.

Was it never mentioned in the Convention that it was to be published?

It was mentioned that an account of the proceedings of the Convention were to be published; but I don't recollect that that was in the Convention.

Was there no resolution in the Convention to support that paper?

There was some motion to that purpose, but I don't re­collect any resolution being come to upon it.

You took notes for the purpose of publishing them in the Gazetteer. Did you ever submit these notes to me before they were published?

I never did.

You say you was as accurate as possible?

I don't know that I was inaccurate.

Are you hard of hearing?

I was at that time, and still do continue a little so.

Was there ever any talk in the Convention of our Con­vention of Emergency being for the purpose of assisting the French if they invaded this country?

I never heard of such a thing.

Did such a thing ever enter your head?—

No.

Nor any body else, in their senses, I believe. You have heard of a Secret Committee. Do you know whether that Se­cret Committee ever did any thing?

I never heard of their doing any thing.

What was the mode of appointing Committees?

The general mode was, that they were appointed by the Sections.

Was there not among the regulations of the Convention, one which expressly enjoined on such Members, as should be chosen to any office, to accept of the same; that is to say, that it barred them a refusal?

I think I have a recollection of that, but I am not positive.

You say I made that motion for the Convention of Emer­gency. Did I propose to repair to that Convention armed?

I did not hear any thing of that sort.

Did I propose carrying on, by that means, any correspon­dence with any foreign enemy, from whom an invasion was to be expected?—

No.

Was the Gazetteer submitted to the Convention before it was published?—

That was impossible.

Then they did not superintend the publishing of the Ga­zetteer?—

Surely not.

Did they ever order the printing of the Gazetteer?

No.

At whose expence was it carried on?

At the expence of the publisher, Mr. Scott.

The Convention never furnished any thing towards the expence of the Printing?

Never a farthing.

Then it was carried on totally independent of the Con­vention?—

I understand it to be so.

It seems that you recognize the scroll of what is here denominated the Minutes of the Convention; could you swear to it?

No, because I never saw it till I saw it in the Sheriff's Chamber. I have seen a scroll of Minutes lying upon the table, but I never perused them.

Does there appear to be any alterations, or interlinea­tions on that pretended scroll?

I have seen the pen drawn through some words.

It appears then, that you know nothing at all about that scroll?

No, I never perused any of it till I saw it in the Sheriff's Chamber.

When the illegal dispersion of the Convention was spoke of in the Convention, did you thereby understand a dispersion of the Convention in a constitutional manner, according to the laws of the land, or did you understand a dispersing of it by force, unaided by the laws?

I understood the dispersing of it without law.

Did you understand, that, by the words illegal dispersion, was meant any dispersion by the Magistrates of Edin­burgh, or the Sheriff of the county?

I understood it meant a dispersion without any law.

What is your opinion of magistrates? are they to act according to law, or do you apprehend there is a code of laws in this country which is to be the rule of their con­duct?

I understand that the magistrates were to act according to law; and that if they did disperse the Convention, it would be without law.

If we may judge from the appearance of this man, he is in a state of intoxication, and certainly very unsit to be examined in a court of justice, as a witness; I should there­fore, were his evidence never so material, avoid examining him; but before I give him up, I wish to be satisfied whether it is the real state of the man, at this moment, or whether, which is pos­sible, it may be a mere pretence, and an appearance put on by himself, on purpose to avoid being examined; if your Lordship will allow him to be called back again, and put such questions to him as may be deemed proper, that the Jury and your Lordships may be satisfied whether he is so or not.

Did you observe any thing particular in the appearance of this witness in the morning?

He appeared to be the same in the morning that he is now.

Was you inclosed this morning, at the same time, with the other witnesses?—

Yes.

Have you got any provision since you went into that room?—

Yes.

Have you got any liquor?—

Yes.

Any considerable quantity?—

None at all.

He says he is not in liquor, therefore, we may proceed to examine him.

Was you a Member of the British Convention?

Yes, I had the honour to be a Delegate.

Did you frequently attend the meetings of that Con­vention?—

Yes.

Did you ever assist as Secretary there, upon any occasion?

Never.

Did you write any minutes of the meeting at that time?

When I was called upon to do so, I did.

Did it happen at any time?—

Yes, once.

Have you seen the pannel at any of those meetings?

Yes.

Did you ever see him act as Preses, or Chairman at this meeting?—

No.

Look at that, and see whose hand-writing it is?

I believe it is my writing.

Who gave you that motion?—I wrote it myself.

Who proposed it to you?—

I proposed it myself.

Did you write it by desire of any body?—

No.

What is your profession?—

A writer.

Are you in any writing-chamber?

I am a writer, and that is enough.

In whose chamber do you write?

That is not the question, my Lord; you don't speak to the point; you must speak to the point, my Lord.

Did you second the motion?

Yes, I counted it a laudable and proper motion.

Who desired you to second it?

I did it myself, of my own free will.

Did Mr. Margarot report that motion?

I believe he did; because it was his motion; and I wrote it, and seconded it.

Did you see Mr. Margarot sign it?

I don't recollect his signing it; I don't recollect whether he wrote it or not. Mr. Margarot is a man of courage, and a man of honour, and a man of virtue; and a man that would not deny his word—by God.

What is that you say?

I said he would not deny his word.

But you said something else.

I said by God.

He is either drunk, or affecting to be drunk. My own opinion is, that he is affecting to be drunk; and, supposing he is not affecting drunkenness, he ought not to get drunk, knowing he was to be called here as a witness.

I move that he be committed to prison for a month.

Are you a Member of the British Con­vention?

Yes, of the Convention that sat on the 19th of November.

Was it called the British Convention?

It got that name afterwards.

You was acquainted with Mr. Callendar, who was also a Member of that Convention?—

Yes.

Was you [...] present in the Convention, when a motion was made by [...]

I cannot recollect.

Do you remember a motion being made of what the Con­vention were to do in case of a bill being brought into parliament like the Convention Bill that passed in Ireland?

I was not there when that motion was discussed.

Was you ever present when any motion of a similar na­ture was discussed?—

No.

Were you ever present at any time when the motion was made respecting the illegal dispersion?

No.

Is that paper your hand-writing?

Yes; it is not only signed by me, but the body of it was drawn up by the section to which I belonged, and was by me transmitted to the Convention.

This motion or paper, or whatever it is, was drawn up in your class and brought to the Convention. Was it ever read in the Convention?

All that I can say for this paper is, that it was drawn up by the class to which I belonged, and was informed that it was delivered to the Preses for the time being, and I was not there that night; I was there only four nights altogether, and per­haps once or twice only

Did you give it in yourself?

I am not certain; there was always a return made every day of a new Preses for the succeeding day?

And you cannot tell to whom it was delivered?

It was delivered to the secretary, I suppose.

How are you certain it was delivered, if you was not present at the time of the delivery?

I am not certain of it.

Gentlemen, pray attend to this: By what authority did the classes or the sections, or whatever they may be thought pro­per to be called; by what authority did they draw up any mo­tion or paper? Was it by any express command of the Conven­tion, or was it an authority they assumed of themselves, as mean­ing to send their intentions, their opinions, to the Convention, there to be discussed?

It was generally by the authority of the minutes from the Convention the preceding night; but that paper was, as far as I recollect, drawn up without any minutes having been sent by the Convention.

You say this was drawn up by the class without any inter­ference of the Convention?

As far as my memory will charge me, that was the case.

You was originally a member of the Friends of the Peo­ple, and then a Delegate to the British Convention, and I under­stand you have seceded fron them?

Yes.

I must beg to ask one question. Does a reform in Parlia­ment appear less necessary to you at present than it did then?

I must appeal to the Court whether that is a proper ques­tion or not.

We have given full scope to the Pannel, because he is a foreigner; but when a witness refuses to answer a question that is not proper, we are bound to say he need not, unless he chooses.

I will not press upon a sore place. Do you know that that was read in the Convention?

I do not know; I was not there that night when the ques­tion was debated.

With the declaration of the Pannel, we shall now close the evidence on the part of the prosecution.

Now is your time, Mr. Margarot, to bring forward your exculpatory proof.

How can I bring forward my exculpatory wit­nesses, when they are not present, and I am not granted a cap­tion for them?

Are there none of them here?

Yes; my Lord, I will first call the Sheriff Substitute.

When I was apprehended and brought before you, did nor I make objections with regard to the legality of the proceed­ings?

You did.

Did I not complain of the treatment I had received in hav­ing been taken out of my bed at seven o'clock in the morning, and kept in a room where there was not even a chair to sit upon until five in the afternoon, as though I had been a criminal and a felon?

You mentioned these circumstances; and I think my an­swer was, that I was exceedingly sorry for it, but that they had not been communicated to me, or I should have taken care that you should be better accommodated.

Did I not state to you the illegality, as I apprehended, of arresting a man without even shewing him the warrant?

You mentioned that circumstance.

Did I not promise you that I would enter a protest against those proceedings?

Yes.

Have I been as good as my word? have you been served with a protest?

Yes; I have.

All I mean to ask you, my Lord, is, whether you could discern any confusion, tumult, or riot, at the meeting at Laing's workshop on the 6th of December, at your entrance?

There was no other riot, that I know of, than what was occasioned by the magistrates interfering.

Then it was the magistrates caused the riot?—very well, my Lord. Was you acquainted with the business that the Con­vention were upon that night?

No, I know nothing farther than it was a Convention for illegal purposes.

Do you apprehend, my Lord, that petitioning Parlia­ment is illegal?

Does your Lordship think I need answer that?

I think not.

Were you not told that the intention of the meeting was to consider of an address for a reform in Parliament, by petition to the King or to that Parliament?

I certainly heard some such thing.

Whether, upon the preceding night, when I was absent, when you interrupted the Convention, you was not likewise told that the business they were going to proceed upon was, whether it would be best to petition the King or the Parliament for a Re­form?—

That I was told by Mr. Skirving.

Now, my Lord, comes a very delicate matter indeed. I mean to call upon my Lord Justice Clerk, and I hope that the questions and the answers will be given in the most so­lemn manner. I have received a piece of information which I shall lay before the Court, in the course of my questions: first, my Lord, are you upon oath?

State your questions, and I will tell you whether I will answer them or not; if they are proper questions, I will answer them.

Did you dine at Mr. Rochead's, at Inverleith, in the course of last week?

And what have you to do with that, Sir?

Did any conversation take place with regard to my trial?

Go on, Sir.

Did you use these words: What should you think of giving him an hundred lashes, together with Botany Bay? or words to that purpose?

Go on; put your questions, if you have any more.

Did any person, did a lady say to you that the mob would not allow you to whip him? and, my Lord, did you not say that the mob would be the better for losing a little blood? These are the questions, my Lord, that I wish to put to you at present, in the presence of the Court: deny them or acknowledge them.

Do you think I should answer questions of that sort, Lord Henderland?

No, my Lord, they do not relate to this tri­al: questions as to facts, which are at all material to the charges contained in this indictment, my Lord Justice Clerk is obliged to answer, but not otherwise.

What may have been said in a private com­pany cannot in any way affect this case as to the Pannel at the bar: it certainly cannot throw any light upon the subject: my Lord, I have concurred in allowing this gentleman, who is a stranger from London, to put such questions as I never before heard of in a Court of Justice, where, my Lord, every subject of this country, the meanest and the poorest that stands at that bar, may have the assistance of counsel learned in the law. If his situation was such that he could not afford it, he might have got it by the authority of this Court, which would have pre­vented many things that were stated upon the relevancy. My Lord, there has not been a question put to your Lordship that could at all avail Mr. Margarot as to his innocency in this trial, [Page 75] and your Lordship very properly waved answering them. I am of opinion that you ought not to answer questions of that sort, which cannot involve the fate of the trial; I therefore think that it is not consistent with the dignity of this Court, and cannot be beneficial to the Pannel.

Any thing that may tend to exculpate him, or alleviate the crime charged against him, had he proposed ques­tions of that sort, not only my Lord Justice Clerk, but every one of us must have answered them by the laws of the country; but the answer to none of these questions can either tend to ex­culpate him or alleviate the offence of which he is accused. My Lord, not one of them are proper, not one of them are compe­tent, and ought not to be allowed to be put; and were he not a stranger to this country, I should look upon it as an insult offered to this Court.

The Pannel is allowed to adduce what ex­culpatory witnesses he thinks proper; your Lordship well knows that by the constant rule of this Court, before the Pannel pro­ceeds with his exculpatory proof, he is called upon to state the nature of that proof: he has put questions to your Lordship, and it appears to me that no answer to those questions could in any degree tend to exculpate or alleviate the charges against him.

Have you any other witnesses?

It is needless, my Lord, when I am told that the answers to such questions would neither exculpate me nor alleviate the charges against me, but it would have gone to shew the Jury that I was pre-judged before my trial came on; and I did mean indeed to have followed it up by another question, had you been on your oath; but as you are not, I will not put it.

Have you any other witnesses to adduce?

Yes, my Lord.

For what purpose do you call him?

To ask him a question concerning something that appeared in one of these papers, The Edinburgh Herald.

That is not a paper libell'd upon.

No, but it libels me and the friends of a Re­form in Parliament; it is a comparison between the Friends of a Reform in this country, and the Anarchists in France, and I want, but I don't see why I need tell my wants, unless he is to be called; I want to know from whom it was that he received the original of this letter; that is a fair question that I have a right to ask in any court of Justice, and it is a question that ought to be answered: 'tis a paper that has thrown an odium upon the Friends of Reform.

This would lead into a very extensive field, if the Pannel be allowed to go into an investigation of all the [Page 76] writings that have been published, that have thrown, as he says, an odium upon the Friends of Reform, and there is no­thing founded upon it against the Pannel.

This paper is no part of the evidence pro­duced against Mr. Margarot, otherwise he might be entitled to enquire by whom it was put in; but to go into a question of eve­ry thing that has been said for and against the Friends of the People in the newspapers, is totally irrelevant to this trial; for if Mr. Margarot has been injured in that respect, the law is open to him, not on this trial, but on another occasion, and it can have nothing to do with this trial.

By an act of 1748, it is the prisoner's duty by that Act of Parliament, to give in, the night before the trial, or sometime before the trial, the facts upon which he is to found his defence, and he shall be allowed to prove nothing in his de­fence, but what is contained in that list of facts; but if what he has now stated would be material to his defence, I am sure the Lord Advocate would allow him to prove it; but there is nothing here that could tend either to exculpate or alleviate; it would lead us into every thing that has been wrote, pro and con. upon the subject, and who it was that gave the foundation for it, and therefore I conceive it not regular.

I am of the same opinion; I think it can be of no avail to him upon the face of the earth.

It is very true, my Lord, that there is a statute of the late King, and I think it was a very proper rule that was adopted by that statute, and I am sorry that it is no more attended to than it is, and I should be sorry to deny this Pannel any thing that could avail him in his defence, and he might have had the advice of Scots lawyers or agents, and there­fore I am of opinion, that it would not tend to criminate other people who are not here, or are not put upon their de­fence.

Then it is needless saying any further upon that; it would only have tended to clear up the minds of the Jury, who might have received unfavourable impressions, and which might have been done away by some questions put to the printer; but which; perhaps, some people would wish to see en­couraged.

What business are you?

A friend of the people.

Do you live upon that?

I live upon my father, Donald Calder, merchant in Cro­martie.

What are you?

I am a student, and attend the university here.

Were you ever present at any of the meetings of the General Convention of Friends of the People in 1792, and the beginning of 1793?

Not in 1792, but I was a member of the Convention of April 1793.

What is your opinion upon the views of those Conven­tions?

I consider them to be perfectly legal.

What was the purpose of their assembling?

To obtain a reform in parliament.

Were you ever interrupted in those meetings by the Civil Magistrates?

No; as far as I know, I never was.

Did you ever hear, in the course of your communications with other people, that the magistrates deemed those meetings seditious and illegal?

No, I never did.

You don't know of any members of those Conventions ever having been apprehended, in consequence of their being members of those Conventions.

No; I never did.

Was you ever present at any of the meetings of the last British Convention?

Yes, I was occasionally.

Was there any material difference in their proceedings?

I certainly know of no difference; there might be some difference in their mode of expression, as to the objects they had in view.

Was the mode of proceeding in these objects nearly the same?

They were, as far as I know.

Were the one and the other equally void of violence, tumult, or sedition?—

I never saw any thing of the kind.

Were any seditious doctrines ever held or authorised in the British Convention?

Nothing that I should call seditious myself, or that I ever thought seditious.

Did you imagine it to be a part of the people's right to meet in that manner, to petition parliament or obtain a reform?

I always understood so.

Was you present when I was said to have made the mo­tion with respect to the union between Scotland and England?

I don't recollect the time the motion was made; but I think I remember a motion of that description.

What was the intention of that motion, if you can recol­lect any thing of it; as far as you could infer from the words that it was expressed in, was there any thing in it of an evil tendecy with regard to the king and government of Britain?

As far as I recollect, it was a general sort of a plan of operations between the societies in England and Scotland.

To produce what end?

To establish a correspondence between the societies of Eng­land and Scotland, upon a constitutional mode of proceeding to petition the legislature.

Was you present when (as he is called here) Citizen Cal­lendar made a motion respecting a Convention bill?

I don't recollect it; I don't think I was present at the time that motion was made.

But you understood the nature of that motion to have re­spect to the time when a Convention Bill should be brought into the House of Commons: did you understand that the Conven­tion of Emergency, which was to take place on the introduction of such bill, or rather whether the Delegates of the Convention of Emergency were to assemble, immediately upon the introduc­tion of such Bill, or wait till it had passed in the House of Com­mons?

They were to assemble, as far as I recollect, upon the in­troduction of such a Bill.

I suppose that you thought that this Convention was to oppose that bill?—

Yes.

In what way.

In a legal and constitutional manner; by petitioning Par­liament, or by counsel.

Had you any apprehension that these Delegates meant to employ open violence?

I never heard any thing of that kind.

Were there any warlike preparations for that purpose?

No.

Was there any sum subscribed for that Convention?

No.

Were any extraordinary measures taken to give strength to that Convention, which the British Convention did not then enjoy?—

No.

Were you present at the meeting at Laing's?

Yes, I was.

What did you hear the Sheriff Substitute say?

I heard him desire them to disperse.

What reason did he give for the dispersion?

He said he had orders to disperse them; that it was an il­legal and unconstitutional meeting.

You are certain that he said he had orders?

Yes, I am very sure of that.

Was he not informed of the constitutional manner in which we were proceeding to debate on the question respecting an address to the King, or petition to Parliament, for a Reform?

As far as I recollect he was, though I cannot say by whom, but I believe it was Mr. Skirving.

Was you there the preceding night, when the Lord Pro­vost came to disperse that meeting?

I came in about the time that he came.

Were they peaceable before the Lord Provost came?

I was not there long before.

Was you there when he came in?—A: Yes.

Was there any confusion after he came?—

No.

Did you hear it explained to the Sheriff Substitute when he dispersed them at Laing's, what was the nature of the busi­ness of the evening?—

Yes, I answered that question before.

When force was said to be necessary to disperse us, after the token of force given by the Sheriff to the Chairman, was any further force necessary?

No; after Mr. Margarot came out of the chair, somebody called Mr. Gerald to it, and he took the chair, and we did not disperse till he went to prayer, and then we went away.

Was it actual force that dispersed us, or an ideal force, a submission to orders that we did not resist?

A submission to orders; but I looked upon the order of the Magistrates to be force.

But the members of the British Convention, when so dis­persed retired peaceably, did they not?—

Yes.

What are you?—

A Mason in Edinburgh.

You was a member of the British Convention?—

Yes.

With what view did you join that Convention?

I joined it with a view to obtain a Reform in the repre­sentation of the people.

Was you convinced in your own mind that the attempt to obtain a Reform was legal and constitutional?

I thought so, or I would not have been a member of it.

You are on your oath, and I desire you to answer this fairly; if you had found that the Members of the British Con­vention had departed from that constitutional line in which they sat out, and in which they were acting when you joined them, would you have abandoned them?

If I had thought that they had deviated from that consti­tutional line, I certainly would have abandoned them, no doubt of it; but I have not found it.

You have not then abandoned them yet?

No, not so long as they are constitutional.

What was the tenor of the behaviour of the Convention? was it peaceable behaviour and orderly, or riotous and tumul­tuous?

Peaceable and orderly.

Was any seditious doctrine encouraged or promulgated there?

I am at a loss to know what seditious doctrine is now, and I cannot answer that question; I did not understand it to be seditious.

Was any step proposed at any time that you might think unconstitutional, from your knowledge of the constitution, of the Bill of Rights, and of the Claim of Rights?

No not any thing.

What was the motive of the Convention, for endeavour­ing to promote a union between Scotland and England?

I understood it was to promote a union between those so­cieties that wished for Reform, that they might unite in adopt­ing the Constitutional means to obtain it.

You never harboured any idea that it was for a sinister purpose, did you?—

No.

Did you ever understand that if the French landed in England the Convention were to meet them?

Quite the reverse.

Do you know of any member of the British Convention having any correspondence whatever with France, directly or in­directly?—

None.

Was you present when the Lord Provost dispersed the Convention on the 5th December?—

No.

Was you present at the time the Sheriff Substitute dispersed them on the 6th December?—

I was.

Before the Sheriff Substitute came in, how was the Con­vention with regard to order, peace, and decorum?

It was perfectly orderly, but I was a very short time in before the Sheriff Substitute came.

What did you understand to be the subject of the debate that night?

There was a motion about another petition to Parliament.

What was said to the Sheriff when he attempted to dis­perse us?

I believe he was told that it was a peaceable constitutional meeting, and that his dispersing us was illegal; we were met for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, and were entitled to do so by the constitution.

What was his reply?

That he behoved to obey his orders; that he did not come to argue, but to obey his orders, to disperse the meeting.

You are certain he mentioned the words, his orders?

I think I am pretty certain of that.

Did I as Chairman require some sign of force from him?

You did.

What sign of force did he make use of?

He touched you by the hand, and said, come out, and you said, no, it must be a little more than that, and then he took you by the arm and gently pulled you out, as I would a friend, and then you came out; then Mr. Gerald took the [Page 81] chair, and it was moved, that we should dissolve in the ordinary way, with [...]; upon which Mr. Gerald went to prayer, and we came away.

Do you apprehend there was any idea of resistance, or any attempt to resist, or that any individual shewed a wish to resist?

None that I know of; it is distant from my idea.

Do you apprehend that the general apprehension was at that time, that the Sheriff was acting unlawfully?

I presume it was; but I cannot say what they thought.

However, they retired peaceably.—

Yes.

And no riot ensued?—No.

No drunken bout ensued that night, of the Friends of the People?—None to my knowledge.

You have been talking about the Bill of Rights, and the Claim of Rights, where have you read them? in what book is it to be found?—

I do not recollect.

