don, he the faid George Gordon afterwards (that is to fay) on the 2d day of June, in the twentieth year aforefaid, with force of arms, &c. at the faid parish of St. Margaret, within the liberty of Weftminster, in the faid county of Middlefex, with a great multitude of perfons whofe names are at prefent unknown to the jurors aforefaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of five hundred perfons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner (that is to fay), with colours flying, and with fwords, clubs, bludgeons, staves, and other weapons, as well offenfive as defenfive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously affembled and gathered together against our faid prefent fovereign lord the king, moft wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously did ordain, prepare, and levy public war against our faid lord the king, his fupreme and undoubted lord, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, againft the peace of our faid lord the king, his crown, and dignity, and alfo against the form of the ftatute in fuch cafe made and provided, And the jurors aforefaid, upon their oath aforefaid, further prefent, that the faid George Gordon, being a subject of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and feduced by the infligation of the devil, and entirely withdrawing the love, and true and due obedience which ‘every subject of our faid fovereign lord the king fhould, and of right ought to bear towards our faid prefent fovereign lord the king,

and wickedly devifing and intend ing to difturb the peace and public tranquillity of this kingdom, afterwards, to wit, on the faid fecond day of June, in the twentieth year of the reign of our faid sovereign lord the now king, and on divers other days and times between that day and the tenth day of the faid month of June, at the faid parish of St. Margaret, within the liberty of Westminster, in the faid county of Middlefex, unlawfully, maliciously, and traitoroufly, did compafs, imagine, and intend to raife and levy war, infurrection, and rebellion against our faid lord the king, within this kingdom of Great Britain; and to fulfil and bring to effect the faid laft mentioned traitorous compaflings, imaginations, and inten, tions of him the faid George, Gorden, he the faid George Gordon, on the faid fecond day of June, in the twentieth year aforefaid, and on divers other day's and times between that day and the tenth day of the fame month of June, with force and arms, &c. at the faid parish of St. Margaret, within the liberty of Westminster, in the faid county of Middlefex, with a great multitude of perfons whose names are at prefent unknown to the jurors aforefaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of five hundred perfons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner (that is to fay), with colours flying, and with fwords, clubs, bludgeons, ftaves, and other weapons, as well offenfive as defenfive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and traitoroufly affembled and gathered together againft our faid present fovereign lord the king, most wick edly, maliciously, and traitorouf

ly

ly did ordain, prepare, and levy public war against our faid lord the king, his fupreme and undoubted lord, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, against the peace of our faid lord the king, his crown, and dignity, and also against the form of the ftatute in fuch cafe made and provided.".

Mr. Norton opened the Indictment,

Mr. attorney-general then ftat ed, that the particular fpecies of treafon, with which the prifoner was charged, was ⚫ levying war against the king within his realm: that this offence, within the statute 25 Edw. III, is of two forts, the one directly and immediately against the perfon of the king' that the other, conftructive levying of war, is against the majefty of the king, as a great and numerous infurrection of the people to effect by force an alteration of the eftablished law of the country, or the reformation of grievances, real or imaginary, in which the infurgents have no particular or fpecial intereft; and, that it was of the latter kind of levying war with which the prifoner stood charged.'

He then entered into a difcuf fion of the Act against the Roman Catholics of the 11th and 12th of King William, fhewing that the claufes it contained were equally cruel and fevere, and could only be juftified by the neceffity of the cafe, for the falvation of the ftate and our religion; that the hiftory of the times afforded no proof of fuch neceffity, nor any apology for the hardships of fuch provifions; that the bill, on the contrary, according to Bishop Burnet's account, originated in party faction,

and was brought into the Houfe of Commons, that the court party, by rejecting it, might incur the odium of favouring the Catholics; that thofe who brought it in did not mean it should pafs, but were difappointed in their views, the court party making no oppofition to it; that wifhing then to drop it, they could not; upon which they added many fevere and unreafonable claufes to the bill, and fent it up to the lords in hopes that they would reject it, who, however, fuffered it to pafs. It was too much,' added the attorneygeneral, for any party or faction to take upon their game the liberties and fortunes of others.'