Can an you tell any thing about this Claim of Rights, any of the articles of it?—I cannot tell the whole.

You have upon your oath told us, there was nothing done in this Convention contrary to the Bill of Rights, or the Claim of Rights; is the right of petitioning Parliament one of the articles?—

Yes.

Did you ever read any thing about illegal associations called by private authority, either in the Bill of Rights, or Claim of Rights?—I cannot recollect at present.

Did you ever act as Preses in the British Convention?

When I was there as President I was keeping order.

How often was that?—Only once.

You was a Member of the Secret Committee?

I was.

Who were the other Members?

Mr. Margarot, Mr. Brown, myself, and the Secretary.

Did that Secret Committee ever act?

Not that I know of.

I will, with the leave of the Court, lend you the Claim of Rights to read.

Did you ever read the Habeas Corpus Act?

No.

Did you ever read the Act of 1701, on Wrongous Impri­sonment?—

No.

Is it a Scotch or an English Act?

An English Act.

So that is your knowledge of the Act of 1791?

Stop, I believe I am wrong; for the Union took place in 1706.

Gentlemen of the Jury, you are called upon in the common and usual routine of your duty to decide upon the truth of the indictment, which I have felt it my duty to pre­fer against the Pannel at the bar, who is stiled, and calls himself in the paper which is termed a Declaration, emitted by himself, before a proper officer, to be a merchant, residing in Marybon in London; you are therefore his equals, and his proper and com­petent Jury to decide upon his guilt.

Gentlemen, I must say, and again repeat, that you sit this night in the common course and routine of your duty, although, if I charge my memory right, or I can trust to the Note which I took at the time the Pannel in that speech, or rather succession of speeches which came from him, not in my opinion with much judgment, not in my apprehension with much prudence; said something of Packed Juries, and (which he has a right to say) of my endeavouring to impose upon your understandings: I trust you will feel this moment, as I hope and trust the country at large will feel, that it is not in the power of the highest sub­ject of this country, be his situation what it may, to pack a Jury either here or in our sister-kingdom, or to prevent the meanest criminal from getting what the law and the constitution of his country gives him; a just, a fair, and an impartial trial. I trust you will feel at this moment, what I do in my situation as Pro­secutor, a complete and perfect independence; a desire to do my duty to my country at large; a determination to follow the dictates of my own conscience, and when I exercise that to the best of my judgment and the best of my understanding, as I know and I trust you will do this evening, I care not what is said either by a criminal in the moment of intemperance, or by persons without doors, endeavouring to shake the confidence which the people of the country have of the inestimable privilege of trial by Jury, I deny that Juries are packed, or that any instance has existed, or can possibly exist in this country, of so foul and so gross an aspersion being just.

Gentlemen, I am not without some apprehensions, in conse­quence of an indisposition which I have laboured under since I last addressed a Jury of this country upon a trial of a similar na­ture. I am not yet perfectly without my apprehensions, that I may not be able at this late hour of the night, and in a Court so crouded as this, to do what is on all occasions my bounden duty, and which the peculiar situation of this country, at present, more particularly demands, to state the nature of the evidence lying upon the table, joined to that which was read at the foot of it to day; that I may not be able to bring it in so conspicuous a point of view, or discriminate with that accuracy in the volume of Factious, Seditious, and Treasonable matter, which lies upon [Page 83] your table, that which you ought to dwell upon, and that which you ought not; but I trust in some degree to the goodness of my cause; I trust more to the understanding of the Jury, and I trust something to that feeling of regard to my Country, and that spi­rit which a good and loyal subject ought to feel and to entertain, that I shall yet be able to make out such a case from the evidence before you, which will impose upon you the severe, but the just, task of returning a verdict of guilty, against the person at your bar, upon the most solid, convincing, and conclusive proof that it is possible.

Gentlemen, the Pannel at your bar stands charged with Se­dition. Upon that subject we have to-day had much discussion; we have had a great deal of ignorance professed, by men who surely ought to have been the last to make that profession, who hold themselves out to their fellow subjects as Members of a Convention which is to teach reform to Parliament, which is to substitute something better, in place of what we enjoy, who have audaciously pretended to assume to themselves that impor­tant task, and that important character, of setting aside or of im­proving that inheritance which they enjoy from those who have gone before them, and, who I sincerely hope and wish attended with that propriety, and that degree of attention which was ne­cessary to the importance of that task before they entered upon it, or before they pretended to be ignorant of what Sedition was.

Gentlemen, to refer to Law Books is perfectly unnecessary; the Counsel who opened this Case to-day upon the part of the prosecution, traced his authority back to the earliest book which we know, or which the Law of Scotland acknowledges, the book of Regiam Majestatem; and if the Pannel at the Bar, or those Members of the British Convention who have professed to-day such ignorance of what Sedition is, if they had turned up, I am sorry to say, the only criminal book of the Law which we Law­yers acknowledge to be of authority, I mean, the book of Sir George Mackenzie, they would have found a separate and dis­tinct treatise, defining expressly the crime of Sedition, giving it its technical definition as clearly as the definition of murder, falsehood, forgery, rape, or any other crime which occurs in the common course of criminal jurisprudence. If any set of men let their ostensive purpose be a redress of grievances, as in this case, till it assumed the appellation of the British Convention of the Delegates of the People, associated to obtain universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, as was the case I say, of the former Convention, of which the boy Calder told us just now he had been a Member, if their purpose was reform; yet, if that pur­pose is not to address the King or the Legislature of the Coun­try, in a constitutional way, by petition to the King; but if on the contrary, they are aping and imitating the example of a neighbouring Country with which we are at war, or if it goes [Page 84] the length of convocating thousands of persons who may form these Societies, not to apply to King, Lords, and Commons, in a proper, legal, and constitutional way for redress; but if it does assume the power of forming itself into a separate body, or Con­vention altogether; if it goes the length of what I will shew you, upon a fair review of the evidence, it did in this case, over­awing Parliament in the execution of its duty; that in the event of an invasion, or some such similar circumstance, they were not only to control and overawe the proceedings of Parliament, but were, in the construction of common sense and reason, to join, in place of resisting the Invaders, for that is the conclusion which I shall draw from the evidence on the table, in spite of all the declarations and professions which came from the Associates of the Pannel this day at the bar: if it goes that length, it is clearly and distinctly the crime of Sedition, as clear and unequi­vocal as ever occured in the practice of any civilized country. The evidence, therefore, Gentlemen, is now before you—I state that to be my view of the case; that is the opinion which I form upon the review of it; my opinion is not binding upon you; but you will consider those parts of it, which it is now my duty to state and comment upon: you will give to it your best atten­tion, and lay your hands upon your hearts, and consider, whe­ther it is not the only, the plain, and the necessary deduction and inference, which arises not from any particular expression, cir­cumstance, motion, or paper; but from a general complex view of the whole, tallying and comparing it at the same time with the parole testimony laid before you this day.

Gentlemen, the evidence is of two kinds, written and parole: the principal and chief part of it (and I say so, because it is the most certain and the most unerring), is the written evidence arising from the minutes of this self-constituted Convention; from the papers found upon Mr. Margarot, contained and refer­red to in the general inventory upon the table, and from three numbers of the Gazetteer, which in the sequel I shall shew you to be completely brought home to this Convention.

Gentlemen, the first question which you are to consider is, whether or not this meeting, from the 19th of November (for I go no farther back) till the 4th of December last, where the Mi­nutes stop, because we all know, and it is proved to-day, that the Magistracy of this City, did, early on the morning of the 5th, apprehend these persons and seize their papers. The first ques­tion which you are to ask is this: Was it or not a meeting of a seditious nature? for if you are of opinion, that it was not a meeting of a seditious nature; if you should consider it in a dif­ferent point of view, to what I humbly presume to do; that it was an innocent, fair, legal, and constitutional measure, it is in vain, superfluous, and unnecessary for you to enquire, whether the Pannel is a Principal Actor in that Meeting; because no man can be found guilty of the proceedings of a Meeting which a jury [Page 85] shall be of opinion, is within the pale of the law, and such as the laws of this Country entitle any man to call together.

Gentlemen, something was said to day, in the course of this debate (if I may so term it), that was personal against myself as a Member of another Convention; something was said with re­gard to the astonishing circumstance, of not bringing the Bo­rough reformers to trial in this court, something was said also with apparent marks of exultation on the part of the pannel, that though three Conventions of the Friends of the People had taken place in this city, in the course of eighteen months past, no notice whatever was taken by the Public Prosecutor of any of those Conventions, till, as Margarot, I think, stated, we took alarm; because we saw, that he and his friends were in danger of opening the eyes of the people; that it was not till we were alarmed, and the eyes of the people were about to be opened, to the existence of those abuses, which it was their object to cor­rect; that I (negligent in my duty before) brought this man and others his associates to answer for the offence.

Gentlemen, my answer is this: I desire not to enter into the question, how far Conventions by Delegation are, or not legal. —It is not the question now under your consideration; had these Gentlemen confined themselves to what was the Law of their Country, or adhered to what they professed to be the case, I should not have felt it my duty to have brought them to trial, for being assembled in a Convention, or any thing of that kind, which had for its object either the correction of the County Laws, of the Borough Laws, or any other correction which the wildest or most unreasonable speculatist might think it worth his while to aim at.

Gentlemen, I never thought of bringing before you the Con­vention of 1791, the Convention of April 1793, or the subsequent Convention in October last; nor did I think of bringing the persons now charged before you with Sedition, till the very name they assumed, every advertisement they inserted in the papers, every thing verbal or written, demonstrated to my mind, demonstrated to Scotland, demonstrated to England, and to the empire at large, that they were a set of French Convention­ists.—I give them that name; persons who, as far as they durst, and their audacity I believe was matter of astonishment to the country at large, who durst take possession of this metropolis, who dared within its walls to hold out the example of a French model, holding out their example as the principle upon which they acted, as the objects and point to which their deliberations tended.

Gentlemen, something was said of orders being given to Mr. Davidson, the Sheriff Substitute, that he acted by orders: whe­ther he acted by order or not, whether he acted by the orders of the respectable Gentleman who was Sheriff Depute of the County, but who has since received a distinguishing mark of his [Page 86] Sovereign's favour, whether he went by my orders, or by the orders of any body else, is nothing to the purpose; I did consult with that Gentleman; I did consult with your chief magistrate; I desired them to attend to their duty; if any desire of mine was necessary; we acted in concert together; had we done less, we had been guilty of a breach of office; we had been guilty of ne­glecting the most important interests of mankind.

Gentlemen, were I to run over every single paper contained in that Inventory, were I to address you upon every motion which appears in that scroll of Minutes before you, I should de­tain you this evening to a very late hour indeed; but I shall se­lect a few of the most pointed and distinct motions, and evidence therein contained.

Gentlemen, it is an important duty in which you are now en­gaged; the Pannel either is, or professes himself to be, an Eng­lishman; he is in some respects a foreigner to this Country; but you will not consider when you are to decide either upon the life, the reputation or the guilt, or innocence of a fellow creature, whether he is of Scotland, or whether he is of England.

Gentlemen, I will say hardly a word in support of the written evidence which is now upon your table—it appears that the papers libelled upon, which I have just described to you, are traced home in the most complete and satisfactory manner possi­ble—there is not a tittle of written evidence—there is not a do­cument now before you which is not proved beyond a possibility of dispute—I refer in general to the testimonies of Mr. Da­vidson; of Mr. Scott, the Fiscal; Lyon, and I think Mack.— These four, I believe, distinctly trace them from the room in which Margarot and Gerald slept into the sheriff clerk's office, and having traced them there they are brought into court, and it is impossible to enquire further. Indeed some question was put by the Pannel at the bar (who displayed I must admit a consi­derable degree of ingenuity and acuteness in his own defence), as if it might have happened from the manner these papers were found, that others might have been carried in even by Lyon, the messenger—that other papers might have been carried in, as they were residing at a public inn in this city, by other per­sons, and that they were not necessarily the papers of Gerald, and of Margarot—In every case where written evidence is li­belled upon, in support of any crime, I ask yourselves if it is possible to give better evidence of the identity of papers than was done in the present case—or if you suppose, contrary to evidence and contrary to fact, that Lyon, the messenger, was entrusted by Mr. Davidson. or Mr. Pringle, or me, or the Lord Provost, with papers of a seditious nature, which he carried into that room where they were sleeping, in order to ground a false accusation against them—if you can suppose that possible then to be sure any thing that I have said, or have hereafter to say in support of the charge against this man, certainly will not [Page 87] be worth attending to—Gentlemen, on the contrary, these pa­pers were found in the room where they slept, were put into a trunk, which trunk was returned back to Margarot and Gerald, and you have it in evidence, that when it was examined in their presence, Gerald selected his—Margarot claimed the rest, or at least allowed them to be inventoried without denying them, and those which did not relate to this business, were returned to them both.

Gentlemen.—I trust that quibbling defence, for it does not deserve any other name, will satisfy your minds, that the gen­tleman does know that the import of these papers bears hard against him, and that he wishes to shelter himself from the infe­rence which your minds will drew, by stating a possibility, which cannot exist, that they might have been carried there by other people, in order to ground an accusation against him.

Gentlemen, holding that to be clear, I shall beg your atten­tion in the first place, to the minutes of the convention, for it is the ground work, and the basis of the charge against him; it was a paper which I was very anxious if possible to obtain, because I know that it would have been impossible to have asked a Jury to have given a verdict against any man upon suspicious, however strong those suspicious might have been, and you will be satisfied from what we saw this day, from the manner in which we saw the witnesses give their testimony, Citizen Ross particularly, who has spoke out; and I am sure it gives me plea­sure to applaud the conduct of a witness. I have great satis­faction and high pleasure in giving this tribute of praise to Ci­tizen Ross, and the same with respect to Coborn, who, I think, from the whole of his testimony, though a friend and associate of the Pannel at the bar, has given a fair, a true, and a deci­sive evidence.

Gentlemen, the first thing I shall beg your attention to are the steps previous to and accompanying that which is stated in pages fifth and sixth of the indictment. In page fifth you will observe stated a motion respecting a Convention of Emergency, and the cases in which they were to meet are proved in the first place by the negative evidence of their minutes, and confirmed by the testimonies of Coborn and of George Ross.

Gentlemen, that motion appears to have been first made by a gentleman of the name of Callendar, to whom this day was ex­clusively appropriated for meeting the justice of his country, but who it seems has not chosen to stand trial, and the first no­tice given of this motion, I will read from the minutes—6th day's sitting, 25th November 1793. Citizen Callendar moved, that in case the Minister bring into the Commons House a motion for a convention bill, it should be noticed immediately to the de­legates. This is the first appearance of this motion in the mi­nutes, and as it was told us by several of the witnesses to day, the forms of this house, as it is called, or of this Convention, [Page 88] did not admit of a motion made one day being deliberated upon till the next—the motion lies over accordingly till the ensuing day, when you will find the meeting again resumed, and Callen­dar's motion being then taken under consideration, amendments were proposed by several persons, and it was moved by Mr. Mar­garot, that a committee consisting of the mover, seconder, and those that had moved for amendments, be appointed to draw up a motion that may meet the idea of all, among whom was Mr. Calder, the young gentleman whose actual attendance upon the University may perhaps better qualify him to discuss questions as to the reform (or as I call it the alteration) of the constitution, than the learned Mr. John Clark, or Mr. Wardlaw, or Mr. Ait­cheson, or any of those gentlemen who have so well weighed and considered the ancient institutions of the laws and constitu­tion of their country, before they assumed to themselves the im­portant office which they have taken upon them. Citizen John Gartley moves, that the sense of the house be taken upon the spirit of the motion, upon the words of the motion, and after­wards upon Mr. Margarot's motion. Upon the first motion it was carried unanimously to adopt the motion as to its spirit; se­condly, by a great majority not to adopt the words of it; and, thirdly, that the amendments be referred to a committee as above—And at a subsequent diet, I mean a subsequent sitting of the Convention, the minutes tells us, that Citizen Sinclair read the amendments upon Citizen Callendar's motion, as agreed upon by the committee, and it was agreed, upon the motion of Citizen Blank, that the house should resolve itself into a commit­tee for its mature consideration. In the course of the conversa­tion, Citizen Brown gave a history of the habeas corpus act. After an excellent discussion of the question, pertinent remarks and amendments, the convention was resumed, and the whole as amended, being read over, the members stood upon their feet, and solemnly and unanimously passed the resolution as follows— Then follows a blank in the paper, and immediately afterwards the minutes proceed, at the distance of a page, and somewhat more, that Citizen Gerald in a very energetic, and animated ad­dress, expressed his happiness at the motion passed, and Citizen Brown, followed him in a manly speech, and proved the influ­ence of the executive government over the Parliament. Citi­zen Margarot then read and proposed the following motion: That a secret committee of three, and the secretary, (it is proved afterwards that Clark, Margarot, Skirving, and Brown, were the four who actually composed this committee) be appointed to determine the place where such Convention of Emergency should meet, that such place should remain a secret with them, and with the secretary of the Convention, and that each delegate shall, at the breaking up of the present session, be entrusted with a sealed letter, containing the name of the place of meeting; this letter shall be delivered unopened to his constituents, the receipt of [Page 89] which shall be acknowledged by a letter to the secretary, pre­served in the same state, until the period shall arrive at which it shall be deemed necessary for the delegate to set off.—This mo­tion was seconded by Citizen Moffatt, and carried unanimously.

Gentlemen, you have in the first place this proved completely by the minutes, that Citizen Callendar in his first motion, which was adopted as to its spirit, but rejected as to its words, had nei­ther more nor less than this object in view, that as soon as par­liament should think it necessary or proper, if they ever thought it necessary or proper, to bring in a similar bill, to that which passed in Ireland, that this should be the signal, or notification for calling the Convention of Emergency together, and that of itself without going to other cases of Emergency, was just this, that they were to act as a control upon parliament, and to en­deavour to overawe (you will consider whether in a legal or in an illegal way) the free exercise of the right of the legislature— Can you suppose that if their purpose was legal, if they had not wished to overawe, and intimidate the parliament from doing their duty, would you have found them alarmed or afraid of their conduct? Had their purpose been only to petition par­liament, and to state their remonstrances against such a motion (a right, which every freeman of this country possesses) what ex­planation is to be given of that secrecy in which this measure is wrapped up, if their purpose was honest, but is it so? you find in this paper an account of a resolution which they came to, in a most solemn and most unanimous manner, but which resolu­tion does not appear in the face of the minutes—if it was a re­solution merely of the quiet and loyal nature just now stated, do you suppose that motion would have been left out, or do you believe what Aitcheson tells you, and in which he is confirmed by the minutes in Ross's hand writing, for Ross's hand writing ends immediately before the blank, and Aitcheson's comes im­mediately after the blank—is it not clearly proved that what they were about was a thing which they durst not put into this paper, which they postponed to some other occasion, which Sin­clair, as Aitcheson tells you, proposed should be burnt, but which he resisted successfully, and prevented it from being burned? burning an innocent paper is not the characteristic of men of virtue—of men of character—of men conscious they were only doing what was legal, and what was just.

Gentlemen, let us then see what the parole testimony makes out, and whether it does not precisely confirm the conclusion, and inferences. I am now drawing not only from what is proved by the minutes, but also from what is not proved by the minutes, I mean the insertion of this extraordinary blank, to which there is nothing similar, except a blank of four lines, in all the 94 pages of minutes upon your table.

Gentlemen, Coburn, I think, tells you, that besides this con­vention bill, there were a variety of other cases in which this [Page 90] Convention of Emergency were to meet: He told us that they all agreed that the introduction of a convention bill was to be one great object when the people should meet, and I wish you would look at your notes when the people should meet to assert their rights—I am not to descend to criticisms upon a word, but I may at least beg to know whether, if it was merely drawing up a respectful petition to the King or to the parliament, it was necessary to put so strong a declaration as this to which Coburn swears, or was it not better to speak out the truth, that they meant, in such an event, to remonstrate against the measure, or petition Parliament against its passing into a law? but you have, on the contrary, an expression which favours more of resistance than any thing else—that they were to meet in this unknown place, which was to be concealed even from the delegates them­selves, and of course from they eye of the executive power— that in that event they were to meet and assert their rights, but as to the manner in which they were to be asserted, whether in a peaceable or tumultuous way, whether the mild influence of reason was to be exercised upon the British Parliament, or whe­ther by drawing out numbers of deluded men to do it by force, is your business now to decide, and your province alone to de­termine.

Gentlemen—The question was this day put to me, was I an inquisitor of the private feelings of men's minds? Had I a right to dive into the secrets of the human breast, or to discover what it was their intention to conceal?—That is the province of the Jury—it is their business, however careful men involved in seditious practices may be to gild them over with general ex­pressions, such as assembling to assert their rights; it is the pro­vince of the Jury, when they find persons engaged in these practices, not to take their professions, not to take what they declare to be the ostensible purpose in view, but looking to their actions, looking to their words, looking to their proceed­ings, whether they are secret, or whether they are public, to form your impartial determination on which side the scale of evidence preponderates, whether it is on the side of innocence, or whether it does not tally with guilt alone; whether it does not artfully and insidiously leave it open either to one construc­tion or the other; for if they had said that they would have as­serted their rights by open force, if they had durst to have said the British Parliament shall defend the Habeas Corpus Act, or we will defend it by force of arms, if in case of a French invasion, their purpose was not to resist but to co-operate with such an in­vasion, and had they expressed that upon their minutes, I would not have brought Mr. Margarot to trial, I should have held him a lunatic in every sense of the word.—If I had brought him to trial before you, I am positive you would have thought I had brought a madman to your bar; you might have pronounced a verdict of lunacy against him, but certainly would not have [Page 91] thought him a proper object of punishment. But, Gentlemen, we have in this country a powerful Executive Government;—we have laws which control that power, and we have a Jury which can check it in its progress in a moment; but we are to expect, while that Executive Government exists (which I trust will exist to all eternity to check every attempt of this kind) that seditious words will be ambiguous and doubtful upon the face of them; and when you find that Mr. Margarot, the Pannel, is a man of considerable ability, that he is a man aware of what he is about, that he is the ringleader of these persons,—of that poor unfor­tunate set of creatures who came this day to your bar—of boys —of persons intoxicated, as you have seen—that he professes him­self to be a merchant; that the trade in which he is engaged permits him, from motives of pure disinterestedness, public spi­ritedness, and wishing to extend blessings to Scotland, which he thinks we do not possess, for six weeks to dedicate his whole time and abilities to those objects which he has held forth to you as not only fair but justifiable; that he is the former of these mi­nutes, the maker of these motions, the ringleader of these de­luded people, who are ignorant of the commonest principles of the constitution, and who know at this moment as little of it as if they had never been members of a British Convention—I say when you recollect this, you will not expect any thing else but such an artful, insidious, and ambiguous mode of expression, as may admit with perfect safety either the one or the other con­struction, but which I shall shew you in the sequel can be construed alone into guilt, and establishes only this, that Mr. Margarot knew what he was about, that they eye of the Executive Go­vernment of this country was over him, he professed, and he in­sidiously and artfully, along with Mr. Sinclair, in this abomina­ble committee to which the matter was referred, did give it that general ambiguous expression, because he durst not do other­wise, and because, which is clear from the evidence of the mi­nutes, and from the evidence of Coburn, it was such a paper as they durst not blot their minutes with; it was such a paper as they durst not hold their face to; it was such a paper as was to give rise to a committee of secrecy, where, if the thing was right, secrecy was inconsistent; but where, if it was wrong, it was prudent, it was necessary, it was proper.