6

He next juftified the A&t paffed in 1778, to relieve the Roman Catholics from the oppreffive clau fes of the faid Act of the 11th and 12th of King William. This Bill,' faid he, was brought in by a member of the House of Commons, diftinguifhed for his love of the civil rights of mankind, and for his firm and zealous attachment to the Proteftant religion, and who befides poffeffes every public and private virtue that can adorn the citizen and the man -I mean Sir George Savile. It paffed through the commons almoft unanimously, the oppofition made to it by fome not being to the principle of the Bill, but that it did not go far enough in the redrefs: for, at the time of paffing this Act of King William, the Roman Catholics were excluded from any fhare in government, from any office of truft civil or military, and the perfons of that religion performing any part of their functions, as priests, or keeping of fchools, or educating youth,

were

220

were liable to many pecuniary peInalties, and in fome inftances to temporary imprisonment.'

After mentioning that the repeal of the Act in queftion was conditional only, and reftrained to thofe who fhould take an oath of the ftrongest affurance of loyalty to the government, and an abjuration in the most explicit terms of every pretender to the crown and government, with a pofitive renunciation of any authority of the fee of Rome, in civil or tem

poral cafes, within this kingdom; he took notice of the great disturbances at Edinburgh in February 1779, upon the fuppofition of a fimilar bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics in Scotland. This he noticed, as what would be found to be a very material circumftance when he came to ftate the conduct of the prifoner.

Paffing then to the Protestant Affociation, he mentioned the pains that were taken to create a belief that the repeal of the statute of King William would be attended with imminent danger to the state, and to the Protestant religion. Upon this ground,' faid he, a petition was determined upon, and, if they apprehended danger, they did right to petition; it is the inherent right of the fubject to petition parliament; and, whenever they imagine a cafe proper for the confideration of parliament, they do right to bring it before them; and I believe this petition was at one time intended to have been prefented in a legal, conftitutional, and orderly man

ner.'

Adverting to the circumftance of affembling, by public advertisement, in St. George's Fields, a vaft multitude of people, which

he called a large army, he faid, that, though it is the innate right of the fubject to present a petition to parliament, yet the petitioners are not to dictate to parliament, or take from parliament their deliberation upon the fubject; that would tend directly to the diffolution of the conftitution, and the fubverfion of government.'

Defcribing then the march of the Proteftant Affociators to the Houfe of Commons, which he faid was as regular as an army trained to it, and dwelling upon the dreadful outrages and conflagrations that enfued, he observed, that all perfons who contributed to the perpetration of them were as criminal as the very perfons who committed the act, and more fo, especially if they are to be afcribed to their incitement and encouragement.' He then added,

de

Gentlemen, you have now before you, as will appear upon the evidence, the author of all thefe violent and difgraceful proceedings, to whom the whole is to be imputed. An offender of such fcription has not often appeared in a court of justice.' In further ftating the conduct of the prifoner, he dwelt much upon the moft minute circumftances that could tend to criminate him, particularly on his allufion to the firmnefs of the Scotch, and then concluded by calling for the

Evidence for the Crown.

William Hay, a printer in Fleet-ftreet, fwore, that he had feen the prifoner five or fix times at different places where the Proteftant Affociation met; particularly at St. Margaret's-hill, at Greenwood's rooms, at the Old

Crown

Crown and Rolls in Chancerylane, at the London Tavern, and at Coachmakers-hall; that, at the meeting at Coachmakers-hall on the 29th of May, previous to their going up to the Houfe of Commons, he heard the prifoner announce to a numerous affembly, that the Affociated Proteftants amounted to upwards of 40,000; that, on Friday the 2d of June, it was refolved they fhould meet in St. George's Fields, in four separate divifions or columns, arrayed or dreffed in their beft clothes, with blue cockades in their hats, as he himself fhould wear one, to distinguish them from Papifts or friends to Roman Catholics;' that fome evenings before, at the Crown and Rolls, the prifoner read over the preambles or certain parts of the penal laws of Charles II, William and Mary, and George II; that, after reading them, he obferved, That, by his majefty's giving his affent to the Quebec law, and the late Act tolerating the Roman Catholics in England, his counsellors had brought him to that pafs or fituation in which James II. was after his abdication;' that he then read his majefty's coronation-oath, and faid, It was his opinion, that his majefty had broken that oath,' and that the people of this country did not mince the matter, they fpoke their minds freely, and avowed it to be true;' that, on Friday the 2d of June, he faw a vaft multitude collected in St. George's Fields, with cockades and banners, and the words Proteftant Affociation, no Popery! on them; and that he faw Lord George haranguing the mob; that afterwards he faw them march through Fleet-freet in their way