Gentlemen, the next thing I shall observe upon is those num­bers of the Gazetteer which are now upon the table. Citizens of Edinburgh, I use the word Citizen, I hope and I know in a fair and in a legal sense, you cannot be ignorant of the Edin­burgh Gazetteer. Sure I am I have the honour to be most inti­mately acquainted with it, and it has done me the honor to be most intimately acquainted with me.

Gentlemen, let us look to that paper, and though some slur may perhaps for a moment arise either in your minds, or in the minds of those who hear me, as to the authenticity of a news­paper [Page 92] as matter of evidence, I will shew you, from the evidence of the minutes upon the table, that it is, what it was meant to be, an authentic account, and that as far as it goes it states no­thing but what really and truly was the substance of what passed in the Convention. I should not suppose that the Jury would think me absurd enough to call them to idle paragraphs in a newspaper, if it had not some degree of authenticity. I refer you to the evidence of the Rosses, who tell you that the minutes were taken down in short-hand for the purpose.

Gentlemen, as to that of which Mr. Margarot complains, be­ing apprehended so early in the morning, I should have no ob­jection to take upon myself the blame; it was done for the pur­pose of getting at Mr. Skirving and him, and all of them, at a moment when they were not looking for us, otherwise they might destroy that evidence which I knew existed of their pro­ceedings, and from that providential circumstance, these mi­nutes were seized in Mr. Skirving's possession, which were a compleat evidence against him. I am entitled to say so, because the Jury have said so, which is a material circumstance against the Pannel, or against any person who either is or shall be tried for his accession to the proceedings of those meetings. It was proved that after waiting some time for the four deputies, the representatives, as I thought at first, of all England, but I find they are only the representatives of many thousands in London, many thousands in Norwich, and many thousands in Sheffield and different parts of the country, and these four gentlemen, the English delegates, came down here, it was thought so im­portant an occasion, that the Convention, which had been ad­journed for some days, again resumed itself; and, gentlemen, they told us that they supported the Gazetteer, not as a Con­vention, not in their corporate capacity, which I was surprized to hear stated, and it cannot be stated by Mr. Margarot, I have a different opinion of his abilities, it cannot be stated by him that he is not liable for the proceedings of the Convention; it is clear, from other parts of the evidence, that the Gazetteer is so far an authentic account of their proceedings, that they sup­ported it as individuals, and wished it well, as I believe they do with all their hearts and with all their souls.

Now, Gentlemen, let us look to this Gazetteer, and let us see how far it supplies any blank which may arise upon the perusal of the minutes regarding this extraordinary Convention, and you will see that it effectually does so, for you will find that the re­solution which Mr. Aitcheson did not wish to have burnt, be­cause he thought their conduct was open and avowed, and what the world had a right to know; you find that the Pannel at the bar was wisely and prudently of an opposite opinion; for it says, after stating the proceedings of the Wednesday, on which Citi­zen Mealmaker is in the chair, and where Mr. Callendar's mo­tion is rejected as to words, but approved of as to the spirit of it; [Page 93] and the next day, when the resolution comes to be new [...], it says Citizen Sinclair, Citizen President, your commit­tee appointed to attend Citizen Callendar's motion sat this forenoon, and I shall now, if agreeable to the Convention, sub­mit to their consideration the report of that committee. Fellow Citizens, you will feel this report to be of the last importance; it claims your most serious attention, and is to be decided by your united wisdom, and supported by your united integrity. The house resolved itself into a grand committee to consider of the report, which underwent a long discussion, and reviewed several amendments in the committee, and when the Conven­tion was resumed, it passed unanimously in the form of a decla­ration and resolution: the minutes proved that resolution was come to▪ but being ordered to stand the last article in the record of the proceedings of the Convention, we cannot insert it till the termination of the present session.

That is the account in the Gazetteer, the mystery of the blank is so far cleared up, if Mr. Aitcheson is to be believed, that this was what Mr. Sinclair wished to bu [...]n, you have it in a faithful account of the proceedings in the Gazetteer, that it was to be left out till the termination of the present session. You will consider if the hand of the magistrate had not been raised to stop their proceedings in the very middle of their career, whether it is possible that such a resolution as this would even at the end of the proceedings have ever made its appearance. But Ross tells you, he concurs exactly in the same thing, that this resolution ought to have been in the blank in the minutes, and therefore you have this distinctly proved, that resolutions of a certain nature were come to in a solemn and deliberate manner, unani­mously and solemnly in this Convention, which one man says Mr. Sinclair moved should be destroyed, and which ano­ther says, and the Gazetteer confirms, was to be postponed to the end of the session, and which have never made their ap­pearance, and therefore the blank is completely explained; but you have better evidence yet, you have the evidence of Coborn and Ross, to almost every thing stated in page five of the indict­ment. I desire, when you read that indictment, that you will lay out of your view altogether every thing but what is proved; every thing but what is sufficient evidence—You are to look at the testimony of Coborn, you are to look at the testimony of Ross, you are to look at the Gazetteer, and to a speech which I shall read this moment, and which tally so far as they go with the minutes, and if you are of opinion that that resolution, so far as it is proved, is one of a lawful nature, if you are of opi­nion that it is not of a direct seditious, nay of a treasonable ten­dency, for if it had been followed by one single act, in conse­quence of it, if under that resolution it had been proved that this Convention of Emergency had met, if it had been proved that they assembled under these circumstances of secrecy, in any [Page 94] of the cases which I shall just now shew you are proved, the persons who met would have been guilty of on overt act of high treason, under the statute of Edward III. which by the act of the 7th Queen Ann, is now the treason law of Scotland.

Gentlemen, I beg your attention to the words in the indict­ment: it states that the Convention, ‘considering the calami­tous consequences of any act of the Legislature which may tend to deprive the whole or any part of the people of their undoubted right to meet either by themselves, or by delega­tion, to discuss any matter relative to their common interest, whether of a public or private nature; and holding the same to be totally inconsistent with the first principles and safety of society, and also subversive of our known and acknowledged constitutional liberties, do hereby declare, before God and the world, that we shall follow the wholesome example of former times, by paying no regard to any act which may mi­litate against the constitution of our country; and shall con­tinue to assemble and consider of the best means by which we can accomplish a real representation of the people and an­nual election, until compelled to desist by superior force.’— This is not proved in words; but in a certain extent it is com­pletely proved by the testimony of Coburn, by the testimony of Ross, by the minutes and by the Gazetteer; for Mr. Coburn tells you, he remembers Mr. Callendar moving, that in case of a Bill being brought into Parliament similar to the Irish Conven­tion Bill, that the people should meet and assert their rights: afterwards the spirit of the motion was retained, but extend­ing to certain other events, in which the Convention should likewise meet in case of the suspension of the habeas corpus act, in case of an invasion, and in case of landing foreign troops. A moti­on was made for a committee to appoint a place where the Con­vention of Emergency were to meet, which was to be a secret with them and the Secretary. He remembers Mr. Sinclair's motion being come to with peculiar solemnity, and that the words before God and the world were used either in the motion or in the decisive resolution; he is certain it was in one or the other. He recol­lects he said they would pay no regard to any such Bill, if it pas­sed, or words to that purpose. I have the testimony of Coburn, of whose respectability I leave you to judge, deponing to the ma­terial parts of the indictment, that they were to meet to assert their rights, that they would pay no regard any such Bill, if passed; and if they were to pay no regard to the Act, if passed, were they not guilty of an act of rebellion against the state, when they tell you, that if the British Legislature consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, should pass such an Act, if, in the plenitude of their wisdom, they should think it right to do what Ireland has before thought it necessary to do; and God forbid that, without any declaratory statute, there should not be law in Scotland to find men guilty of daring to put into a paper [Page 95] words of the import that Coburn has sworn to, that they would pay no regard to any such Act; the inference follows necessarily and unavoidably, though not proved, until compelled by supe­rior force. Will you permit this, Gentlemen, let their conduct in life be ever so unimpeached; I impeach none of them. God forbid I should look down upon the shoemaker, or the mechanic, or consider him as less entitled to respect in his walk of life, than the proudest peer that lives in this country. I wish that they, be they of what rank they may, would dwell with a little attention, and consider with care and accuracy the nature of the Constitution which they enjoy, ere they rashly attempt ei­ther to invade its authority, as they have done here, or attempt to substitute their own crude ideas, and prefer one of their own idle imaginations. Whatever be the case with Mr. Margarot, I don't think he has that knowledge of the Constitution; sure I am, he has not that knowledge of law, after what I have heard to-day. I know nothing of him; but sure I am, from what I did see of him, I cannot think, and I should be sorry that the fifteen men I now address should think, that the Constitution was safely confided to such men in the line of life in which these men are; they cannot be fit for that duty which the History of the World shews has been with difficulty discharged by legis­lators of the highest characters, and of the first abilities. Go back to ages past, you will read of men who formed a state, and gave rules for its legislation, were raised to the rank of heathen gods; you will read of men who, by forming a constitution, and regulating its proceedings, obtained characters and names as eternal as the world itself, will these men be entitled to come forward, like Calder, who is placed in the university? Will these men be entitled to state themselves as persons holding out to such poor deluded creatures that they are fitted to enter on subjects of that nature? That this country, consisting of ten mil­lions of people, is to delegate the task of legislation to such a set of ignorant uninformed people—ignorant of the common prin­ciples of law and justice, talking of books they never read, and declaiming upon subjects they know nothing of? It may indeed tend, and here I am speaking directly to the point of criminat­ing this Pannel, if he was an attorney, which I don't know that he was, he has made an ill-use of his profession; his crimina­lity is without excuse; his guilt is indeed of a more atrocious na­ture. What is sedition but this; a convocating of ignorant, weak, and deluded people, under the pretext of redressing grie­vances of any kind, and inflaming them against the Constitution and the established authority of their country. But this is the direct fact proved against Mr. Margarot, it is the point distinctly brought home to him; and under such circumstances of resist­ance, inculcated upon the part of these ringleaders, which in my mind, and I trust in yours, will satisfy you that guilt was in his mind when he did so, and will entitle you to lay your hands [Page 96] upon your hearts and say, that he is guilty of endeavouring to spread the contagion wide among people who knew not what they were about; which if they had followed his advice, if they had rose into tumult and disorder, might have brought them to an untimely end; and perhaps these three days past may afford some idea of what might be the purpose of assembling such per­sons together, if they had been assembled by Mr. Margarot as a Convention of Emergency; if they had been told by him, now is the time to assert your rights. I assume, that these three days past within this city will shew us what was the nature of that object which Mr. Margarot had in view, and what the purpo­ses, and what the manner in which in such an event they might have carried their schemes into execution.

Gentlemen, I have now gone through every thing upon this part of the indictment; and certainly in arguing, and being ob­liged to quote considerably from papers, I must have gone long­er into the case than I had any idea of; but I trust I shall, before I sit down, in a few words, go through what remains, and prove to your satisfaction, that every part of the libel is clearly and dis­tinctly proved.

Gentlemen, Coburn tells you, that he thought the Irish Bill sapped the very vitals of the Constitution of the Country; and he says it was to be kept a secret. If any illegal power inter­rupted their meeting, that is the reason he gives for the secrecy; that is to say, that if either the magistracy of this city, or Par­liament itself, or any such inimical power, they being clearly the persons to whom he alludes, are the cause of the secrecy; and it is all I ask from him. You will consider whether it is not just the thing I am stating as the point in their view, that they were keeping it secret from those whose duty it was to check it, and prevent the consequence that might arise from it.

Gentlemen, the case of an invasion I have already stated to you was one of the cases under which the Convention was to meet, and I shall not repeat what I have said upon that subject; but I trust that you will think with me, that the only and the necessary conclusion is that which I have already stated to you.

Gentlemen, having done with that part of the case, I come to the next, which I observed in the course of my examination, and which I also observed in the course of the Pannel's speech upon the subject, seemed to be treated with very considerable con­tempt; and Mr. Aitcheson, a determined and bold-faced gen­tleman, told you his opinions in very strong, forcible terms. He expressed his idea, that the law of the country was come to a sad pass. Indeed he did not understand sedition neither. And he was a man, from what I have seen of his abilities, I should have expected he would have known a little more upon the subject than Wardlaw or Clarke knew upon the subject. But he did not know what sedition was; but he tells you, that the law of the country was come to a sad pass indeed, when the word citizen, [Page 97] which he gloried in, was to constitute a man criminal. And he told you, that the principles of this Convention were carried on in the same way, or very little different, from those which marked the proceedings and conduct of the former Convention. If they were, all I can say is this, that these former Conventions kept their proceedings very much a secret; for if I had known that they had done so, or come to any resolutions similar to those proved to day against this man, the members of that Convention should before now have stood before the Jury of their country­men. If they did so, then all that I have to say is, that they were more cautious, or they perhaps did not think that the time was quite ripe to express what they have since expressed. To be sure, the term citizen, taken by itself, is an innocent and a proper term; I have used it to-night: we are all fellow-citizens here to-night. And the word tocsin, whether it comes from France, or whether it comes from China, or any where else, I feel nothing criminal in that term taken by itself; nor in the first year of British liberty; nor indeed the decades, which by the by I find in one of the plans for the support of the Gazetteer, that it shall be divided into decades, and that each decade shall take so many copies of the Gazetteer, that is a Latin word; nor the first sitting; in the same way all the other expressions, which I will not run over, taken by themselves, are surely and unques­tionably innocent; we all may use them in an innocent sense, without the smallest apprehension, or the smallest blame. But here is the point, Gentlemen, upon which I found the charge of criminality; 'tis for this purpose that I collect these expressions, occurring in the proceedings of these minutes; and I collect them as links in the chain of evidence, to shew that this man has been guilty of apeing and imitating the French Convention, as acting upon that model and that principle, as in the same way was done last year in Ireland, and was the cause of the Irish Par­liament passing that act; it is a prooof of the animus and the intent of the persons concerned in that meeting, that they took for themselves the model and example of the present Convention of France, imitating it in every way in their power; and the conclusion is irresistible, that if they durst have gone forward, or if an invasion had taken place, we might have found these men joining that band of invaders, whom we find them imitating and accommodating all their forms to, you will consider with your­selves, laying your hands upon your hearts, can you, when you find in making it a case or emergency, under which they were to meet in a place secret to all the world, which might be here, or might be in England, the rallying point where the Executive Power of the country could not discover them; can you hesitate one moment in thinking as I think, and as I believe, that if such an event had taken place, that men who form themselves upon that model, and assumed as far as in them lay, and, as far as they [Page 98] durst the expressions of the French Convention, with which we are at present at war, and by whom we are threatened with that invasion, would have gone against the persons who were their own objects of imitation? or should we have found them endeavour­ing to establish that which they have so successfully established in that country, universal suffrage, one of the great objects for which this Convention was established?

Gentlemen, you cannot expect written evidence of what passed in their minds, until the evil is gone to such an height, until the invasion has taken place, till the tumult or the insurrection has happened, which these men have endeavoured to foment. Se­dition then would no longer be the crime: treason would be the shape it would then assume: it would then be the duty of every free and loyal subject to join hand in hand against these invaders, whom we have found in the moment of that invasion assembling in a secret place, as the delegates of thousands, and whom we find proving themselves by every act by which it was possible to prove themselves, to be the supporters and imitators of the French Convention. I call them French Conventionists: It is the essence of the charge against them: it is the point upon which I desire your attention. If they were the mere innocent Convention, or Assembly, or Association, or Society for Reform in Parliament, be their reform never so absurd, or the instru­ments of their meeting never so ineffectual for the object, I say God forbid you should find them guilty to the extent of the most trifling punishment which you can fix upon them; but if you find them directly avowing in equivocal and doubtful terms, that an invasion shall be one of the cases in which they shall assemble, not to say that which would be the glory of a loyal subject, to sa­crifice their live and fortunes to resist the invaders; but if we find them, instead of that, shewing their predilection for French forms, and I trust in God all they can be able to do, it is your duty and your province to dive into the recesses of the human mind, to consider the influence which arises from such proceed­ings, to consider, if you will not lay the hand of criminal justice upon them, to quell the conspiracy before it bursts into light; or if the deluded people, I speak of the inhabitants of this city, I speak of the inhabitants of Scotland at large, and of what has passed within these three or four days, are so much in the power of these strangers who have lately come amongst us, are to come in an unusual mode to a court of criminal justice either to over­awe that court, the prosecutor, or the jurymen; if they are to be indulging in unfair and scandalous aspersions, as that of packed juries, as that of imposing upon your understandings, it is for you to interfere and check the evil in its bud; now is the time, this is the moment for you to mark the disapprobation of their proceedings, and stop them, while it remains with a feature of sedition marked upon it verging upon treason, with such a tri­fling distinction, that it is almost impossible for a lawyer to find [Page 99] the difference. It so little, that when the indictment was pre­ferred against Mr. Margarot, had it not been for the speed with which it was necessary to bring him before you, I should have laid the case before the King's counsel in England, as to the ap­pointment of a secret committee, which was subsequent to the resolution of calling the Convention together, whether that per se was not sufficient to ground the charge of high-treason. Sure I am, but for the act of the 7th of Queen Anne, that the Gen­tlemen were far within the case of Scotch treasons; and in that case Mr. Margarot would have stood at your bar tried for his life.

Gentlemen, before I sit down, let me return again to the evidence. Mr. Ross, I think George tells you, that he had heard of a Convention Bill, and of a number of Hessians and Hanoverians to be landed in this country, that also was a case when it was proper for the Convention to meet at the se­cret place of meeting, that is to say, and it is the case at this moment, I believe, that a body of Hessians are passing towards France. If Parliament should choose to allow them to land upon this island, this was an objection of legislation; not that we could confide to the wisdom of King, Lords, and Commons, but the British Convention for universal suffrage was to decide alone what was to be done; a case much of the same kind with the other, even in the way that Mr. Ross himself states it. But I will not wound the feelings of that worthy citizen (and I trust that he hears me), by saying, that he concealed the truth, I will not say that; but he has forgot that mighty event which his bro­ther and Coburn swore to, which must have struck the mind and ears of every man who heard it; but his memory is a frail one, and with that observation I leave him.

Gentlemen, we are now coming near to a close. You will find a variety of other evidence, much of the same nature in number three of the inventory. You will find one of the docu­ments material to be attended to in considering this question, Whether the Convention is a seditious or a fair Convention? for that is the gist of the question which you are to try, and upon which you are to make up your mind. Now these papers are traced home to the possession of Mr. Margarot. Mr. Aitcheson, in his character of Assistant Secretary to the Convention, iden­tifies a paper to which he tells you in this Convention he put his subscription 'Hints on the question of union;' and in the inside are three or four different papers, which the witnesses who made the search swear were inclosed in it, and all relate to the self­same subject; and the only other odd circumstance which was thought of so much consequence in this case was, in that solemn way the appointment of that committee of union, of which Mr. Margarot was the chairman.

He appears to be the leader of this committee of union be­tween England and Scotland; a union which these Gentlemen, it seems, had authority to make; a union which we unfortunately [Page 100] have been deceived, as well as our fathers, in dreaming that we possessed a union that we thought we had enjoyed since the year 1707, which Mr. Aitcheson told us was nothing like the union brought about by this convention, with so much solemnity; a wild sycophant union, I think, he called it; and Mr. Margarot is the person who takes the active part in this committee. Let us see what it amounts to. I shall take the paper itself which Paterson, a man who, much to his credit, has seceded from that meeting: he, as the head of his section, admits that the paper was drawn up in his section, and was by him sent in a letter to the Convention. Mr. Margarot desired to know, How are you certain that paper was in the Convention? I will tell Mr. Mar­garot how I am certain of it. Mr. Aitcheson subscribes it at the back, "Hints respecting the Union;" and says, it must be put upon that paper in its reception; where Mr. Paterson tells you, he sent it in the common form from his section, which met in the morning, to the Convention, which met in the evening, and of which Mr. Aitcheson was Assistant Secretary; and there is no reason to suppose that it did not reach the place of its destination, the Masons' Lodge, at the foot of the Black Friars Wynd. And what is it; "Hints upon the question of Union." First, That the people of Great Britain, disclaiming any distinction of Scotch and English do now and for ever unite themselves into one mass and indissoluble union. Then it goes on, Make known to all concerned, in exclusive terms, that this shall be the motto:— Restoration of Rights. What rights? Universal suffrage and annual parliaments; a thing that never did, and that never can, exist. Let them go back to the History of England; let them go back to the deepest antiquity, it never did exist. Those people, of whom Mr. Margarot seems to be the ghostly father, had not heard of the Bill of Rights, nor the claim of rights; and knew not what rights they had lost.

And, Gentlemen, I have been taught by every writer of the laws of foreign countries; I have been taught by every enlight­ened foreigner who writes upon the subject; I have been taught by every Briton who ever stated an opinion with regard to it, that since the revolution, this country, originally free, resisted every invader, till gradually matured through centuries, by the slow mellowing hand of time, not by associations of such people as we have seen to-day, but it was clear that at that time, and till within these two years, we were the freest nation upon the face of the earth; but if it be necessary to constitute freedom that universal suffrage, or annual parliaments—that universal suffrage was a kind of proof of being free, we never have been free from all eternity, and are not free at this present moment. I hope in God, in that sense we never shall, because that never can take place, for the best of all possible reasons, as I believe the late Soame Jenyns says. It is the best plan of the whole, says he, for the best of all possible reasons, because it is impracticable [Page 101]

that all occurrences may be known from one end of the kingdom to the other, to instruct every indi­vidual of this one great but indivisible mass, in this way greeting together the inhabitants of this free country, France, to reject that mighty combination formed against them. Still they run upon the French expressions in every part of their minutes, in every speech in their Gazetteer, continually recurring to French words, French terms, and French expressions. In another mo­tion, by James Gartlay, which Aitcheson volunteered in telling me was not evidence against Mr. Margarot, but it proves being found upon his person, it proves the nature of that convention, of which he was not only a member, but an active leading in­strument, it is also marked upon the back by Aitcheson, and this motion is that the delegation signed John Gartley, who is the town drummer of Arniston near Glasgow, that the Convention took into their serious consideration the necessity of dividing the country into departments, in order that the friends of the people may have an opportunity of meeting in the particular depart­ment to which they belong, and thus form a sort of Provincial Convention, that they may become more particularly acquainted with each other. In the names of the delegates, James Gartley.

Gentlemen, the honour of the sitting appears to be given by the French Convention, to persons they wish to favour, so we find in the minutes, among other insignia of the honours of the British Convention, Secretary Skirving stated, that he had just now received five shillings from an unknown hand, for the use of the Convention. Honourable mention in the minutes was ordered to be made of this patriotic gift. Upon my word I never was in the French Convention, and I hope I never shall, but I should have supposed, from what I read in the newspapers, that I was reading of the French Convention in Paris. Citizen Ca­lendar moved, that no person be allowed the honour of the sit­ting, without the recommendation of two persons; it is a favour not to be bestowed rashly or lightly; which, with amendments, passed unanimously. Afterwards it was moved that captain Johnstone, and I am extremely sorry to find him here, if he is the individual to whom I allude at present, because it may per­haps compel other proceedings against him: but when he read an account in the newspaper of the sentence of Holt, the printer, of Newark, for re-printing the duke of Richmond's and Mr. Pitt's resolutions upon parliamentary reform, it was moved, that Captain Johnstone be admitted to the honours of the sitting.

Gentlemen, there is one other circumstance that I cannot help just in passing to take notice of, and it is that of a compulsory attendance enforced upon those persons who might have the misfortune to be deluded in a rash unthinking moment, into a participation of their proceedings, to shame them from doing, as Mr. Paterson, much to his honour did, return back to his duty. In this manner you will find, that no delegate is to leave [Page 102] his post, or is to get permission of absence from it, till he obtains a new delegation, a substitute in his place to act for him; we saw too much of this I think pointed at to-day. Mr. Margarot said, he would not touch upon the sore heel of Paterson, in the question proposed to the witness, which he refused to answer, and which the justice of the Court would not enforce for this highly favoured Pannel, who has been favoured more than any Scotchman would have been. He said, he would not touch the sore heel of Paterson, for having done that which I am sure you will join with me in thinking was to his honour; and God knows, when we look at those we saw here this morning, what this Pannel will have to answer for; but I trust what has been done this day will make them study the law and constitution of the country, before they give an opinion upon it, and before they trust again to such leaders as Mr. Margarot and Mr. Skir­ving. In one of the papers, Citizen Wilson, and another, re­quested leave of absence to be granted them; and it was moved that all the delegates should have letters to return immediately, and remain at their posts till the important business daily intro­duced in the Convention, shall be properly discussed; and in page 100 of the minutes, Citizen Scott moved, that before any delegate from the country shall leave his post, he shall write to his constituents to send another in his room. Agreed to, nem. con.

Gentlemen, the two instances which I have given are perfectly sufficient to shew, that in this respect also, as in their declaring themselves permanent, which is proved by many witnesses, and which is proved by the Gazetteer, that they, in every paper the most minute, imitate in every respect the proceedings of the French Convention. In one word, I leave this point for your consideration; repeating again, that those words taken of them­selves, or in any different circumstances, would have themselves been idle, and that which you could have grounded no verdict upon; but taking them in conjunction with the evidence of the Gazetteer, and the parole evidence this day upon your table, certainly do go to the point. Is it a seditious meeting or not, in as much as it is proved it was a meeting calculated for the purpose of overawing Parliament, and resisting any act which might pass until compelled to desist by superior force; and that conduct followed by their adopting every form of that country to which I am so often alluding, if you are of that opinion, you will find a verdict in my favour, for with regard to his being a ringleader in this business and being a man who conducted these Committees the evidence upon that point is so clear, it is in­volved in every word I have now read; the moment you have come to a determination upon the one point, it shews, that he is a principal in the guilt of being a Member of that Conven­tion, and a ringleader in it, as such, he is more responsible than [Page 103] the poor creatures whom you have seen to day, and who were under his guidance.

Gentlemen, I am afraid I trespass more upon your time, much more than I had any intention of doing, when I rose; but I can­not help taking notice of one thing which dropped from the gentleman at the bar, in the commencement of this day's trial he told us, that he had cited several persons, who were not evi­dences, this day upon the trial: men bearing the highest offices in the state, and at present discharging the duties of those im­portant offices in England. And he brought evidence which I dare say is the case, that, under the letters of exculpation, which issue of course, and in which he can fill up any name that he pleases, that he subpoenaed them in London by the forms of the law of England; in the course of something which was not a very proper argument upon the subject Mr. Margarot chose to refer; and if I am not mistaken, I thank him for the expression; he referred to myself and to my own candour, if the public Prose­cutor had not higher powers in bringing witnesses to this court than what he possessed. I have no difficulty, at all times and seasons, to give my opinion to a Pannel, whether I am bound to do it or not, and I was ill-prepared then to give him an answer; but I said I had no more power of compelling witnesses to come into this court, than the meanest criminal at the bar. Our rights, in that respect, and our powers are the same. I will give him an instance of it: A noted instance occurred twelve years ago, when one of your Lordships filled the office of Solicitor General of Scotland. A man of the name of M'Gee, a carrier of letters, was brought under an accusation of having embezzled letters and stolen money intrusted to his charge. The principal evidence was a woman, a relation of his own, and who, immediately after the fact was discovered, reitred to Eng­land. The Solicitor General brought his indictment against him. I at that time appeared as counsel for the pannel. The trial was adjourned from week to week, and from day to day; because this material evidence, the woman, would not come, for obvious reasons, within the jurisdiction of the courts of law, to give her testimony against the pannel. And now did she at last come? Having been concerned with him, she came at last because means were round to notify to her, that if she did not come to her duty as the witness against the pannel, she herself would be tried in England, as an approver of the crime; and therefore she came to save and redeem her own life, and gave evidence, as she was bound to do; and which she would have been compelled to do, if she had been in this country; and I hope that instance will satisfy him, that even the powers of the public Prosecutor are just exactly what his are: that he must take his chance of bringing witnesses from a foreign country, as we do; and if he is not successful there is no help for it.

But, gentlemen, if it is meant by saying that these men have [Page 104] not obeyed the citation, if it is meant to found any plea of fa­vour upon it, I leave the Pannel in full possession of any benefit he may derive from it; but if you were to give weight to such an objection as that, seeing the reason of it at present, there is not a pannel who would not be entitled to the same benefit, be his crime what it may, who will not tell you he has witnesses in Ger­many, in France, in America, or in the Indies, and you must al­ways take the pannel's word for it; and you will consider if there is any possibility of doing duty to yourselves or your country, if you receive excuses of that kind.

Gentlemen, before I sit down, I must observe it was said, that in all their pretensions they were not afraid of what they were about. I omitted to mention one very material paper, which I trust will satisfy you that the Gentlemen were perfectly aware of the danger of what they were about; in a letter from Mr. Hardy, who is the secretary of the London Corresponding Soci­ety, which was found in the possession of Mr. Hardy, after a long account of what was going on, and telling him, that they had sent draughts, and complaining of the short coming in of the funds which were subscribed, it seems, for the carrying Mr. Gerald down to this country; which, he says, had fallen la­mentably short of their expectations; and at last concludes thus: ‘I have to inform you of the wish of the Society, that you would favour them with the number of delegates in the Con­vention from England; also and how the civil and military power relishes your meeting.’ Upon the 8th of November, 1793, a few days after Mr. Margarot and Mr. Gerald arrived in this city, upon an object which they are not ashamed or afraid to avow, an object of the public good, and of Scotland in parti­cular, it is something extraordinary that it should come into the head of the secretary of the meeting, by which they were ap­pointed, to ask the question, how the civil and military power relished their meeting. The military power has never inter­fered: it cannot interfere to check such meetings as these though the consequences of such meetings, I hope and trust, never will be such as to render the civil power compelled to adopt that last and necessary measure; though, were I to look at the speech of Mr. Gerald, stated in the Gazetteer, mentioned in the minutes, and which he gave immediately after that so­lemn resolution was come to, I will not at this hour trouble you with quoting it, it would be clear to demonstration, that Mr. Gerald at that moment shews, in strict terms, what is his mean­ing, that this resolution was come to, with the purpose of resist­ing lawful authority by force, as Coborn tells you, paying no regard whatever to it, though passed by the Legislature; in that speech referred to in the minutes, and in the Gazetteer, he says, I rise to congratulate the Convention on the adoption of this re­solution, not only on the propriety of the measure itself, but on that unanimity and solemnity with which it is passed: then goes [Page 105] on a long story, with regard to the Irish bill. But the conclu­sion is this, though I could not get a copy of this bill, the heads which I have read are sufficiently explanatory of its detestable principles, which was a bill passed for the express purpose of preventing the meeting of a Convention formed upon French models, and imitating French politics. I read the other day a speech of one of the ablest men in the Irish Parliament upon that subject. The object of that bill was to check a society of united Irishmen; a society also with whom I have the honour to be ac­quainted; a society which sent some papers to this country of so seditious a nature, that even the first convention refused to re­ceive it, as being a treasonable paper, for which the unhappy mover is now suffering the punishment that the law has award­ed. He goes on: I hope the motion, which has passed this night, will convince the minister, that we are determined to guard against every attempt that may be made to deprive us of our rights; and, though by some it may be thought a bold, by others a daring measure; yet it will be found the best for secur­ing the peace of the country: for if such a law were suffered to pass, if men were not allowed to utter their complaints, a num­ber of rancorous passions would arise, and we should seek to ap­peal to that last terrible decision, the event of which is uncer­tain; but which God and nature allow. If the servility of the people had been less, if they had dared to meet, and in place of murmuring, had told the rulers, that there was danger in seek­ing to deprive them of their liberties, we need not have had that resolution to have recurred to to-night; but when I saw the calm deliberate countenance of every one present, and the so­lemn manner in which it was passed, I was convinced that it was not only a resolution of words, but a rule of action. This is the commentary which Mr. Gerald gives to that resolution, which I have already stated as being composed in artful ambiguous terms, and to which I have affixed so criminal and so guilty a conclusion. It appears to me, and I trust will appear to you, that the purport of that resolution ambiguously worded, and come to with such awful solemnity, was a resolution that, in any of those emergencies, if they had happened, was not to be a re­solution of words, but a rule of action; you are to consider whe­ther that is to be suffered; and I know, because it is the common law of the country, that your powers, as Jurymen, are sufficient to check such conventions. If such men are to meet to consider what are their rights, and what ought to entitle them to that last and terrible decision, the event of which is uncertain; but which God and nature allows. If you permit that to be allowed, where is the security of your laws, your lives, or your liberties? Where is the protection which this government gives to all, high or low, rich or poor, if these men's opinions, be they ever so learned, are to be set up in opposition to the British Parliament; or if they are to judge in what point they are to recur to that last [Page 106] and terrible decision, which comes to that which we see in a neighbouring country, where blood and devastation are the cer­tain consequences.

Gentlemen, before I conclude, something was said, and I hope I vindicated you; in the commencement of my argument; some­thing was said about the Juries of this country, something was said against myself and the other servants of the Crown. If he means the servants of the Crown in this country, I unquestiona­bly stand amongst them. It is said that we are the persons guilty of Sedition; that we sowed sedition between our master and our fellow subjects; and that we are the proper persons to stand at that bar; that to us are to be imputed the offences with which I have charged him. Upon that point you must determine, and I feel not the least difficulty in thinking that upon that charge I shall meet with a compleat acquittal: all that I now say, that standing in the situation which I do, and ably assisted as I am, I have never brought any indictment against any man for any of­fence, I never opened in my life a bundle of papers which were laid before me, containing the case of a proposed criminal, with­out an awful feeling upon my mind of the delicacy and the ex­tent of that duty which depended upon the exercise of my un­derstanding, and consulting my conscience upon the subject. If you differ with me upon this occasion, I should at least hope, if it is possible we can differ upon the subject, that you will not think that I have brought any improper or oppressive prosecu­tion before you; at least, if I am guilty of seditiously perverting the duties of my office to any purpose, I shall look back with some consolation that hitherto I have received the best support, which comes home to a man's conscience, the unanimous opi­nions of a jury of my country. Something was said of being a place-man and a pensioner. I am a place-man, it is true; I have been ten years in two high situations; and I have and am unquestionably liable to that unfashionable imputation of the British Convention; that even the boy they called exulted that he was not a pensioner. I plead guilty to the charge of being a place-man; as to a pensioner I am not, I should feel myself mean indeed in my own eyes, if, by accepting the situation I now hold, my independence was injured in the smallest respect. I have been, by accidental circumstances, early brought forward to those situations, if I found them militating against the dictates of my own mind, I trust, with all the emolument of it, nothing should tempt me to retain it, or prevent me from throwing it up. I feel that I have done nothing but brought the guilty to justice; and as to what they may say, I care not for it. They have my full approbation: they have a better thing, they have a right to attack me upon that score; as to a pension I have none, nor am I liable to such an imputation. I have, from the earliest period of my life, born in this place, from the moment I came to that bar, I have supported myself; and, were I to be turned out to­morrow, [Page 107] I should retire behind that bar, and my friends round me, as free of the public money, as poor and as independent a man as I was in 1784, when I was first introduced within in. I beg pardon for having deviated from that strict line of my duty; but having been attacked, and probably shall again be attacked as a placeman and a pensioner, which is the cant phrase of these gentlemen of the British Convention, I thought proper to say so much before I sat down, and before I call upon you, which, I hope and trust will be the case, to return that verdict which I think is founded upon the evidence, that this man is guilty of the crime of Sedition with which I have charged him.

Gentlemen of the Jury,—I shall come un­doubtedly with great disadvantage, after the florid oratory of the public Prosecutor; however, he fortunately for me has been so very profuse in many points, that it reminds me of Shakespear's proverb.

I address myself at present to my country, and through the medium of a Jury.—You are the representatives of that coun­try;—great is the trust reposed in you, you are men, I make no doubt, of untainted,—of unspotted characters, and I hope you will prove yourselves such.—High sounding words I hope will yield to plain sense.

Gentlemen, I am not an attorney, thank God;—neither am I a Member of Parliament,—thank God likewise.—It is the pub­lic Accuser's business to set forth, in the most lively colours, every crime, or imputed crime, which he states at the Bar of this Court.—I do not blame him for so doing. I do not find fault with him for making the most of his talents, or doing the most for the money he receives.—He has however tried to prejudice you in the first instance against me. He has thrown out that I have asserted you are a packed Jury.—It is a falsehood.—Forgive me, Gentlemen of the Jury,—forgive me, my country, if I speak a bold but plain language.—I cannot give you (for I am not a sycophant) high sounding words, but that which you will un­derstand. I did not say you were a packed Jury—I objected to not one of you, but objected to the unconstitutional way in which I said the Jury were chosen out of the Assize; because it is in the breast of Lord Justice Clerk to pick out such as he thinks proper; and therefore though you are not a packed Jury, when he chuses to exert his skill and penetration that way, you may become a picked Jury. However at present the cause is of great consequence; it is not merely a criminal at the Bar that you see in me;—it is not the crimes of an individual; it is not the efforts of one single person that are attacked;—no, it is at present your own rights which are attacked, as it is the rights of your country, and your country look to you to do those rights justice, and to sustain them.—Gentlemen, the public Prosecutor has found means to blend trials, crimes, criminals, various per­sons [Page 108] and various articles of accusation altogether, in order to make a sum total of such a size, as shall seize upon your imagi­nation, and make you behold a mountain of guilt, where, in fact, there is not even a mole hill of imprudence—In me at present, I am sorry for it, and it will appear perhaps a kind of pride; but it is the truth, that in me the cause of Parliamentary Reform is this day attacked—it is not the individual me—I should have escaped notice; but it is the dangers impending from abroad, and the dangers impending at home, on the heads of those who now occupy some of the highest stations in the state;—of those who, entrusted by the Crown with the greatest powers, may perhaps have made a worse use of them than they think they could answer for before a Parliament, fairly and freely chosen by the whole people of this country; and yet that very cause of Parliamentary Reform was espoused by these very men before they were in place.—

Gentlemen, the public Prosecutor has said, that I attempted, both in doors and out, to shake the confidence of the people, with regard to a Jury; and he afterwards with truth added, that a Jury was the brightest privilege of Englishman.—So it is, where a Jury is faithful to its trust—it is the greatest privilege the Eng­lish Constitution knows of; because, Gentlemen of the Jury, when you are honest, you stand not between the law and the accused, but between those in power and the accused;—you see the due execution of the laws:—you stand between the accuser and the man who is perhaps weaker than the accuser, either in tongue or in knowledge; and as he has thought proper to avail himself of that superority and to carry it sorth, I will undoubt­edly yield to him in regard to talents and eloquence, but for the soundness of my doctrine I will not yield to him.—Gentlemen, I never attempted to prejudice the people against a Jury. I ever will lift up my voice against any act of iniquity, in impannelling a Jury,—against every act of iniquity, in trying to mislead a Jury, or in trying to influence a Jury, even if the man on the Bench tries to influence a Jury, I shall try to stop him, I shall withhold him, and tell him, it is not his duty, though he sits there as Judge, and I stand here as criminal, it is my right as a Briton, to keep him within the bounds of his duty, to keep him close to the execution of the laws, if he attempts to depart from them in any one instance.—With the same spirit of inflamma­tion, the public Prosecutor has swelled out the treasonable mat­ter which he says lies on the table; and he is obliged in the end, to tell you, that if it appears to you that the British Convention really had no seditious motives, if they were only, bona fide, seeking a Reform in Parliament, whether it was to be by annual Parliaments, or whether it was to be attended with unversal suf­frage, or in whatever way it may take place, yet that Convention must be innocent; but says he, you must concur with me, that the parole and written evidence are more than sufficient to prove me [Page 109] guilty; and adds a very curious reasoning:—he says, if you wait till you have positive proof, it will be too late; therefore, make haste, avail yourselves of the presumptive proof that I give you, and condemn him, which is to say, sport with the lives,—sport with the liberties of Englishmen, for fear of accidents befalling you hereafter.—Is that the language of mercy?—Is that the lan­guage of the Constitution?—Is it the language of the Laws?— He calls his proofs in the first instance solid and convincing; al­though, at last, he is obliged to have recourse to that subterfuge: he says it amounts to more than sedition, and arraigns the igno­rance of the Members of that Convention at the same time that he arraigns their wickedness, that they pretend to be ignorant of what really is sedition; and yet he does not deign to inform them.—He says, it is as strictly defined as murder, but he does not give you that definition; he only says, we are guilty of Se­dition.—Now sedition must be some act; it cannot be a concealed operation of the mind, it must be an overt act: and yet he wants you to judge not of our overt acts, but of our intentions; which, all the witnesses have agreed in saying, were peaceful, orderly, and seemingly legal. I say seemingly, because, as there is that idea of our appearance being different from our real intention, I put the word seeming into their mouths; but I profess to you that our intentions perfectly coincided with our operations.— He acknowledges the right of the subject to address the king or petition the Parliament; and it is well that he acknowledges it. —The affront upon your understandings; I repeat it, the affront upon your understandings would be too gross, were he not to acknowledge that freemen have a right to petition for redress, when they think themselves abused.

You are not to judge (a curious reasoning) Gentlemen you are not judge upon any particular fact;—you are not to judge merely upon the evidence brought against me;—you are not to judge upon those trivial matters brought forth to night, which apply entirely to me; but you are to judge from the contexture of the whole. You are to judge from papers that are to crimi­nate Skirving, Brown, Sinclair, Callendar; and, as I understand there are a great number more against whom indictments are making out, these papers are to criminate all; and the contex­ture is to criminate all. He has wandered far from the indict­ment; he asserts of his authority, however, it is but just that, while he allows you the talent of prying into the hearts of men, it is but right, he should retain some share of the same penetra­tion; and therefore with that sagacity which he claims, he says that our intentions were positively to join the invaders of Bri­tain, let them be who they would, he does not name them, and then he desires you, in a most pathetic manner, to lay your hands upon your hearts, and see if such men ought not to be pro­nounced traitors to their country. Undoubtedly men doing so would be traitors to their country; but how does he prove that [Page 110] was our intention? He brings you forward far more convincing proof than writtten evidence; he brings you forward a blank to grove our guilt. He acknowledges that no notice has been taken of three prior Conventions; and yet it will appear to you, gen­tlemen, by those who have attended these prior Conventions, that this Convention acted exactly upon the same plan; therefore the laws of the land were either asleep at that time, or they are over vigilant at this. He calls us a set of French Conventionists. I do not believe there were five men in the Convention that can speak French. I do not believe that there were five men who had an adequate idea of France; and it does not appear, from the evidence that has been brought before you, that any single member of the Convention has any intercourse whatever with France; but yet it is criminal in us to adopt certain terms. Those terms, taken by themselves, he tells you, are not criminal; but take them, at this present crisis, altogether, form a mass of guilt which it really hurts him to mention, he is so tender. However, to support this allegation, he does not bring any proof; he gives it merely as an assertion; and which is as legal an authority, as be undoubtedly held those orders which he gave to Mr. David­son, the Sheriff Substitute; and which, by the bye, he acknow­ledges. He reflects upon me as being, or pretending to be, an Englishman. Dare he doubt it, or dare he dispute it—I have been, I acknowledge it, obnoxious to his uncle or father, or whoever he is, in London and several other Members of the Ad­ministration. Those who profit by the spoils of the nation, those who once were friendly to a Reform in Parliament, but now they have got into the enjoyment of the good things of the trea­sury, seek no more that reform. Had I been a foreigner I should have been long ere now sent abroad under the Alien Act.

Gentlemen, he alleges against me, as an article of accusation, a motion said to be made by me; and he then reverts to the tes­timony of Ross and Coburn, and supports it by other charges of certain forms which Mr. Callender (who, it seems, has run from his bail in a most disgraceful manner) wished to introduce into the Convention—A Reform of Parliament, he will not admit— he calls it (but it remains for the nation to determine, whether he calls it rightly or not) a change of the Constitution. A Re­form undoubtedly would make a change, but it would not be in the Constitution; though, to be sure, a change from sickness to health is so far a change in the Constitution; but it is possible that you may recover your pristine health, and make no altera­tion in your former Constitution? you only do away your dis­ease; and that is the way in which a Reform is meant to operate. He pleads much against universal Suffrage, and annual Parlia­ments. Indeed annual parliaments he touches more tenderly upon. However, the same power that made them from annual to triennal, and from triennial to septennial, may very likely go on to make them for life, or even hereditary.