to the Houfe of Commons; that the fame day he was in the lobby of the house, which was much crowded; that he heard Lord George exhort the mob to continue ftedfaft in fo good and glorious a caufe. He would perfevere in it himself; and he hoped, although there was very little expectation from the House of Commons, that they would meet with redrefs from their mild or gracious fovereign.'

On his cross-examination hẻ faid, that the first time of his attending the meetings of the Proteftant Affociation was on the 10th of December. Being defired to recollect whether he certainly faw the prifoner at Greenwood's rooms, he defired to refer to his notes, and, then faid he was mistaken. Being afked how he came to take notes of what paffed at these meetings, he anfwered, that he had an idea then of what would be their confequences; that he first forefaw thefe confequences on the 20th of February. Being reminded that he had taken notes fo early as the 21st of January (the day on which he had fworn that he faw Lord George in Greenwood's rooms) he answered, that, without thofe notes, he could not come to that conclufion in his own mind about the confequences, and that he had taken notes on the 10th of December; that this was his conftant courfe in all occurrences of life. Being questioned what other meetings he had attended befides thofe of the Proteftant Affociation, where he had committed what paffed to writing, he appeared much embarraffed. He faid, however, that the first notes he made in his life were in the General Affembly of the Church of Scotland. Hav

ing faid that the perfon he had feen with a flag in Fleet-ftreet he faw afterwards at the Fleet-prifon and in Westminster, he was defired to defcribe him. He an fwered, that he appeared to him like a brewer's fervant in his best clothes; upon which being defired to explain by what mark he could diftinguish a brewer's fervant in his beft clothes from other men, he was extremely confused, and, at length, declared himself unable to answer the question.

William Metcalf fwore that he was at Coachmakers-hall on the day when the meeting in St. George's Fields was fixed upon; that he went out of curiofity, on hearing Lord G. Gordon was to be there; that he heard him defire them to meet him in St. George's Fields; he reminded them that the Scotch had fucceeded by unanimity, and he defired that they would likewise be unanimous; he hoped no one, who had figned the petition, would be afhamed or afraid to fhew himself in the caufe; he would not prefent the petition, unless he was met in St. George's Fields by twenty thousand people, and he recommended them to come with blue cockades in their hats, as a mark of distinction; he himself would be there to meet them, and would be answerable for any of them that should be molefted for meeting there; he wished fo well to the caufe, that he would go to the gallows in it or for it; (words to that effet, but that the word gallows was certainly mentioned) and that he would not prefent the petition of a lukewarm people.

John Anftruther, Efq; confirmed the evidence of the preceding witnefs. He was not certain, how

ever, whether the word gallows might not be death;' he rather believed the former was the word: he faid, that after the prifoner, had declared, that, if there was one less than 20,000 people, he would not meet them in St. George's Fields; he added, becaufe without that number he did not think their petition would be of confequence enough;' and that he alfo recommended temperance and firmness in their conduct. This witnefs then faid, that on the Friday after he was in the lobby in the Houfe of Commons; he faw Lord George leaning over a gallery that looks down into the lobby; he heard him addrefs the people from that place; he came out, as he understood, for the purpose of telling them what paffed in the houfe; he told them they had been called a mob within the houfe; that the peace-officers had been called in to disperse them;" I think he faid, them peaceable petitioners;' that they had not given their reasons to the house why they had not difperfed them; he believed the peace-officers had figned the petition; fome people had mentioned in the house fomething relating to calling in the military; he hoped no-body would think of taking a step of that sort, as it would infallibly tend to create divifions among his majesty's subjects.' He again mentioned how the Scotch by their steadiness had carried their point; he had no doubt his majefty would fend to his minifters to defire them to repeal the Act, when he heard that his fubjects were flocking from miles round, and wishing its repeal.' This witnefs further faid, feveral people called to Lord G. Gordon, Do you defire us to go

6

away