[Page 111]But to shew that universal Suffrage has taken place, I will give you a quotation from a Scotch Author. The Lord Advo­cate has said, it could not take place for the best of all possible reasons, (and I have heard that twice in this Court) because it is impracticable. A Lord, learned in the law, and whose autho­rity none here will deny, Lord Kaims, says, that, ‘with regard to this matter one thing is certain, that the Regiam Majestatem was compiled in the days of one of our Davids. The author, whoever he be, declares that he was commanded by King David to compile this work with the counsel and advice of his whole realm.’ There, Gentleman, you see it is not the ad­vice of representatives; not the advice of individuals; but it was the advice of his whole realm. The same Lord Kaims does not fix a Government, or a Constitution to any one particular point. He does not tell you that the Constitution of Great Bri­tain is the very best that ever existed from all eternity, as our learned Lord does; or that it will endure to all eternity, but he says, ‘Government is one of the arts which necessity has suggested, which time and experience have ripened, and which is susceptible of improvements without end. It must also be the privilege of every Society to improve upon its go­vernment.’. There you see, Gentlemen, there you see, peo­ple of this country, that it admits of improvements without end; and therefore that which is good to day may be better to-morrow. Lord Kaims says, ‘it is the privilege of every Society to im­prove upon its government;’ and what signifies the privi­lege, if we are not to have the enjoyment of it. I will warrant the learned Lord, that whatever privileges he enjoys, in his situ­ation, he would not think them privileges, if he was debarred from the enjoyment of them—Then, why should a nation be deprived of that which would be a loss to an individual, whose interest it is that the government should be good. Is it the in­terest of the few, or the interest of the many?—Undoubtedly it is the interest of the many. It is the concern of the many, and consequently the interest of the many. He continues,— ‘It must also be the privilege of every society to improve upon its government, as well as its manufactures, husbandry or other art invented for their good’—Here you see if an im­provement is admissible in an art, it is so in government. ‘No particular form therefore can be essential, as no particular form is preferable to another.’ This is a Scotch Lord who speaks, ‘un­less by having a greater tendency to promote its end—the good of the society.’ Therefore, how excellent soever our Constitu­tion may be in its present form of three estates, and in the present most excellent most immaculate ways of electing Members of Par­lament; yet, if there is a better mode of electing Members of Par­liament, it is not only our right, but our duty to do it; yet meet­ings for that purpose are deemed seditious, although there is [Page 112] no overt act of Sedition, but merely the construction of the pub­lic Accuser, for the doctrine that he has pleaded is, that before a man is guilty you shall hang him, that he may not become a rogue.

Gentlemen, another great point is the committee of secrecy; that galls him sorely. Undoubtedly we ought to have told him what we were about. We said we had no secrets, and immedi­ately after appointed a committee of secrecy. It is true, and there is no inconsistency in it. We had no secrets to go upon; our plan was perfectly constitutional, and must operate for the common good; but, at the same time, feeling ourselves under the arm of power; feeling ourselves to be militating against abuse all powerful, it was prudent in us for the present not to expose ourselves more than necessary: it was prudent to secure to ourselves a safe place of meeting. He has said, it would be rebellion, and an overt act of treason. As to that I do not see how a secret meeting can be an overt act of treason. We should have been able to repair to the place of meeting secretly, because we knew every stretch of power would be made use of against us, and there is more reason to suspect that the present war with France is not directed solely against France, but against the re­form in England. It was meant by that war to divert the atten­tion of the public from that cause, under the pretext of that an­cient prejudice, that that country was always our natural enemy; the numerous failures that are daily taking place; the numerous losses that we have experienced, both, I am sorry to say it, both by sea and land, teach us that that war is far from being a profi­table one; teach us, that we are farther off gaining our end now, than we were at the beginning of that war; for we are at this day less able to treat, or to treat on such advantageous terms with that nation we have so much despised as we were at the be­ginning of the war. Ruin stares us in the face in every part of the kingdom; every manufacturing town is labouring under the greatest misery. London shews no less than 8000 Spitalfields manufacturers who are starving. Norwich, another great trad­ing town (from which I have appeared in the Convention as a Delegate) is in so dismal a situation, that the poor rates, which were at first, two years ago I think, or 18 months ago, but 3s. 6d. in the pound, now amount to the enormous sum of 17s. 6d.; and, by Lady-day next, they will be 20s. in the pound, owing to the present war.

Gentlemen, I hope you will not think it impertinent in me to follow the example that has been set me, of reading from a news­paper. It is not altogether so pleasing a fact to me, as that which the Prosecutor stated from the Gazetteer was to him. It gave him satisfaction that it criminated me—it gives me pain that I am obliged to criminate those that are in office. I will read to you a letter from a clergyman who visited the Spitalfields' weav­ers, and made a report of that visit. You will by this see part of [Page 113] the distress in which they are now plunged, owing to the war: it is a letter addressed to the Reverend mr: T—.

Gentlemen, I will also read you a paragraph uncontradicted by authority, from the Morning Chronicle, of 1st January, 1793. The Editor says,—"In one short month (December 1792)"— (See Appendix, No. 2.)

What is that but saying that our constitution is greatly im­paired within these twelve months, if we do not look to it, we shall have nothing but an Italian or a Spanish constitution left to us. How therefore are we to restore that constitution but by a timely reform! and how are we to obtain that reform, but by pursuing it with vigour? and how are we to pursue it, if we are not to meet, and if an English Jury will permit to public prose­cutor (and believe every word he says) to throw an odium upon them; and say, that though their meaning may be good now, it may in future be bad; and therefore you must condemn them as seditious. As a further proof, however, of the constituti­onality of these meetings, and the right we have to revert to our original constitution, and to do away the existing defects of that which is termed the present constitution; I will read to you a letter from Lord Bathurst to Dean Swift; although in his time the house of Commons was corrupt; since that time no great effort has been made to amend it; and we all know that human institutions, however good they may be in their first set­ting out, go naturally to decay, unless repaired. It has more­over been asserted, that one of the glories of our constitution is, that it is of such a nature, that it will admit of repair without being thrown out of order, and will always be advantaged by it; and that repair must come from the people; but hear what Lord Bathurst says: ‘I am convinced that our constitution is already gone:" luckily for the public prosecutor he has found it to­night, "and we are idly struggling to maintain what in truth has been long lost; like some old fools here, with gout and palsies, at fourscore years old drinking the waters," he was then at Bath, "in hopes of health again. If this was not our case, and that the people are already in effect slaves, would it have been possible for the minister, who projected the excise scheme (before the heats which it had occasioned in the na­tion were well laid) to have chosen a new parliament again exactly to his mind? and though perhaps not altogether so strong in numbers, yet as well disposed in general to his pur­poses as he could wish. His master, I doubt, is not so well beloved as I could wish he was.’ You see that even in the time of Lord Bathurst there were no greater enemies to the King than bad servants; for none alienate the affections of a peo­ple from a King so much as bad servants of the Crown.—‘His master, I doubt, is not so well beloved as I could wish he was: the minister, I am sure, is as much hated and detested as ever [Page 114] man was;’ whether that applies to the present time or not, I leave the people of England and Scotland to discover, ‘and yet I say a new parliament was chosen of the stamp that was de­sired, after having failed in the most odious scheme that ever was projected. After this, what hopes can there possibly be of success? Unless it be from confusion, which God forbid I should live to see. In short, the whole nation is so abandoned and corrupt, that the Crown can never fail of a majority in both houses of parliament. He makes them all in one house, and he chooses above half in the other, four and twenty bi­shops," very upright men, "and sixteen Scotch Lords is a terrible weight in one; forty-five from one country, besides all the West of England, and all the government boroughs, is a dreadful number in the other. Were his majesty inclined to-morrow to declare his body coachman his first minister, it would do just as well, and the wheels of government would move as easily as they do with the sagacious driver, who now sits on the box. Parts and abilities are not in the least want­ing to conduct affairs: the coachman knows how to feed his cattle, and the other feeds the beasts in his service; and this is all the skill that is necessary in either case. Are not these sufficient difficulties and discouragements, if there were no others, and would any man struggle against corruption, when he knows that if he is ever near defeating it, those who make use of it only double the dose, and carry all their points fur­ther, and with a higher hand than perhaps they at first in­tended.’ Therefore the poor Reformer generally comes off the worst; as perhaps will be the case with those now at your bar. Gentlemen, since the days of Lord Bathurst the disorders of the state have gone on encreasing, and we are now loaded with such an immense debt, that it is incomprehensible how the nation supports itself under it; and there are now forty millions more to add to it, for the sake of preventing a reform in parlia­ment. A foreign war was entered into with that view, while the Crown Lawyers have been busy at home: words have been raked up of as far date back as a twelve month; spies set in pri­vate families; servants interrogated; the man has been set against his master, and the child against its parent. Every art has been used to bring forth criminal prosecutions, in order that reform may be discouraged in every shape; and that those, who had been the foremost in attempting any thing like reform, should be stigmatised as seditious,—treasonable,—as ring leaders. —These words you have vociferated again and again, until they must have tired your patience.

Gentlemen, here is a statement of the national debt, which perfectly applies to the case in point. The national debt began with our happy revolution, which we are all bound to praise; and would to God the constitution was as sound now as it was then. The national debt was a scheme devised by William and [Page 115] Mary, to secure their footing in England. At first it amounted, I believe, to seven millions; but during that reign it increased to sixteen millions, and the wars of Queen Anne increased it to fifty-four millions—the amount of the debt at the end of the war of 1748 was 78,250,000l.; the amount of the debt at the com­mencement of the war in 1775 was seventy-five millions; after that there was a diminution took place of about four millions, which were paid off. At the end of Lord Chatham's war, the national debt amounted to one hundred and forty-six millions; it diminished by the peace to one hundred and thirty-six millions, so that a peace which lasted till 1775 diminished it ten millions, and in the war from 1775 to 1783, the infamous American war, where you will recollect the Americans were first treated as re­bels, exactly in the same manner that the French are now treat­ed; they were deemed rebels; they were deemed a set of vil­lains; they were deemed the worst creatures upon the face of the earth; and whenever they were spoken of, it was one Hand­cock, one Adams, one this, one that, and one the other, till we found, at the end of ten years war, and an expence of one hun­dred and thirty-four millions, besides one hundred thousand lives lost in the war: we were obliged to give up the war, and accept of an Ambassador from them: and, at the time of Mr. Pitt's accession to the treasury bench it amounted to two hundred and seventy millions. At this present day it is upwards of three hundred millions; and if we go on thus, year after year, we shall soon make it four hundred millions. But the remarks in this paper are more apposite.

‘So immense a debt as two hundred and seventy millions, bearing an interest of about nine millions and a half, was an alarming circumstance to the public, after the loss of half the British dominions abroad; and something must be done to divert the attention of the people from any serious enquiry into the corruption and abuses which had involved the nation in such ruin.’

‘Mr. Fox was for probing this ulcerated wound to the bottom, and meting our situation in an open and manly manner, but the secret junto in the Cabinet,’—and that junto, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will tell you originated in Scotland. I know not at present whether it continues its root there or not; I am much inclined to think it does; but the secret junto—‘foresaw, that such a measure would lead to impeachments, refunding and confiscation of property. He was therefore turned out of of­fice, and Mr. Pitt seduced from his friends and party to become the tool of those who began to be alarmed for fear an investigation should take place.’ Here then Mr. Pitt is only the ostensible minister, while in fact he is ruled by a secret junto. ‘A bubble was invented to amuse the people, and stop the mouths of the monied men, the weakest that ever was formed, and the most ruinous and wicked one [Page 116] that ever succeeded. The understrappers in office,’ in Eng­land, gentlemen, we have understrappers in office as well as in Scotland, ‘and treasury runners, were incessantly employed in blacking Mr. Fox, and circulating in every company, that Mr. Pitt was to pay off the National Debt. The measures he a­dopted for that purpose were cried up as a master piece of wisdom: and this was again rung in the ears of the credu­lous people in every corner of the kingdom by the prostituted prints in the Minister's pay. By such means, this extraordi­nary-bubble was blown up to an enormous size, and the trou­bles in Holland and France, as long as we kept in peace with the last mentioned nation, were favourable to these measures. The prodigious demand for our manufactures, the increase of trade.’

I was in France, gentlemen, between three and four years ago upon a mercantile expedition. I had an opportunity of viewing all the great warehouses in France, from the northernmost extre­mity to that very southernmost point of Toulon, which we have lately abandoned; and I will tell you, that in one small town not so large as Leith, there was at that time English goods be­spoke, and in a great measure paid for, to the amount of three millions sterling; that kept our manufactures afloat, that gave prosperity to the Nation, and that was in consequence of the commercial Treaty which was entered into between the two countries about five years back, and in which I am not ashamed to say that I lent my humble assistance, not officially to the Mi­nister here, but unofficially to the Minister in France, because I knew the commercial connection of two nations was the way to enrich both, and because I knew that to do away that idea, that they were natural enemies, and should go to war upon every trivial occasion, was the only way to keep us in peace and pre­vent the shedding of blood, which I am always sorry for in any case whatever. I wish I could say so of our Governors, ‘the influx of money from France, Holland, and the convulsed parts of Europe, gave Ministers an opportunity of levying enormous new taxes, even in time of peace,’ while we were pretending to pay off the National Debt, every year brought us new taxes; why? because a majority in the House of Commons was to be secured. ‘Mr. Pitt took every advantage that all those favourable opportunities gave him, and loaded the Peo­ple with such heavy, partial, and grievous taxes, as no Minis­ter ever before attempted, even in times of war.’ I doubt not, people of Scotland, but you labour under grievous taxes, as well as we in England; there is one I will give you an idea of, the Salt Tax, which slies in the face of common sense; but it is kept up for a reason which I will tell you by and bye; the col­lection annually amounts from 19 to 20,000l. but the expence of collecting it amounts to 30,000l. People who are unthinking may say, why does not the Minister sell it when he loses so much [Page 117] by it; it gives the Ministry at the trifling expence of 11,000l. per annum, it gives them a patronage of 30,000l. ‘Mr. Pitt's Shop Tax, Fustian Tax, his Tax on the Poor Servant Maids, the extension of Excise Laws, his Commutation Tax, and others equally obnoxious, are witnesses of the truth of what I now advance; with all his low cunning, artifice, exertions, spies, informers.’

Gentlemen, the Convention is reproached with adopting French words and French manners; it is now about six years ago that the Commercial Treaty was, I must not say on the tapis, but was pending in the case I mentioned before, in which my humble efforts were used; I had access to some of the dependents of the French Ministry, and I there found that in Pitt's cabinet there was a system of Police; I made use of that word, which is adopted in Ireland, in a great measure in London, and very like­ly will be soon introduced into Scotland, if not already; the French Police, Pitt applied to Bretagne, and from them obtained every article of the French Police, Spies, and Informers and every thing except the Bastile; they had but one, and they could not spare that one: however we have made shift without it, having converted Newgate, and the Counter, and other prisons to that purpose, until a proper one shall be built; there is one building in the neighbourhood of London, and I think I have seen some­thing like one building in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh; he has imported Spies and Informers, who have exerted them­selves, and every one of them has been well paid for it; Spies and Informers, French things as well as French words. And I believe the Nation, at that time, though much degenerated, I have reason to believe, that at the first outset of Spies and Infor­mers, the Police of England were at a loss to find Englishmen willing to undertake those odious tasks; sorry I am to say, that that repugnance is now nearly done away, that there is not a public company without a Spy in it, and even the servants of the Crown glory in their having Spies; some are more diligent than others; I saw one here to-night, who, though he keeps six Spies daily, it is no uncommon thing for them to regret, at the end of the week, that they have brought him no intelligence; backed with the most extensive commerce ever known, our manufac­tures and internal trade, pushed by industry, private credit, and paper currency, to a pitch never before heard of; and, in short, the whole credit of the merchants, traders, and manufacturers, exerted to the utmost, to keep every hand usefully employed, was not sufficient to raise taxes to pay the interest of so immense a sum as two hundred and seventy Millions of National Debt, defray the expences of Government, which, together with the interest, amounted to the enormous sum of about seventeen Millions in time of Peace, without reckoning the Millions to be annually provided to support this bubble; all this, notwithstand­ing the flourishing state which peace and the unexampled in­dustry [Page 118] of the people to revive our trade and commerce, could not be annually drawn from their labours, nor raised by any of the oppressive means adopted, without borrowing new loans; on one hand, as stock was purchased with the public money, on the other, that is to say, in paying the National Debt, you took the money out of one pocket, and paid it into the other; but while you did that, some of it always fell to the ground, which you never will see again: that money is employed in keeping up the price of Stocks; some thousands go weekly that way; a Re­form in Parliament would do away that abuse. ‘The Bank, that sacred, public, and private repository for wealth, was squeezed out of half a Million. This drew on them creditors for the unclaimed dividends to a much larger amount, and o­ther means, equally unjust, were pursued to supply the defici­ency. But all this would not do; the bubble must sooner or later burst, and with a dreadful explosion, unless speedily pre­vented by a more skilful financier than Mr. Pitt.’ This bub­ble does not only threaten this Empire with the most terrible convulsions, but to spread mischief into other countries. We have been told, that the Bank of Amsterdam is intimately con­nected with our own; if that fails, ours will, and that was gi­ven as the reason for our going to war; and very likely our go­ing to war, will be a reason for our Bank failing: ‘it is form­ed on such ruinous principles, that it is impossible all the ener­gy and industry of a brave, hardy, and loyal people, when strained to the utmost pitch, can support it; it was setting the Public to roll a heavy stone up a steep mountain, which grows steeper and steeper as the summit is approached. To attempt to pay off the National Debt by purchasing Stock, is one of the most barefaced robberies.’ Here is language! this in Edinburgh would be Sedition; it would go near to be Treason —‘the attempt to pay off the National Debt by purchasing up Stock, is one of the most barefaced robberies committed on the People, that ever was attempted in any civilized nation.’ Here you see Mr. Pitt is called a robber, and the most barefaced and impudent robber that ever was, ‘loading the People with unbearable Taxes, to enrich who? the Stockholders, the Mo­nied-men, and Gamblers, in the Alley; these were sure to as­sist the ministerial runners in blowing up this bubble, which brought so much grist to their mill; by their united arts and unwearied efforts, they actually raised the price of Stock to such a pitch, as to make the Public pay more than 20l. ster­ling more than the intrinsic value, upon every 100l.’ And as long as the industry of the People could bear such burdens as were heaped upon them, there is every reason to believe they would rise higher and higher; so that the more the Public pur­chased, the more they would have to pay for the remainder, pro­viding this bubble was suffered to continue. Mr. Pitt, instead of paying off any part of the National Debt, in time of peace, [Page 119] by his plan, had added many Millions; and if we are to go on in this ruinous plan, the increased price of the stock will lead us with more than 150 Millions more than was ever owed or pre­tended to have been borrowed.

There, Gentlemen, in consequence of this system, the Nation will find itself debtor 150 Millions more than ever was pretended had been lent to it; an immense sum of itself, but which the Nation would have been barefacedly robbed of—150 Million sterling which we never borrowed. ‘It will easily be seen, by examining the History of the Revenue, or this brief statement, that every war which this Country has been engaged in has nearly doubled the former Debt and Taxes, let them amount to what they might; and yet the Nation has been plunged into a war, with this heavy millstone of two hundred and se­venty Millions about its neck. The effect of this rash mea­sure has been suddenly and severely felt; almost a total stag­nation in trade and commerce, the Revenue decreasing in the most alarming manner, all private credit destroyed:’ the neighbourhood of Edinburgh will witness that: look at Paisley, look at Glasgow, and their Banks, even which will all con­vince you that there is truth in this assertion; ‘no one dare trust his neighbour, bankruptcies innumerable, the industrious poor thrown out of employment.’ Do we not see that even in Edinburgh, the poor are ready and willing to work if they could get it? Are they not the same at Paisley? are they not the same at Glasgow? I have already instanced to you in Eng­land; Norwich, Sheffield, and Manchester, where the poor are out of number; but here is an addition, ‘provisions, and even hay, sent out of the kingdom, to supply the German armies,’ not to supply our own troops, but forsooth, we must take other troops into pay, while our poor are starving at home in conse­quence of it, ‘which keeps up the price of meat to a height never remembered at this season of the year; coals, candles, soap, sugar, and many other articles in common use, are rais­ed or kept up, in consequence of the war.’

Here is an article to which I would turn your attention, the article of coals, the City of London yearly, consumes about forty-thousand chaldron of coals; every chaldron of coals pays one shilling, to whom? To a man who did not think pro­per, when cited by the laws of his Country, to appear before you; and pays it to him, why? Because he is the descendant of a natural son of Charles II. If he had been a poor man, and it had been necessary to keep up an appearance of respectability in his station; there would have been some excuse; but he has another sinecure which amounts to more than he spends; this is one of the abuses of a corrupt Parliament.—Our money shipped off to pay the troops, and supply the beggarly German Princes on the Continent. The parochial taxes prodigiously increased, by the numerous poor thrown out of employment; or borne [Page 120] down by the heavy load of taxes Mr. Pitt has thrown upon them; and threatened, notwithstanding all that is said to the contrary, with the ruin of another American war. In such a state, is it possible to expect that the public can bear to double the present National Debt and Taxes, without bursting Mr. Pitt's bubble, formed for plundering the poor to add to the rich. This man speaks very plain English, and I am sorry to say, he speaks as truly, as he does plainly; it has been a decided plan with those in power, to plunder the poor to give to the rich; and will con­tinue so, while useless places, while useless pensions, are suffered to exist, while a Lord Justice General of Scotland, who never attends his place, though justice is the most sacred duty a man can acquit himself of; the duty of a Judge is the most sacred duty that a man can undertake, since it is the representive of God himself: that he should accept of 2000l. a year and never attend in his place, to distribute that justice for which he is so amply paid; that is another proof of sinecure places, and a proof that we want a Reform in Parliament; you have now been a hundred years, except one instance, without the appearance of a Lord Justice General; 200,000l. therefore has been carried out of Scotland and spent in England; therefore you annually lose 2000l, for which you derive no advantage whatever. ‘The crisis draws near, when every inferior consideration must give way for public good, and Mr. Fox's open and manly abi­lities must be called forth, to form an honest, just, permanent, and upright Ministry, to save the King and People from one common ruin.’

I did not read this to you, Gentlemen, with a view to trumpet up Mr. Fox: no man can have a greater respect for his abilities than I have, but I am far from thinking that no man in the king­dom can save us but him; I would not make any man a God; let us not trust them; let us not give them implicit faith; let us trust to none of our rulers; let us trust only to our Laws; and while we give implicit faith to them, and see that our rulers act according to those laws, we shall be happy: the moment we do otherwise, we shall be slaves. ‘Apostates have raised false alarms of treason, sedition, rebellion, and every thing that can rouse up a generous People, to revenge the insults and in­juries heaped upon them; but the People are loyal, love their King, respect mild laws, and bear an utter hatred to all who attempt to impose upon them, by apostacy, fraud, or treach­ery, and are sworn enemies to all sorts of persecutions.’ Would not you think that the writer of this letter had some of the persecutions which have lately taken place, in his eye? You will see then, Gentlemen, that it is not merely in Scotland alone —that the People in Scotland are not the only People who see their true interests; that the People of England, likewise, begin to discern that they are imposed upon, that those who are in of­fice deceive them: open your eyes, therefore, Gentlemen, and [Page 121] be not deceived; let not the words of office, let not the high sounding language of a Crown Lawyer trepan you into a per­jury, for if you suffer yourselves to be deceived, though not a wilful perjury, it still remains a perjury, unless you give a ver­dict according to the dictates of your own conscience; and the dictates of that conscience cannot take place, till you have made a fair and candid examination of the matter before you.

His postcript says, ‘Two hundred and seventy Million is a sum the human mind can hardly form an idea of: to give some assistance in forming a notion of it, were it to be laid down in guineas in a line, it would extend 4300 miles: if in shillings, it would extend three and a half times round the globe; and if paid in solid silver, would require more than 60,000 horses to draw it, at the rate of 1,500 weight to a horse;’ and yet the good people of this country are, by their labours, to pay off the interest of this debt, and are with the as­sistance of Pitt's calculations, to pay off the capital also. The number of inhabitants of Great Britain has been mistated, as well as many other things, by the public prosecutor; he has stated them to be ten millions; they perhaps, do not go much beyond seven millions; but we will say eight millions, and among them you cannot say there are more than two million of men: and, therefore two million of people are to pay the interest of this debt, which, if laid out in guineas, in a line, would extend upwards of 4,300 miles. Good God! when shall we get to end of such a journey; and yet we are daily encreasing in it by a war; and, what is the consequence of that war? not only ex­pences abroad, but it encreases salaries and pensions: we bought: Toulon with gold; we left it for nothing: it is true, we adopted again the French measures; we named Commissioners: one Commissioner set out, with a service of plate, to do honour to the name of an Englishman, which cost 8,000l. and yet there are 8000 Spitalfields weavers in a state, of actual starvation; and yet, to one man, is presented a service of plate, of that immense value, previous to his going as Commissioner to Toulon: he comes back again, and is now out of office, but has retired upon half pay: this is the way the public money is squandered; this is the way the public money will be squandered till we obtain a Reform in Parliament; therefore, no man, not the public pro­secutor himself, can love the Constitution better than I do; but no man can detest the abuses that are engrafted on that constitu­tion more than I do; for, I have seen so much misery, in the course of my tours through Great Britain, which is the garden of Europe, where there is not a man, who would exert his in­dustry, but might earn a comfortable livelihood, if our Constitu­tion was returned to that point at which it was settled at the Re­volution; but it is all done away; I will give you proof that it is done away; and I have taken care to give you that proof, or, at least that each of you may be furnished with a [...] of it when [Page 122] you retire to debate upon the matter that is brought before you: it is in a speech of Mr. Wharton's, in the House of Commons: I will read it to you; and I am sorry, that the public prosecutor has retired; I would have attacked him personally; he was a Member of the Senate; and, I believe, he was there at the time he bore, he suffered this worthy man, an honest Member in the present British House of Commons; he suffered him to assert, that every part of our Constitution was done away; he did not rise to contradict him; though here vociferous to the utmost, there he was silent; I am seditious in seeking a Reform; but, when a man tells them, every iota of the Constitution is done away, the whole he could do, was to vote silently against him; and the motion was lost, because the majority did not think pro­per to stake their future fortune, reputation, or property, upon the revisal of the Constitution. May a friend be permitted to read it for me?

No, you mun read it yourself.

Gentlemen, you are entrusted now by your country, to give a verdict, to examine seriously the cause that is now before you. I have already told you, I am a willing and a devoted victim; I will give you a proof of it; and you shall have that proof home with you, in a letter, that I wrote to Dundas, a twelvemonth ago, when prosecutions were hanging over the heads of the people: I offered myself for prosecution; I desired him to spare them, and let his vengeance fall upon me: I escaped it in London; I hope I shall not find it in Scotland; I hope the honesty of any Jury will prevent its having the effect it was meant to have. This is the speech of Mr. Wharton, in the House of Commons. Mr. Wharton rose to make his proposed motion. "We heard," he said, ‘on every side, of the glorious Revo­lution, in 1668, and of the Constitution, as settled at the glo­rious Revolution; it was a note which he had always listened to with pleasure, and he repeated it himself with rapture. But, what was the rational foundation of our satisfaction, at the recollection of the glorious Revolution? It assuredly was not that the possession of the throne, and the regular hereditary succession to it, were, at that time disturbed and interrupted. It was not that we expelled one king, and one family, and appointed another king, and another family, in their room. The necessity of such changes was, at all times, to be deplored; and, the events, themselves, could only be justified by the ne­cessity. The only rational foundation of our approbation of that Revolution, must be, at that time, such principles were confirmed, and such wise and wholesome provisions made for our constitutional security and happiness, as might prevent all future necessity for a similar Revolution. Whoever approved of that Revolution, declared, at the same time, that the con­stitutional provisions then obtained, were wise and wholesome provisions; that they were worthy objects of a national strug­gle; [Page 123] that they not only justified resistance, but made it merito­rious.’ And yet, this is one of the articles of crimination a­gainst me. Gentlemen, it is said that the Convention meant to assert their rights: now, assertion may be made in various ways; it may be made, vi et armis; it may be made by argu­ment; by reason; and, there is no direct proof, that we meant to assert them by force of arms; and, from our paucity, it is most likely we should do it by argument. He says, ‘they not only justified resistance, but made it meritorious; and that they were cheaply purchased, at the price of all the blood that was shed upon the occasion, as well as the dethronement of a guilty king, and the extirpation of his guiltless family. But an ap­probation of that Revolution went still farther. It declared, that if, by any means, by force, or by fraud, by violence, or by corruption.’ Jurymen, I request your utmost attention to this; it is of the greatest consequence. ‘But an approbation of that Revolution (1688), went still farther. It declared, that if, by any means, by force, or by fraud, by violence, or by corruption, if these wholesome and necessary constitutional provisions should, by any means, be taken away, or frustrated, the same objects would again justify the same national strug­gle; and, the same extremities, unless they could be recov­ered, and, re-obtained by more gentle, more peaceful, and, therefore, more happy means.’ We at present feel, that force or fraud violence and corruption, have taken away many of our privileges: we wish to regain them; not by force, but by those more peaceful, and, therefore, more happy means, which is a peaceable and rational application to the King, or to the Parliament, by an assertion of our rights, made in such a respec­table manner, that they shall not be refused; for, it is idle to talk of the omnipotence of Parliament; the servant can never be greater than its master; the three Estates together, are not equal in value to the whole nation: without them, the nation could be a nation; but, without the nation they would become poor indi­viduals. He asserted (and said he risked nothing by the assertion, ‘for no man could be hardy enough to deny it, and, he pledged himself to prove it in a Committee of the House), that all that was valuable to the people of this country, all the provisions which were stipulated to secure the peace and prosperity, the individual liberty, and the general property of the people of this land, had, all been, since the Revolution, taken away— All!’

He asserts, in the House of Commons, and pledges himself to prove, that all the security of the subject, all the privileges of the subject, in the Constitution, which is trumpeted up by venal hirelings, has been taken away, and he pledges himself to prove all this; and, to this, not a single man rises to give an answer. ‘He must entreat the attention of the House, for a few mo­ments, whilst he very briefly brought back to their recollec­tion, [Page 124] what this country established by the Revolution. First, To avoid all future mistakes; and, that the contract between Prince and People might be clearly understood, the Revolu­tionists began by altering the oaths of the contracting parties.’ Here again I will interrupt myself, to shew you that the King holds his Crown, not by a divine right, but by a contract between him and the people, which implies a mutual binding; and, should either of the contracting parties fail, it will become void: Men in business, you must know it; and, from business to poli­tics, is a very easy transition; the principle is the same. ‘They altered the Coronation oath for all future Sovereigns in this realm; and they altered the oath of allegiance for themselves, and for all future subjects. They cut up, by the roots, the damnable doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance:’ doctrines sedulously endeavoured to be inculcated into you to­night; that non-resistance and passive obedience, though couch­ed in other words, were the duty of the subject. I say it is no such thing; and here is an honest man declaring this in Parliament, and nobody desiring to confute him. He says, ‘they cut up, by the roots, the damnable doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, by emphatically specifying and ordaining the follow­ing words of their former oath, 1 William and Mary, ch. viii. I declare, that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatever, to take up arms against the King, &c. &c. should not, from thenceforth, be required or enjoined.’ Therefore, you see, Gentlemen, that it is no longer required of the subject to take an oath; that he will not, in any circumstance whatever, take up arms against the King; because, as this King comes to the throne, not by divine right, but by a contract between the King and the people, it was thought, if he neglected his contract on the one part, the people were not bound by that contract on the other, and, he hereby establishes the doctrine of resistance to oppression: in fact, self-preservation is the first law of nature with an individual; and, what is the case with an individual is much more so with a society. ‘It was not so much to relieve the conscience of the subjects, that these words of their for­mer oath were selected, recited, and abolished; for no oath of slavery ever did, or ever will, or ever ought to bind a nation, or an individual; it was something worse than perjury, or sacrilege, to keep an oath of slavery.’ Here is the true spirit of freedom, breathing in these words: it was something worse than perjury, or sacrilege, to keep an oath of slavery. No; man was not born to slavery. ‘This alteration was made to prevent the future Sovereigns of this country from being missed, as the four preceding Sovereigns had been, to trust to a senseless superstition about Royalty, which though many persons for their interests have professed, no man of common sense ever entertained.’ Many of these doctrines are professed at this day: men profess doctrines very different from what their hearts [Page 125] feel; but while blinding the eyes of the Public, they are the most conscientious men living. ‘Their next care was to pro­vide for the due administration of the Executive Power, and the responsibility of its confidential advisers. They therefore enacted, 12th William III. chap. ii. that all matters and things relating to the well-governing of this kingdom which are cognizable in the Privy Council, by the Laws and Customs of this Realm, shall be transacted there, and all Resolutions taken thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same.’ Here you see, Gentle­men, that the government of a large country, like Great Bri­tain, is of so public a nature as not to admit of secrets; it is of such a nature that a responsibility must be affixed somewhere, and therefore those persons who adopted measures in the Privy Council were to sign the same, in order that the public might know where the blame or the praise lay; this has been done away, and you have heard to-night, when a question was put relative to orders, those orders were deemed proper to be kept a secret; thus we imitate the practices of those in higher sta­tions, and inferiors will naturally catch at the defects sooner than at the beauties of their masters' behaviour. ‘Thereby guarding, as far as Laws could guard, against that accursed engine of despotism, a Cabinet Council,’ which the paper I just now read, calls a Secret Junto, ‘or that more accursed in­strument, an Interior Cabinet,’ from which we have not been free for 25 years.

‘Their attention was next directed to the double representa­tion of the People, the only possible security for all their other provisions.’ There is undoubtedly no provision, no security, for the liberty, for the property of the Subject, if he is not properly represented in Parliament: we are too numer­ous to make Laws for ourselves; we must therefore be repre­sented; we must send Delegates or Commissioners to a Parlia­ment, where a convenient number of them may meet and trans­act the business of the Nation; if that business is not done faith­fully; if the men sent to do that business are liable to be bought and sold, we shall in our turns pay both Purchaser and Purchased —"The House of Commons and Juries." This is the double representation in England; we were the only Nation who en­joyed it.

A neighbouring Nation, though much run down, have lately arrived at the possession of it. Juries consist of twelve or fifteen men, according to the country in which they act. They are not to stand in fear of the Judge, or in fear of the King; for, if they act according to their conscience, no Judge dare say any thing to an honest Jury; they have a double duty; the first to God, and the next to their country; but they both of them form a moral duty, and are one and the same thing. Jurymen are absolute; they have a right to ask questions, they have a [Page 126] right, where the least doubt hangs over the mind, to enquire of the Pannel; they have a right to enquire of the Counsel, and they have a right to call forth all the wisdom of the Judges; while in office they possess the most unlimited power that we know of in England. He says, ‘Our Ancestors passed over un­touched, and left them as they found them the Nobility and the Church; they were considering the solid and substantial parts of the Constitutional Edifice, and did not much concern themselves about the gilding and the varnish. They there­fore proceeded to establish the principle of a fair and free and frequent election of the Representatives of the Commons in Par­liament, as might be seen by a reference to the acts passed in the first and second and third years of William and Mary.’ You see here, a term which at first appears to be a kind of sneer or joke, but it is founded in truth, and leads you to a much deeper reflection. He says, ‘Our Ancestors did not much concern themselves about the Gilding and the Varnish,’ meaning the Nobility and the Church; and it is not merely a jeer or a play­ing upon words, but arises from the principle already laid down, that the Nation, and the Nation alone, is the principal part: it is the People that are of consequence, and nothing but the Peo­ple. ‘And having thus, as they imagined, provided for the real election of the Representative body in Parliament, they secured the independence and integrity of that body after its election, by enacting, that no Person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a Member of the House of Commons.’ Now, if this took place with regard to the Na­tional Assembly, where Laws are only made; undoubtedly a si­milar restriction was understood to be in full force in that As­sembly, where the Laws are carried into execution, I mean in Juries; for if men enjoying places of profit under the Crown are deemed incapable of making Laws, they should by a much stronger reason be deemed incapable of carrying them into exe­cution, especially when there is no appeal from their Verdict; or at least, an appeal attended with such difficulties and such ex­pence, as to put it out of the power of nine tenths of those who are tried to make use of the remedy. ‘Having thus secured the purity and independence of the people's representatives in Parliament, they proceeded to the other important branch of their representation by Jury, and they decreed that Juries should be fairly taken without partiality, and should act free­ly without influence.’ Observe that, Gentlemen; I don't im­pute it to the case of to-day, but when I say it is possible to pack a Jury, I can shew my authority, when it has been asserted in the House of Commons, and has not been denied. ‘They also decreed, that excessive bail should not be required, that exces­sive fines should not be imposed, and that illegal and cruel punishments should not be inflicted; and to secure these ob­jects, [Page 127] they ordained that thenceforward the Judges commis­sions should be made quamdiu se bene gesserint; and that their salaries should be ascertained and established, in order to make the Judges independent of the Crown.’ The duty of a Judge is, not to influence you, not to say any thing that has the least ten­dency to influence you; he is to explain the Law in any difficult point to you, but by no means to give you his opinion upon the case; he is merely to state the Law, and say always, hypotheti­cally, if the man is guilty of the offence, such and such punish­ment is due to it; but he is never to say, let me beg of you to say so and so; it is illegal, it is the highest pitch of wickedness in a Judge so to do. ‘Now, all these provisions (the objects and consequences of the glorious Revolution) would have no va­lue, they would be nugatory and worthless; they would be a mockery unless they were effectually to obtain and secure to the People of this Land these three important points, First, An honest and responsible exercise of the Executive Authority. Secondly, Real independent and faithful Representatives of the Commons in Parliament. Thirdly, A fair and impartial admi­nistration of Justice in the Courts of Law. We who had no predilection for any family whatever (except as connected with these objects) in the words of our Ancestors at the time of the Revolution, did now again claim, demand, and insist, upon all those as our undoubted Rights, the true, ancient, and indubi­table rights and liberties of this kingdom, 1st William and Mary, chap ii. If then by various means it had happened, as he asserted, and undertook to prove (in a Committee of this House,) that this provisional responsibility of the Privy Council no longer remains; that the election of the House of Com­mons is neither, fair, nor free, nor frequent; that this provision­al independence of its Members is gone, and that the House, at present, swarms with Persons having offices and places of profit under the King, and receiving pensions from the Crown; that Juries are not fairly and impartially taken; that they do not act freely and without influence; that excessive bail may be, and has been, required; that excessive fines may be, and have been, imposed; that illegal and cruel punishments, may be, and have been, inflicted; that the Judges are not indepen­dent of the Crown; that pensions may, and have been, con­ferred, upon others, by which means it cannot be said that their salaries are ascertained and established. If these facts were so, he held it to be the duty of all those who, without hypocrisy, praised the Revolution.’—

Most men, perhaps all men, praise the Revolution, but they do it with various intentions; but he speaks here only of those who praise it without hypocrisy. He says, ‘he held it to be the duty of all those who, without hypocrisy, praised the Revolu­tion, to endeavour to return us again to our constitutional situation at that period, and to recover those lost or neglected [Page 128] provisions, that so we might effectually secure to ourselves and to our posterity, what our Ancestors endeavoured at the Re­volution to secure to themselves and to us.’ I hope that sin­gle passage will be sufficient to do away all the criminality of the word assert, in the Indictment. It may be done in two ways, by force, or by argument; in either case, it would be justified by the present glorious Constitution, taken not ironically; not insidiously, as it is taken by some, but literally, according to the truth. Our glorious constitution permits us to assert our rights, and even permits us to resist oppression: however, from the ten­or of the proceedings of the Convention, you will see that arms were the last things we should have thought of; being little in­ured to arms, and being a small number to the bulk of the na­tion, I mean the associated men, who have sent their Delegates to the British Convention; and from what has happened to-day, you will see that the public mind is panting for Reform; and I hope, Gentlemen, if your countenances deceive me not, that you all, or the greater part of you, wish for Reform; an amend­ment can be attended with no ill consequences. Mr. Wharton concluded with moving, ‘That a Committee be appointed to enquire whether any, and which of the provisions made by Parliament in the reign of William and Mary, and in the reign of William III. for securing the responsible exercise of the Executive authority; for securing a real, independent, and faithful representation of the Commons in Parliament; and for securing a fair and impartial administration of justice in the Courts of Law, whether any, and which, of these have by any means been invalidated or taken away; and to consi­der whether any, and which, of those lost or invalidated pro­visions may be fit to be re-enacted and restored, in order that the people of this land may recover that situation and security in which they were placed by the glorious Revolution in 1688.’ This motion, I have already told you, was lost, and it was lost by a majority of 71 silent men, against 11 honest men who supported it; but the 71 did not utter a single syllable, though I firmly believe the Lord Advocate was in the House at the time: if he was not there, his master, his father, his uncle were there, and not a word was said; they put it to the silent vote, and numbers carried it, which shews you what chance we have of obtaining, by an humble submissive petition to the House of Commons, any redress; it shews you, that if we want to ob­tain redress, we had much better go to the fountain of redress, and apply, in the first instance, to the King; but that is a thing that is matter of opinion; however, it requires consideration; and when the matter of reform comes to be more public, which I hope it will, it will then bear ample discussion.

Gentlemen, I have, I believe, in the former part of my de­fence, mentioned to you, that the Lord Advocate not being able to substantiate his charges against me upon written evidence, [Page 129] was forced to draw in a more powerful aid; namely, a blank, as a proof of criminality; he has laid great stress upon it; he has turned about in it like a horse in a mill, and though he went back from it once or twice in the course of his speech, he was sure to return to it again. He has likewise sought to attach a great degree of criminality to the words Convention of Emer­gency, which is a simple English word, signifies a case of great moment, a case that requires speed, that requires immediate at­tention, that requires all the exertions we can possibly bestow upon it; therefore strip it of the epithete, seditious, malicious, felonious, and all these high sounding words, and you find no­thing in it unjustifiable whatever. He has also sought to crimi­nate me, with charging that my friend Browne gave a history of the Habeas Corpus Act; and he has wished to attach, more than sedition, a kind of treason, to the bare mention in the Con­vention of the wrongous imprisonment Act; surely, if such an Act exists, it is competent to every subject of the realm to see that it is secured to them; that it was (as I presume all Acts are) made for the benefit of the Public, and therefore it is natural that men should be anxious that those benefits should be retained to them; yet it should seem that the bare mention of such a thing is Treason in Scotland. It galls those in power, to think that they have got a power above them; that they are not en­tirely above control; but I have already said that there is not a man in the kingdom above control; even the King holds his Crown by a contract, and therefore is not above control; he is not above the Laws; he is not, indeed, responsible; the fiction of law says, he can do no wrong, because his contract holds no longer than he abides by the Constitution of the kingdom; the moment he would attempt, as a James, or a Charles I. to break the contract between him and the People, the moment he had broken that contract, he would then no longer be unaccountable to the People. On the contrary, it is most likely, the People would call him to an account, as they have done in other cases before, when they have ventured to ride paramount over the Laws. The Laws are made for the weal of the Nation, and are of more importance than any individual, in whatever rank soci­ety may have placed him; they are of more importance than any individual, for without Laws there is no Society; and with­out any individual whatever, the Society may still remain a Society.

Gentlemen, I will come now to the mere points of the Indict­ment; for the speech of the Public Prosecutor has wandered greatly from the mere facts stated in the Indictment: however, I was obliged to follow him, inasmuch as he did me the honour on Monday last, of trying me before another Jury; for it was me more than Skirving that he tried; it was me he had con­tinually in his mouth; and, to me, that a great part of his speech then applied. He taxes us with holding delusive Republican [Page 130] principles, and he builds his crimination upon our having adopt­ed certain words, which he seems to think were never in use in England, before the Revolution took place in France; he is however much mistaken, for there is not a schollboy but can tell him that section was as much in vogue, and made use of, in Eng­land 20 years back, as it is now; there is not a Writ for the re­turn of a Member of Parliament, but has the word Citizen in it: the word Citizen is in all the Students cards; and even the Pin-makers of London, are obliged to have the word Citizen in their cards; therefore it is not an adoption of any thing new: as to regulations and orders, if they are founded upon French princi­ples, for God's sake, give me French principles; and that we were regularly and orderly, I will take the liberty to prove to you. By the regulations that I will read to you, you will see that we were far from having any seditious or disorderly princi­ples about us; but that we were organizing ourselves into the most regular body in the world, and, I believe, even Freemasons them­selves, who have regulations and secrets, and, I believe, some of their committees are pretty secret; meet together, and therefore are guilty of all the crimes I am charged with; and I don't know that there is so much regularity even in their proceedings, as there was in our's. ‘The Convention shall henceforth be called, The British Convention of the Delegates of the Peo­ple, associated to obtain Universal Suffrage and Annual Par­liaments. The Delegates of this Convention shall be elected annually, on the [...] and shall meet where the Secretary and intermediate commit­tee shall think most adviseable for the general interest.’ You see it is for the good of the generality; not for the good of one description of men; not for the good of the opposition, who are endeavouring to oust the Ministry in hopes of getting into their places. No, let us oust the abuses, and restore the Constitution to the state in which it was in 1688. ‘The Secretary, and In­termediate Committee, may, at any time, call a Convention of the Delegates, on 14 days notice; but they shall be responsible for a proper exercise of their authority. The Convention after electing a President by show of hands.’ Here we call him a President; that is not a French word; I fancy that is a word that has been used in England for these 50 years back, and I cannot attach any degree of criminality to it, because we did not put it in the power of a man, to say he was sent by a certain number of people, unless he was intrusted with the confidence of those men, for the purpose of a Parliamentary Reform, as I will shew you by the instructions that I brought from London, which I have in my pocket, and which escaped the Inqusition. ‘The Convention, after electing a President by show of hands, shall proceed to the verification of power, and then to the division of the Convention into Sections, in such manner as shall here­after be provided.’ Here follows the head of Office Bearers. [Page 131] The public prosecutor told you he could not tell what this Preses meant; this will explain it. ‘There shall be a President or Preses, three Assistants, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and Door­keepers. The three Assistants and the Secretary shall form a Council, to be denominated the Council of the Table. The office of the Preses is to maintain order, to take the sense of the Convention on all questions to be determined therein, and to declare on which side the question is carried, to call on the Committees for reports, &c. and to sign all Public Acts.’ You see there is nothing seditious in the office of Preses; unfortu­nately that night there was no Public Act passed; I kept order, or endeavoured to do it, as well as I could. I took the sense of the Convention, and declared on which side the questions were carried: an explanation of that you will see by and bye, under a separate head. ‘The office of the Council of the table, is to keep order in the business of the Convention, as particularly specified under the head Council. The office of the Secretary is to take charge of all writings and papers belonging to the Convention; to issue summonses, write and dispatch letters, &c. &c. according to the orders of the Convention, and the request of any Committee, during the time of their sitting; and shall have access, on all occasions, to every Committee during its sitting.’ This was made a crime in Skirving, when you see it was the duty of his office, to attend as many commit­tees as he could spare time for. ‘The office of Treasurer shall be to receive and pay all monies subject to the regulations to be at any time adopted by the Convention or Committee of Finance. The office of Door-keepers, is to prevent the ad­mission of any persons not Members except by special leave of the Council of the Table.’ This was to prevent improper company; I do not mean spies, for on the contrary, when they were known they were preferably admitted though with the contempt they deserved, and which no class in Society can de­serve more than themselves, unless it be the men who employ them. And now follows the head of Committees. ‘No Com­mittee shall be composed of more than thirteen, or less than three persons; and the number of each Committee shall be decided by a show of hands in the Convention. All Committees shall be chosen, unless otherwise ordered, at the time of their appointment; and they shall be authorized to invite the assist­ance of such Members of the Convention as they may think beneficial to the business entrusted to their charge. All Com­mittees shall be elected from the Leet of the Sections, unless found necessary for some immediate purpose, in which case they shall be appointed by the Convention, one by one, by a show of hands; and they shall sit and report progress, day by day, until their business is completed. The first meeting of every Committee to be fixed by the Convention; every subse­quent meeting according to their own adjournment.’ Now [Page 132] comes the head of Council of the Table. ‘There shall be three Assistants, elected from a Leet given in by the Sections, one to be renewed, and the senior to go out of office daily.’ Those who had the greatest number of votes were elected, and in con­sequence of that, the Convention was likely to be best served, for they neither bought their electors nor sold them when they had bought them. ‘The Secretary and Assistants shall form the Council of the Table; they shall prepare a state of the bu­siness, for each day shall arrange the order in which the dif­ferent subjects shall be taken into consideration, which ar­rangement shall be adhered to, unless the Convention should alter the same by a vote; they shall permit a Member from each Section to take copies of all motions, &c. to be submitted to the consideration of the Sections, and shall assist all Mem­bers who request their aid, in the wording of any motion they may wish to lay upon the table.’ This brings me back again, to a motion that has been introduced against me as written evidence, and which Wardlaw was called to prove: he said, and it was not less to the disgrace of those who brought him forward, than to the Friends of the People, of whom he was a member, that he came in a state of inebriety: he said he had written out that motion; it is a motion drawn up not by me, but by the Council of the Table, and it is stated in the indictment. ‘To do this your Committee suggests a resolution to the following effect, but which I shall leave to be drawn up by the Council of the Table,’ The spirit of the motion was that which the Com­mittee, of which I was the Reporter, had to report, and which motion was to be drawn up by the Council of the Table. ‘The Council shall have the power to interrupt any debate, for the purpose of proposing to the Convention any other business which they may think more urgent; but the President shall take the sense of the Convention by a show of hands, whether the debate shall be interrupted or not.’ Here you see this is the greater part of their duty, to judge of such mo­tions as were laid before them; if they were nugatory they were to inform the person who brought them of it; if otherwise, they were to endorse them on the back, they were to hand the motion to the President, he was to read it to the Convention, and then the vote of the Convention was to determine whether the business was of sufficient consequence to depart from the or­der of the day. Then follows an article which gives great um­brage to those who are frightened at every thing that looks like French: It is the head of Sections: we had the name of divi­sions, and of classes; but, no name which was agreed to by every body at last; Section was agreed to by a great majority; and we thought no more of the French Convention at that time, than we did of our new ally the Grand Turk.

To explain to you then what is meant by Sections, and the cause of adopting that word, which was more from accident [Page 133] than any thing else, it goes on. ‘All the members of the Con­vention shall be divided by lot, into Sections of 15 persons each.’ And why divided into Sections of 15 persons each? It was not with a view to overturn the government; it was not with a view of being seditious, or riotous, or any thing of the like, but with a view of their meeting, as we had many country Delegates who had much leisure on their hands, for the purpose of giving them useful employments: in the morning they used to meet and discuss the news of the day, and little political to­pics, and thereby came better prepared in the evening; and in the course of one week we already found a great difference in their political information; they had already learned to connect their ideas, and form a more accurate judgment of the business they were about. They were also to pick out the men who were most proper for the nomination of President for she next night, or for the Committees. These were the felonious and seditious employments of the Sections in the morning. ‘The Members who may not be able to attend at the first division into Sec­tions, shall be divided by lot among the Sections formed; but, if any Section shall have two more than its proper num­ber, no new Member shall draw for that Section until the num­bers are again equal. Every Section shall be furnished with a complete printed list of the Convention, containing the name, surname, and the society, which each individual represents.’ And you see, Gentlemen, here is great regularity; and where men use such regularity, they cannot be called a riotous tumul­tuous assembly. ‘The Sections shall be renewed on every Mon­day during the sitting of Convention.’ Now, I maintain, that there is no principle in our British Constitution, which pre­vents mutual communication from one man to another, but will encourage that intercourse; for union alone can make us strong, as has been said, though in a different sense, from the Bench. ‘The Sections shall meet every forenoon, at eleven o'clock, each in a separate place; and shall daily choose a Chairman for the Section, who shall report their leets of election, &c.; and, if these reports are not delivered into the Council of the Table, immediately on the Chair being taken, they shall be deemed null; each Section shall daily furnish itself with a note of all the business, and with copies of all motions and re­ports to be taken into consideration that evening. The Sec­tions shall daily discuss the business of the Convention; they shall prepare lists of such persons as they may think most pro­per for Offices. Committees, &c.; but the Sections cannot fi­nally decide any matter; nor, in their collective capacity, give an opinion, or make a proposal to the Convention. No Member in the Sections shall be allowed to vote by proxy.’ We did not, you see, intrench on the privileges of the House of Lords, where they vote by proxy; and we thought, that as every man was equally interested in the business, that he should [Page 134] attend as often as he could; and, if he did not, it should be his own loss, by losing his vote. ‘The members of one Section shall not be received into any other Section, during its sitting; and, no person not a member of the Convention, can, on any consideration, be admitted.’ And, I am sure, there is not a man here, who would wish to be intruded upon by strangers, in the social hour, over the bottle, but the servant comes up with his name, before he is admitted.

. I beg pardon, Gentlemen, for this interruption; I should not have done it, if the example had not been set me; we have no such thing in England, Gentlemen, as a Jury eat­ing and drinking in Court.

Gentlemen, The next head, is that of motions, A great de­gree of criminality has been attached to the motions that have been produced; but, notwithstanding all this written evidence, which is to transport us, and prove us nearly guilty of high trea­son, I will shew you the innocent manner in which these things were to be carried on. ‘All motions shall be in writing, signed by the Mover and Seconder, and transmitted to the Council of the Table, who shall number and file them, according to the order in which they are given in. At the close of each day's business, and before the adjournment of the Convention, the Secretary, or one of the Council, shall read all motions given in, during that sitting, according to the priority of delivery, in order that they may be copied, and taken into consideration by the several Sections; and, being so read, they shall come on for debate the following sitting, in the same order of ar­rangement, made by the Council, unless the Convention shall think proper to prefer any one of them, as containing matter of greater importance, or more urgent necessity. A motion once rejected, cannot be brought forward again in the same Session of the Convention, unless requested in writing by 20 members.’ This was thought proper to be introduced, in order to save us trouble, as there were some men who could speak better than they could write; and who, perhaps, might wish to be busy; for we already began to suspect that we had got spies among us, and that motions of a dangerous tendency might be brought in; and, therefore, we endeavoured to pre­vent being led into a trap; for, we found that, in general, it is the most honest men that become the dupes of knaves. ‘In case of two or more motions being on the table, which relate to the same object, and tend to the same end, the Council, and the respective movers, shall use their best endeavours to consolidate them all into one before they are discussed: but, in case the Council and the respective movers cannot agree in such measure, then the same shall be finally determined by the Convention. Notwithstanding the above regulations, any Member may submit a motion, at any time, to the consi­deration of the Convention, which he deems to be of greater [Page 135] importance, or more urgent necessity than any of those which stand in the order of the day; and, if from the reasons ad­vanced by such Member, a majority of the Convention shall coincide, in opinion, with him, such motion shall be immedi­ately brought forward, and determined.’

Now, here is that which was drawn up with more care than any other part. We know debates often lead to warmth; and, that when disputants wax warm, they generally grow tumultu­ous and irregular. We have seen these tumults, and this rio­tous manner of debating, even in the House of Commons: we sought to avoid it; and therefore, we ordered, that ‘no person shall speak in the ordinary sittings of the Convention, more than once on the same subject, unless it be to explain, or by special leave of the Convention; but when all who wish to speak to the question have done so, any Member may be heard again; and, every Member who opens a debate, shall have the privilege of being heard, the last, in reply, before the discussion be finally closed. If it shall appear to the mo­ver, or seconder of any motion, or to any other member, that the matter contained therein requires the most ample discus­sion, on motion, for that purpose, made and agreed to, the Preses shall leave the Chair, for the purpose of the Conven­tion resolving itself into a General Committee, in which, a Chairman being first appointed, every Member shall be at li­berty to speak as often as the Committee may think proper to hear him, till the question shall be called for by an apparent majority. As soon as the question shall be called for, and the discussion closed, the President shall resume his seat, and the question shall be determined in Convention. The Coun­cil shall require the President or Chairman; or either of these may, of his own accord, put a vote for closing the debate. When it appears to any of them to be the general wish of the Convention, or general Committee, there shall, however, be a vote taken; and two to one for closing the discussion, before it actually takes place.’ Here we sought, not only to avoid the heat of debate, but we sought to avoid partiality, and we sought to avoid any prejudice that any man might have against another, or in favour of another, ‘The question of closing the debate may, itself, be debated; but, it must be strictly at­tended to, that no Member, under pretence of giving reasons for or against closing the debate, shall go into the discussion of the main question.’

The next head is, that of Order; a term not borrowed from France, but from the House of Commons of England; for, in the House of Commons, the order of the day is a common phrase. ‘The Convention shall meet daily, at five o'clock in the after­noon, and shall proceed, First, To receive and verify the pow­ers of any new members. Secondly, To receive, without reading, the Lists of Candidates from the Sections, Thirdly, [Page 136] To read communications addressed to the convention. Fourth­ly, To elect, from the lists of candidates, the Committees, if any have been ordered, the new Assistant, and the Preses. Fifthly, To hear from the Council, what is the whole business standing for discussion; and what is that particularly ap­pointed for the day, with the order of priority, proposed by the Council; which priority may there be debated, and fixed. Sixthly, To read over the minutes of the preceding day, and any former days, not finally settled, and direct corrections of the same, if need be.’ Seventhly, To receive reports from the different committees.

‘In going through the business of the day, the order of pri­ority, fixed as above, shall be adhered to, unless altered by a vote of the Convention, which must, at any time, be put, if desired by the Council; or, if required in writing, by any five members. Any point, once discussed and determined, can neither be rescinded nor brought forward again on the same day; nor at all, but by a motion regularly made; and, for the bringing in of which, leave shall have been obtained the preceding day. The Reporter of any Committee shall always have a preference to the ordinary business of the day, to deliver his report to the Convention, so as not to break in upon any debate which may be before it. Members shall speak in the order in which they rise for that purpose; and, if more than one rise at the same time, the Preses shall decide who is entitled to priority.’

‘The president alone shall have the power of interrupting any speaker who wanders from the question: but any indivi­dual shall have the right to suggest his opinion, by writing the word order, and handing it to him.’

‘No member is to be allowed to speak to any subject after a show of hands has taken place on it.’

You will see by this, that we were not only far from sediti­ously inclined, but we did not give our tongues a loose: we were obliged to speak in order, and methodically take our turns, and say nothing further than what we were entitled to. You will from that gather, that a society so well regulated, could not be for the purpose of overturning the Constitution, which, in its ori­ginal state, is regularity itself: we were proceeding in a way that directly led to a reform: these are the heads; and there remained five more to be finished, when we were apprehended by general warrants, and the meeting dispersed by the power of the Sheriff, and of the Lord Provost; therefore, if we are not in order, it is not our fault, but the fault of those who inter­rupted us; yet, you will see, that we were not altogether so illiterate as some men, and men of shining, perhaps more shining than solid, abilities have thought proper to represent us. We knew what we were about; and all this was done openly: we have had fifty visitors of a night: any person sending in his [Page 137] name to the Council of the Table, was his admission ticket; and, as I observed to you, we sought nothing but the public good: we sought a Parliamentary Reform; we seek it still; and, I trust, we shall to the end of our lives; and a renovation, not a de­struction, but a renovation of our Constitution. Gentlemen, I will now come to the plain facts stated in the indictment, and then, I will make a few remarks upon the evidence that has been given; and, Gentlemen, I am sorry to detain you so long; but, it is my duty to be as explicit as possible, in this matter, as well as yours to listen to it: was it my own individual business, I would meet your verdict this instant; but I have already told you, that I consider myself as the least concerned in this matter; it is the cause of Reform.

The indictment, Gentlemen, accuses me of having been made a Delegate by an Association of seditious people, calling them­selves the Corresponding Society of London.

Now, Gentlemen, either the charge is true or false; if it is false, it is malicious; if it is true, then I am the seditious person I am represented. The London Corresponding Society is not a seditious society; it is a society established upon as regular and as systematical a plan as that of the Convention. We are proceed­ing to increase, to diffuse political knowledge, to make every man acquainted with his political rights: we are formed into di­vision, because, we well know, that large companies introduce disorder and confusion; therefore, we never suffer, except when general meetings take place: we never suffer above a certain number to assemble together: we assemble in private houses; neither eat nor drink; but calmly and coolly discuss the political subjects before us: we instruct the ignorant, and receive instruc­tion from those that know more than we do; and, therefore, the charge that this is an association of seditious people, is a falsehood; and, the Public Prosecutor backed it with another falsehood, on the night he did me the honour to try me, instead of Mr. Skirving: he asserted, that this seditious society had held a meeting for the purpose of choosing Delegates; and, that they were so detested by the mob, that the magistrates were obliged to protect them. I was not at liberty to answer him that night; nor should I do it now, especially in his absence, but that im­pressions unfavourable may have gone forth. It is said, that the magistrates, an odd doctrine for a crown lawyer to advance, were obliged to take under their protection the seditious Lon­don Society, in electing Delegates to send to Edinburgh. If the Corresponding Society was seditious, why did not the ma­gistrates quell us? they were present; and they came with a design to disperse us; but the laws are paid a greater regard to in the metropolis than they are at some distance from it; and, when they found we were acting upon constitutional principles, they dared not molest us: there were 500 constables; and, out of these 500, I will, to be sure, say, there were, at least, 300 [Page 138] out of them, who maintained the same principles that we did, that a reform was necessary; that it might be imprudent if the magistrates had acted otherwise than they did. If any illegal open act of violence had taken place, it must have been occasi­oned by them; but they did not commit any act of violence: on the contrary, we placed ourselves under the care of the high constable, and his posse; and they attended; but, as in the tes­timony of the Lord Provost, if any riot was occasioned that day, it was from the magistrates, and their attendants, for our Soci­ety, being so numerous, were obliged to meet in an open field; or, at least, a field enclosed with palings: it was in the neigh­bourhood of Spitalfields; and the people in the neighbourhood, led by curiosity, and not kept at home by work, being out of employ, and might as well dine upon the fresh air as the stag­nate air of Spitalfields itself, they attended our meeting to the amount of thousands, and behaved as orderly as those men you saw to-day come up the streets; they behaved with the utmost decency; and the Police Magistrates, from the Police Office, with their police runners, attended, but did not dare to molest us more than that we invited them to attend our meeting, inas­much as it was constitutional; knowing that they should dis­please certain persons in power, who shall be nameless, they de­clined accepting the invitation of attending; but, after I was no­minated, I returned them thanks for the polite attention they had paid us: they asked us whether we were to choose Mem­bers of Parliament; I replied, No; that our object, at Edinburgh, was to communicate with our brethren here, who were like our­selves, pursuing a Reform in Parliament; that would be our bu­siness in Edinburgh. I told them, if they had any commands, I would execute them: they politely bid me a good day, and drew off their Constables; and found themselves to be very hap­py in being protected by us: it is true, Sir, the High Constable came to me, and begged of me, as a means of dispersing the mob, that I would desire the Members of our Society to disperse quietly, forasmuch as there might be some riot, some tumult. I told him, if that was the case, we would to a man turn out and assist the civil officer: that as Reform was our aim, so was order; and, that we would, on every occasion, protect the civil officer; and, at the same time, that we assisted him in his duty, we would take care that he did it. And, Gentlemen, my behaviour has been perfectly regular; I have been always ready to come for­ward, and face my country, against any charges, except, at the first instance, when I was assailed by six blackguards, or messen­gers; or, whatever they were, I told them, Take my word, that when ever they required my presence, I would be forthcoming: the same was the case in this Court; yet, I did not hesitate to appear; I never will fly from justice; I will always abide by it; besides, Gentlemen, if the London Society was seditious, but it is not, it is sanctioned by a letter, a copy shall be given to each of [Page 139] you, to peruse at your leisure: you will see, that it was a Soci­ety founded upon our constitutional principles; that none of the Ministers dared offend us: it is true, last year, several associations were formed all over the kingdom; and, it is they who sounded the tocsin; and, where did they originate? they originated in about eleven placemen; the President, the Chairman of that Society, possesses only five places; he was a clerk, or under­strapper, of Lord Hawkesbury, his name is Reeves: at the same time, to prove to you the further constitutionality of our pro­ceedings, we did, in the month of April, hold an assembly, at the Crown and Anchor, in the room above this very man, who was for protecting property against republicans and levellers: this very man, obliged to bite his nails, in the room underneath, dared not shew his teeth; but he can write; and he is assisted; I will not say by the treasury, but he has pecuniary assistance, and has laid the public under contributions; and, here I apply to an observation of the Public Prosecutor, that we drew money from the deluded, the poor, and the weak. Would to God, no man drew more from the poor, the deluded, and the weak! If no man enjoyed more sinecure places than we do, every fami­ly would have bread; which is not now the case; while those who draw money from the poor, the weak, the deluded, and, I may add, the oppressed, are revelling in riot and luxury, and all manner of profligacy: while they sell themselves, while they sell others, and their crimes, they cut a figure; but let them re­member, that every guinea that they possess, consists of a certain number of drops of the blood of the poor. He says, being named a Delegate by an association of seditious people, calling themselves the Corresponding Society of London, did repair to Edinburgh, with the wicked and felonious purpose of joining and co-operating with an illegal association of evil disposed and seditious persons, who originally designed themselves the Gene­ral Convention of the Friends of the People. Now, it seems, that the original Friends of the People, were an illegal associa­tion; were an association of evil disposed and seditious persons. In the indictment, it says so; but, in the pleading of the Prose­cutor for the Crown, he says otherwise; he says, that they were harmless, that they were allowed; and, indeed, the behaviour of the Magistrates toward them, seems to prove the legality of their institution: he goes on, and charges us with holding vari­ous illegal and seditious meetings: how came they to be illegal? If the Friends of the People were in the first instance legal, how came they to be illegal and seditious? or where are the proofs that he brings of it? He likewise says, they met under a pre­sence of procuring a reform.

Gentlemen, you are not to be caught by words: you are men of sense, and sense alone is to operate upon you; reason and sound sense: how is he to tell? how is he to prove? in what manner has he proved that these were only pretences? [Page 140] On the contrary, what I have already shewed you betrays a great system of regularity and order; and order will never be introduced for the sake of forwarding confusion; and yet, he says, they were evidently of a dangerous and destructive ten­dency; though I startle at the words, evidently of a dangerous and destructive tendency; yet, if you allow me to add a few words to that sentence, I will shew they are strictly true; for, if you apply these words to the abuses which have crept into the Constitution, you will make English, you will make sense, and you will make truth of it. He says, we imitat­ed, in the form and tenor of our proceedings, that Conven­tion of people, the avowed enemies of this country: these people, the avowed enemies of this country, fight with guns, bayonets, and cannon: we do the same; and, yet I don't suppose that we are guilty of opposing, arm to arm: the House of Commons, whom we are seeking to reform, and wish to new model, if possible, upon the plan of a more frequent renovation, uses the same regulations that we do; but order can never be criminal. Gentlemen of the Jury, he says, likewise, that I did act as Preses or Chairman of their meetings: this, likewise, he has failed to prove: he has proved that I acted once as Chair­man; and, therefore, cannot be guilty of acting as Chairman at their meetings; at least, he is inaccurate in his language; but, in England, such an inaccuracy would be fatal to the indict­ment.

Although it has been said that I was an Attorney by one; and, by another, that I know nothing of law, I hope to prove, that I know something of the Constitution; and, that if I am no At­torney, I have as much honesty as any Attorney, or any Gen­tleman of the gown. It goes on, that various inflammatory votes and resolutions were passed. Of this, I trust, the Public Pro­secutor has failed to produce an evidence: there is no vote, no resolution of an inflammatory nature, inasmuch as to understand the word inflammatory; it means, not merely, that which will inflame itself, but that which will inflame others: now, the word introduced, as inflammatory, had no manner of connec­tion with the Convention at large, and was ordered by it, to have been burnt: there, indeed he is right; it might have been inflammatory; when burning, it was inflammatory; but that inflammatory nature was no way seditious. Continuing then, in the swollen and delusive language of the indictment, he states, that the said Maurice Margarot, did also, "when attending in his capacity of Delegate, at the illegal meetings of the said Asso­ciation, utter, and make various seditious and inflammatory speeches, tending to vilify our present happy Constitution, and to withdraw therefrom, the confidence and attachment of our subjects." I have already proved, that the only end of our meeting, was to revert to our Constitution; but, it seems, that there is a terrible confusion of ideas. He accuses me with hav­ing, [Page 141] while attending my duty, as Delegate, in these meetings of the Convention, with having made several inflammatory speeches, tending to vilify our present happy Constitution; and, to withdraw, therefrom, the confidence and attachment of our subjects: That that is a wrong statement, will be evident, at first sight: by what you have already been told, you must have discovered, that men, seeking a Reform, cannot wish to do in­jury to that very Constitution which will procure to them that Reform; for, we are not so blind as not to see, that our origi­nal Constitution, if we revert to its original principles, does give us the Reform we want; but his way of proving the inflamma­tory speech is very curious. And, particularly, the said "Mau­rice Margarot did, at a meeting of said Convention, held on Tuesday, 19th November last, 1793, or on some other day of that month, in a Mason Lodge, or room in Blackfriars Wynd; in the city of Edinburgh, wickedly and feloniously make the following motion, or one of a similar import." This, you will recollect, is to be the vilifying of our present happy Constituti­on, and our withdrawing therefrom the attachment of our sub­jects. Now, you will see what that motion is, which he ad­duces in support of that proof: That, previous to publishing an Address to the Public, a Committee be forthwith appointed to consider the means, and draw up the outlines of a plan of general union and corporation between the two nations, in their constitutional pursuit of a thorough Parliamentary Reform. He brings you forth a motion, as written evidence; and, he tells you, this is done for the purpose of subverting our present hap­py Constitution, and withdrawing therefrom the attachment of our subjects: you certainly will not take it amiss, if I recal to your mind what I said before, that it was an attempt to impose upon your understandings; for there is not one of you fifteen that has a servant about your house, so imbecile, as to suppose that a plan of union would tend to vilify our present happy Con­stitution, and withdraw, therefrom, the confidence and attach­ment of our subjects: it might, very well, when helped for­ward with all the brilliancy of gesture, of language, of action, which he is possessed of; but, when you come to look into it, it is a direct falsehood: let us call things by their proper name: it is a direct falsehood; it does not support itself then further, that motion having passed unanimously; and, which motion, clearly demonstrated a wish and intention on the part of the said Maurice Margarot, of propagating the seditious tenets of that Association over the whole kingdom; and, of exciting our sub­jects in England, in contempt of legal authority, to adopt the same unconstitutional conduct with the said Maurice Margarot, and his associates, had presumed to follow. Gentlemen, I have been told, that in Scotland, I am as much a stranger as if I had come from Germany, from Italy, from America; and yet, a Court which cannot bring witnesses from England, can try me [Page 142] for what was charged to be done in England: in short, it is a farrago of nonsense. Were I better acquainted with the Public Prosecutor, I should have thought he meant to have set forth my poor services in the Convention; and, there­fore, brought me forward to explain the nature of it, the contempt of legal authority. Where has it been shewn? No where: on the contrary, we had the auction of legal autho­rity; Pitt and Dundas both knew we were coming down: the Magistrates of Edinburgh knew we were assembling for that pur­pose; unless the contempt was, that we did not go and ask them leave: perhaps, had we been strolling players, we might; for, I am told, that a town-hall, not far from Edinburgh, was refused to the Friends of the People; and, the next night, permitted to a company of strolling players: probably the strolling players are the most beneficial members of society. Gentlemen, you see what hardships I labour under, no being able to get at my ex­culpating witnesses and papers, the witnesses being above the laws of the country. The Lord Advocate, when he says it was in contempt of legal authority, utters a falshood: not even your Lord Chief Justice Laing, who goes about knocking people down in the street, his legal authority had not shewn itself; and, therefore it was not in contempt of any legal authority what­ever. We took our own room; burnt our own candles; and no­body had any thing to do with it but ourselves: there was no contempt of any legal authority; and, therefore, that part must be expunged; as also, that which relates to England; over which, you say, you have no jurisdiction. Again, I find among my high crimes and misdemeanors, the word tocsin; and, a learned Judge has said, that we took it from the French: ano­ther person has said, taking up, I suppose, what had dropped from the learned Judge, that it was a French word: unfortu­nately it happens to be borrowed even by them: it is a Chinese word, signifying a shrill sound; a bell that is rung when danger is near; and, you know, the greater part, or all the words of the Chinese language, mean one and the same thing; and, there­fore they are obliged to couple a member of them, in order to convey what they mean, especially when it carries a complicate idea with it.

Again, a motion is deemed very seditious; for, having appoint­ed a Committee for the particular purpose of watching every act which may militate against the rights of the people; it is first false, that such a Committee has been appointed; but, if it had been appointed, we should, in the French term, have deserved well of our country, for our vigilance; for, let me call to your mind, in all the high offices of trust, you find very few people willing to step forward, and serve you for nothing; and that would have been the case, if we had appointed this Committee: we should have been labouring for you, at our own expence; being your centinels, watching, that none of your rights might [Page 143] be encroached, while you slept; but it may be proper here to animadvert likewise upon the blank that was produced as cri­minal, and more criminal than the written evidence: it was said, that the resolution which ought to fill the blank, was of such a nature, that it must not appear till the end of the Re­solutions. I will explain that to the satisfaction of the Jury; but, it must be by reading to them the whole discourse. Here is a motion, supposed to be made by Mr. Callendar, That in case the Minister, of any other Member, bring into the House of Commons, a motion for a Convention Bill, as passed in Ire­land, for preventing the people from meeting, according to their just rights, by the Revolution, the same motion shall be noticed to the Delegates of the respective Societies immediately, to meet in Convention, to assert their rights; and, then they make me say, this is an excellent motion; and the event which it al­ludes to, ought to be the tocsin to the Friends of Liberty to assem­ble: it seems, however, to be imperfect; it does not mention any place of meeting: neither does it specify the time when the Delegates are to assemble; for the word immediately is indefi­nite, and will not convey the same meaning to persons residing in different parts of the country: by those who live near to the place of meeting, it will be understood, that they are to repair there next day; by those at a greater distance within a few days; and by those still farther off, within a week after such informa­tion is received. Gentlemen, you will remember, I have read to you eight chapters, the produce of the Committee of Regula­tions; you will see what spirit actuated them, when they draw up those regulations; and that there was nothing seditious in their tendency. Here, I am then made to say, that this motion comes properly under the chapter of regulations; I wish it were referred to that Committee; I therefore move, that the report be read, that the Convention may judge, whether the article I al­lude to, sufficiently provides for the intention of the motion now before the Convention. Here you see, first, my dissent to that motion of Mr. Callendar's: the one which the Committee of Re­gulations had drawn up, was in a different style, and would have come in extremely well at the end of the regulations; in­stead of which, the Convention spliced the one with the other; they adopted the motion of Mr. Callendar, and proposed to bring it in as amended by Mr. Sinclair, and others; and, the next day, they proposed to bring it in at the end of the proceed­ings; that the only mystery that has given so much uneasiness to the Public Accuser; while, at the same time, he might have done away a great deal of your suspense, and, likewise, have made himself much easier; for, I believe, he is in possession of that motion, but did not think proper to produce it, because it would not have answered his end of criminating me; however, I will invalidate it entirely, for the Public Accuser is bound to bring forward the best evidence he can adduce: he has not [Page 144] brought that evidence forward: he has told you, that he has got it, but has not produced it; therefore, you are not to believe him on his word; and, I believe, that is not the only falsehood point­ed out, that will engage you to disbelieve any thing he may as­sert. I will read a passage from the Gazetteer, which will shew, that other men have been the victims of his falsehood, as well as myself. Gazetteer, 7th January, signed by a man of great re­spectability, both as to truth and fortune; a man still more re­spectable by education, and by his virtue; he is a man possessed of 6000l. a year, and upwards; lays the chief part of that mo­ney out, not in luxury, or in profligate living, but in relieving the necessities of the poor; I mean Mr. Archibald Hamilton Rowan, who has been called one of the wretches of Ireland.

This is what they call in plain vulgar English, giving a man the lye; and when the name is affixed to it, this man is of an equally high character, and his intrinsic character makes him rank at least with the official character of the public prosecutor. I dare say he is not a man, who would fix his name to a false­hood; and if he had, his falsehood would have been contra­dicted; and it seems that here the public prosecutor is very full of spirit, and therefore would have resented this injury. He has silently acknowledged the truth of it, and the man who will tell a falsehood in one instance, will tell it in general; therefore be wary how you trust merely to his assertion, especially with an object like this in view, the extirpation of abuses upon which he and his relatives fatten; for his uncle reaps upwards of 20,000l. a year of the public money as Secretary of State. Were abuses to be rectified, these salaries would be diminished; were these abuses to be rectified, it is possible his conduct would be enquired into as most likely it will speedily. You see by this, Gentlemen, that where any thing tending to exculpate me could be adduced, he has kept it back; but he has not done it simply and fairly, but aggravated it; I have greater proof of this man's guilt, but I will not produce it; whereas, it is an extenuation of guilt. Here is another act of criminality in this motion; by the by, it seems very inconvenient in the practice of the law of Scotland, that one crime may affect many persons, if it is only by holding [Page 145] finger to finger, art and part as it is called here; and here, Gen­tlemen, it may be as well to revert to the opinion of the Solicitor General of King William upon that subject. Sir John Hawles says, ‘As Juries have ever been vested with such powers by law, so to exclude them from, or disseise them of the same, were utterly to defeat the end of their institution; for then if a per­son should be indicted for doing any common innocent act, if it be but clothed and disguised in the indictment with the name of treason:’ So that you see, even in King William's time, there were frivolous persecutions as well as at present; I meant to call them prosecutions, I beg pardon; and that if the Jury did not step in between the crown lawyer and the subject, the subject having no redress, was incarcerated, fined, banished, or otherwise ill used, and all for things, which in themselves were perfectly innocent; but being clothed in tremendous lan­guage, appear heinous crimes, such as I was mentioning just now, and is reported here; ‘If any person should be indicted for doing any common innocent act, if it be but clothed and disguised in the indictment with the name of treason, or some other high crime, and proved by witnesses to have been done by him, the Jury, though satisfied in conscience that the fact is not any such offence as it is called, yet because (according to this fond opinion) they have no power to judge of law, and the fact charged is fully proved, they shall at this rate be bound to find him guilty.’—Thus you will if you find me guilty, refer me to the mercy of the court—I shall not detain you much longer; you have attended me with singular patience, Gentlemen of the Jury, and I thank you for it—you are doing your country good. Distinguish then the true friends of your country from its foes. You have seen that the testimony of every witness adduced on the part of the Crown is one weaker than another; that it all turns upon the point of the meeting being Seditious; whereas, in verity, as the law term is, the meeting was founded upon the claim of rights—that it is the privilege of the subject to seek redress; and I must take the li­berty of quoting to you something from De Foe, which will prove to you, that the people have a right—that the original power rests with them, and that they have a right to control that pow­er, and keep on it a continual check; for as I said before, the servant is not greater than the master, and the King is but the chief servant of the nation. It is true we do not exercise our au­thority over him, or if we do, it is but once in two or three cen­turies; and I hope it will be centuries before we shall have oc­casion to exercise it again. But there are those who exercise the regal power in his name, and the sooner they are brought to condign punishment, the sooner it will prevent others from pur­suing the same dastardly pursuits. This is a chapter of De Foe; he is treating of the original power of the collective body of the people of England.—‘To the King. Sir, it is not the least of [Page 146] the extraordinaries of your Majesty's character, that as you are King of your people, so you are the people's King. This title, as it is the most glorious, so it is the most indisputable in the world. God himself appointed, the prophet proclaimed, but the people's assent was the finishing, the royal authority of the first King of Israel. Your Majesty, among all the bles­sings of your reign, has restored this as the best of all our en­joyments, the full liberty of our original right in its actings and exercise.’—

This was published in the year 1705, soon after the revolution. ‘Former reigns have invaded it, and the last thought it totally suppressed; but as liberty revived under your Majesty's just authority, this was the first flower she brought forth;’ that is to say, the acting and exercise of our liberties and original rights, which are those which you have seen in Mr. Wharton's speech, of petitioning and obtaining redress; of keeping a constant check upon every servant of the Crown, in whatever situation he may be placed; and of obtaining a fair and equal representation.

He says in another place,—‘I have observed, when interest obliges any person or party to defend the cause they have es­poused, they please themselves with fancying they conceal their private designs, like a late Act of Parliament, which in the preamble calls itself an Act for the relief of Creditors; but which in its effect, was an act for the relief of Debtors.’ This is like men who cry up the Constitution, and live upon its defects. ‘Thus some Gentlemen place fine specious titles on their books; as Jura Populi Anglicani;—A Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England, and a Vindication of the Rights of the Lords; and with large and high encomiums upon the excellency of our Constitution, treat the levity of some people's judgments with fine notions; whereas, the true end and design is defending the interest and party they have espoused.’

Gentlemen, call to mind whether it may not be the case with one of us two, the Pannel or the Public Prosecutor, whether we may not be trumpeting up or sounding the praise of the con­stitution, and at the same time have interested and private views; and as it has been said you cannot penetrate into the minds of men, you can only judge from the tenor of their conduct; hi­therto he has acknowledged himself to be a placeman, though not a pensioner. Gentlemen, I take my God to witness, that were I to be offered one of the most profitable places under Go­vernment, my conscience would not permit me to accept the emoluments of it, when I know that it has been drawn from the blood and the sweat of the poor: that there has been more blood spilt within this last twelvemonth, for the purpose of gratifying Ministry, and keeping the public mind from reform, than would completely fill the largest ship now in the British navy, and I speak within compass, ‘The defence of the rights of the re­presentative body of the people, understood by the name of [Page 147] the Common of England in Parliament, is a great point, and so plain are their rights, that it is no extraordinary task to de­fend them; but for any man to advance, that they are so au­gust an assembly, that no objection ought to be made to their actions, nor to reflect upon their conduct, though the fact be true; and that it is not to be examined, whether the thing said be true, but what authority the person speaking has to say, it is a doctrine wholly new.’

You see, Gentlemen, it was a doctrine new a hundred years ago, in the time of De Foe, but it is a doctrine renewed now to serve these state prosecutions; it is highly seditious, and of a very evil tendency in the public at present to examine into the conduct of the House of Commons, and yet at that time it was constitutional; why, because we have brought in the present family, and that they had entered into a contract with the peo­ple; they would not suffer their servants to deviate from it at first; at present, through lapse of time that is grown obsolete, and their servants' servants tell you, you are not even to examine into it; praise the Constitution, and think yourselves happy, whether you are so or not. ‘It is doctrine wholly new, and seems to me to be a badge of more slavery to our own repre­sentatives, than ever the people of England owes them, or than ever they themselves expected. This therefore, toge­ther with some invasions of the people's rights, made public by several modern authors;’ You see the rights of the people were begun already, then to be invaded, ‘are the reasons why I have adventured (being wholly disinterested and unconcerned either for persons or parties) to make a short essay at declaring the rights of the people of England, not representatively, but collectively considered. And with due deference to the representative body of the nation, I hope I may say it can be no diminution of their rights, to assert the rights of that body from whom they derived the powers and privileges of their House, and which are the very foundation of their be­ing.’

This refers to what I said to you just now, the servant cannot be higher than the master; if they derive their powers from us, we entertain powers superior to theirs; it is therefore our duty to see that they acquit themselves of the task reposed in them, and consequently all the meetings of the people for those pur­poses are constitutional, and not seditious and inflammatory, as sounded by the Public Accuser. ‘For if the original right of the people be overthrown, the power of the Representative, which is subsequent and subordinate, must die of itself, and because I have to do rather with reason and the nature of the thing, than with laws and precedents.’ I am happy to find that De Foe stood in the situation I now do. I have, Gentlemen, to do before you with reason and the nature of the thing: I have to deal with your reason: I like that much better than law [Page 148] or precedents; reason is an emanation of the divine Being; laws are but the formation of that emanation, and the farther the rays diverge from the centre, the weaker they grow.

Gentlemen, you will find that the plain doctrine that I am laying down, has been the language of all times and all ages, is the doctrine of truth itself; and that I am acting for the public advantage, and not for private or personal emolument; and be­cause I have to do rather with reason and the nature of the thing, than with law and precedents. The Crown Lawyers can con­fuse and confound a man not bred to the law: They can con­found a juryman with the dust from the old musty law books, and lull his reasoning to sleep with words conveying a very dif­ferent meaning to what ought to be attached to them. ‘To come directly to what I design in the following papers, it is necessary to lay down some maxims other than what a late au­thor has furnished us with; salus populi suprema lex.’ This will not be controverted by any body, the welfare of the people is the first of all laws; and remember this, Gentlemen, ‘all government, and consequently our whole Constitution, was originally designed and is maintained for the support of the people's property, who are the governed.’ It is for the sup­port of the people, not for the support of the governor, ‘that all the members of Government, whether Kings, Lords, or Commons, if they invert the great design of their institution, the public good, cease to be in the same public capacity.’ You see, De Foe absolutely suspends them from their function, the moment they cease to devote their talents to the public good. How many of our placemen and pensioners would be suspended, if that law was still put in execution! ‘And power retreats to its original, that no collective or representative body of men whatsoever, in matters of politics any more than religion, are or ever have been infallible.’ Here is the axe at the root of the omnipotence of Parliament, ‘That reason is the test and touch­stone of laws, and that all law or power that is contradictory to reason, is ipso facto void in itself, and ought not to be obey­ed. Some other maxims less general, are the consequence of these: as First, that such laws as are agreeable to reason and justice, being once made, are binding both to King, Lords, and Commons, either separately or conjunctively, till actually repealed in due form.’ Thus much, I differ from many great men in the law at present; who say, that a bad law when once found to be a bad law, ought to be disobeyed in order to get it broken. On the contrary I am for obeying, and every good ci­tizen is for obeying and paying respect to the laws, and to no­thing but the laws; and while a law is in force, let it be never so bad, I will obey it; I will point out if I can the errors of the law, but I will obey it while it is in existence; from that confession of faith, you may easily suppose that another article of accusa­tion will fall to the ground, which is that our Convention was [Page 149] to assemble and militate against the Parliament, in case of the introduction of a Convention Bill: We were to overawe in the language of the public Prosecutor; to overawe the Parliament; to check them in their proceedings: so we were: but how? as a body of men we could do nothing till we had a majority of the nation on our side. When once the majority of the Society is of one way of thinking, it is proper that the minority should yield to it, and that is the first law of Society; and as the general good is to be paramount to every thing, so the will of the few is to submit to the will of the many; and therefore, the object of our institution was first to diffuse political knowledge; and secondly, to gather the general will. If we found that general will, to be for a reform in Parliament, a Reform in Par­liament we should obtain; if we are to be slaves, it is our duty then to sit down silent, and if not satisfied, we may as a noble Lord has said, take our pack on our back, and be trudging. My Lord, at another season I might not talk improfitably, but at the present late hour of the night, I think in my mind that I have said sufficiently to acquit myself of all the charges laid against me, if you will be kind enough to divest yourselves of any pre­judice which public papers, public rumours, or public prejudices, may have inspired against me; to examine not merely the man; I am myself, a willing and a devoted victim to my country.

I know if I am left to the mercy of the court, how that mercy will display itself; but if it can profit the cause that I should be a victim, I am willing it should be so: I have faced death before now: I am not afraid of it now, you see that I am not agitated. I am as cool as yourselves; I have studied this affair well: I un­dertook it not sanctioned by a Pitt, a Richmond, or a Dundas: I adopted it upon reason and justice, and I will quit it only with life. Gentlemen, you represent you country: your situation is awful; you are now to guard its liberties; you are now to en­courage the plant of reform; a mild and peaceful reform, ac­cording to the temper of men's minds, now may be easily effect­ed; but beware of persecution carried on with too much rigour. We know, and history shews us, that at a certain pitch of op­pression the people will bear it no longer, and an uninformed multitude, is what every well-studied government, every well conducted government should fear to incense. It has been the policy of Europe, and it is a popish policy, and I am sorry to say, we now number two among our Allies who make much use of that policy; I mean those who encourage the inquisition and the bow-string, the Pope and the Turk, who have both now ambas­sadors at our Court. It is their policy that the people should be ignorant; it has been the policy of the priesthood, it has been the policy of false politicians; but I hope the time is coming, when men will open their eyes to their true interest, and that season when riches are no longer to be poured upon one man without measure, while a thousand others are starving. It is [Page 150] necessary that there should be a distinction of ranks, and it will take place, but let merit be the way to public offices; study that, and you will find yourselves better served, not as the present cus­tom is, the cousin of one Lord, and the son of another is to be the proprietor of a borough; these are things much wanted to be reformed.

Gentlemen, you have seen how slight the charges against me are; you have had intimation of what the mercy will be that I shall experience. A further intimation that orders have been issued, though the part from whence those orders came, have not been developed to you; yet let me recur to your claim of rights; it is contrary to the laws of Scotland, that any Magistrate of Scotland should act according to any order whatever, except it is according to the laws of Scotland, but not according to the orders of any stranger. You are in this case, without an appeal in Scotland. You are the representatives of the people; they have entrusted you with their rights and privileges; you are to pronounce on me, whether I am guilty or not. I have appeared here to answer to my country. I hope I have done it to the satisfaction of my country, and I hope you will do it honor by your verdict; though the sophistry of the public Prosecutor has appeared in all its defects, I hope that sound sense and reason are at work in your minds, and I hope there is not one among you fifteen, but what is possessed of an honest heart. Consider; I tell you consider not me—consider your country. Consider the cause, and consider the futility of the charge that is brought against me. I am sorry to have detained you so long, but it is a serious affair, and your verdict will not be confined within these walls; the eyes of Britain are now upon you fifteen men, whom I don't even know by name, and who perhaps never saw me be­fore, nor I you; then examine me well, see if there is any thing seditious in my appearance or behaviour; see if there is any thing illegal in what I have done, though not versed in the quirks of the law; and I am glad of it, for I believe the laws, and the per­version of the laws by the practice, have made many an honest man a knave. You will see whether I am guilty of the charge laid against me, what proportion of guilt is attached to me; whether any part is proved home to me; whether any part is legal proof, and whether I was not serving my country; and I cannot hesitate a moment to think but that your verdict will do honour to your country, and justice to me.—Gentlemen, I take my leave of you.—

Give me leave now to call to your Lordships attention, your particular duty.—

I will not receive any instructions from you, Sir.

I shall take the liberty of checking your Lordships, if you do not go on properly.

You have gone on for four hours, and I [Page 151] would not allow you to be interrupted; if you had not been a stranger, I would not have heard one third of what you have said in four hours, which was all sedition from beginning to end.