what is the consequence? that any malicious enemy I may have may take advantage of any loose word I may speak in a moment of pain-in a moment of joy-in a moment of sadness, and that he may carry his information to the lion's mouth at the committee of his parish, it shall go to the central committee, and from thence to the solicitor to the treasury, or the attorney-general. Whereabouts are we when thus we are put into the hands of any man in this way, into the hands of the lowest class of the people, of butcher's boys, and police officers,-to accuse us on any day and at any distance of time that they please. Is this right? is this good? are we safe? I don't know whether we are or not. I don't determine these questions. But it is a good reason for us to examine into such prosecutions and to scout them as they deserve, if they are instituted from private motives. I will tell you the whole as it passed. Mr. Briellat found these persons, associated for liberty, were desirous of forming some kind of system by which their cries might be heard, as well as those who were afraid of republicans and levellers, so that they might not hear any more of St. Ives, St. Mawe's, or Old Sarum, or any such rubbish Gentlemen, this reforming of boroughs is not the business of yesterday. All of us have thought it, most of us, I hope, have said it was neces sary: Every one of us has a right to associate for the enforcement of it. However, there is a great reason to suppose that the object of these prosecutions go more to this than to that moonshine charge of sedition, which, employed as it now is, no man understands, for sedition is in every man's mouth, but in no man's book. Every man interprets it according to his own sense, according to his own passions, and his own interest: the people wishing a reform, knew so well that this was the fact with a great many of their acquaintance; they knew so well the prejudices that had gone out, that they went to two magistrates and said, we mean to have such a meeting; there are some hundreds of us, we can find no room to meet in; let us, for God's sake, have the pleasure of your company, to see that we do nothing and wish nothing contrary to the established government. Two magistrates accordingly, as I am informed, attended, and the meeting broke up with perfect quiet and decency. Why then we are told that this was Mr. Briellat's field? he let the justices come into the field: and why did he let them come into the field? he had as good a right to shut them out as any body else, unless they came in a certain form; however, they came, and the meeting broke up in peace. They accomplished their object. What their object was I don't know precisely; but it was an object favourable to reform. Mr. Briellat then got upon the table, and said something which the witness could not hear; there are persons here, I dare say, who were present and heard what he said. It was this; says he, "Gentlemen, we are reproached with being men enemies to peace, let us show our adversaries they alone are of that description; we seek liberty, but liberty is a peaceful thing and not a destructive one. Then don't let your passions break out, do not applaud, nor be clamorous, express neither approbation or disapprobation, but let every thing be quiet, and when we have done depart to your own homes peaceably." To get upon the table, is that a wicked thing! or was it a wicked thing to tell people, as there were a great many of them, not to make a noise? I am informed, it is incredible the peace, the silence, and the quiet with which this meeting was carried on. 'Well, Mr. Briellat was the cause of this; he did not give them a quantity of beer, rich man as he is. When they had done their business, they all depart to their homes and so does he; but what happens?-Mr. Briellat, at the moment that he showed this desire of a reform in parliament and of effecting it, this peaceable mode of obtaining a remedy (not by fire and sword, as he has been represented), is seized by a warrant, on returning from this meeting. They thought they had caught him on the hip, for they had found Mr. Goodman, the extra police officer, who in January last had heard these words, had bottled them up to this time, and now brought them out as brisk as any champagne for the occasion. But, gentlemen, is this the manner in which the prosecutions of a great and magnanimous nation are to be conducted? Surely, surely, we are come to a sad pass, cast low indeed, when we are brought to this situation. And low indeed must that administration be brought, which resorts to such expedients; for this I will say, that all the experience of this, and all the countries that I have ever seen or heard of, will prove that the administration which cannot subsist without prosecution is in a gallopping consumption. I am sure, it is a sort of thing which every honest mind must be disposed to resist. Gentlemen, you see that this man was committed upon the evidence given to the magistrate by Goodman, and upon the evidence of this butcher's boy. I tell you that no part of the first charge is upon this indictment, but that reformation could not be effected without a revolution. Now, if you go out of the charge, and venture to condemn, upon any other words these persons can swear to than such as are upon this parchment (this only being what you are to determine the guilt upon), if you go out of it, you are doing contrary to your duty. I say then, all that has been proved, with respect to this first charge is, that the defendant said, a reformation could not be effected without a revolution, excepting the mixture that has been made of what passed in the field. Mr. Chairman. It does not appear to me that any evidence has been given as to what passed in the field. Mr. Vaughan. Certainly not, Sir. Gentle | men, having done then with this part of the indictment, I proceed to the remaining part. And there I own I see that which would give me infinite pain if I did not know that I had evidence to resist it of infinitely greater credit than what is produced; for how many persons were present at this time?-Five persons. How many are brought in support of the charge? Only one. Woodbridge, a butcher's boy, and that is all. He heard something which was read out of a book which he goes and reports at home, from whence he accompanies Goodman; but he does not say a word to him about it till he gets to the magistrates. Gentlemen, I have not the evidence to prove it, or I could show you that it was founded in mere malice. But I have negative evidence. I have this kind of reproach to make to the prosecutors; why did you not call the other persons that were present? there were other persons present; but you don't bring forward any one of them. All that you bring forward is the butcher's boy, although five persons were present. When was this? Last October-they were not dead-they had not bottled their information from December to the present time. Gentlemen, were I not to call them, which I will do, it is enough for you to conclude, that their evidence is kept back, because this charge could not be otherwise supported. Gentlemen, you have before you a junior counsel, when opposed to gentlemen who have had the experience of twenty years, who know how to coax a jury, and who know how to keep down an evidence, and no man feels so distressed as I do when I have persons of that description to cope with. But, gentle men, I will set my foot upon a rock-the authorities of the law. For this purpose I have brought a book which all of you have heard of, and many of you have read, and I selected it for that reason. It is said by Mr. Justice Blackstone, upon the subject of evidence, as follows: "The one general rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this, that the best evidence which the nature of the case will admit of, shall always be required, if possible to be had." Was it not possible to be had? It was-these people live in Shoreditch-they are tradespeople in Shoreditch. Woodbridge tells you, he knew their places of residence, why not inquire of him? why, because the others say the butcher's boy does not speak truth; they say, he has been guilty of an infamous falsehood. Then, I say, they have not brought forward the best evidence, because the better evidence was many persons, and not one single person: if there is any better evidence that might have been produced, the very not producing it is a presumption that it would detect some falsehood which is concealed. Now then, gentlemen, though five persons were present, they came down here with only one witness to justify the last part of the charge, which I deny; I admit the former; I say, the former See Bushell's Case in this Collection, all tradesmen, but I am sure most tradesmen know something of Latin. Foreman of the Jury. We shall thank you to English it for us, if you please. your oaths, you have made trial by jury a very bad thing indeed, and the jurors of the country are become (as St. Matthew said of another description of men) "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones." Mr. Vaughan. I was just going to translate it to you. "That Decantatum, that is the maxim, in our books, to the question of fact the judges don't answer, to the question of law that jurymen do not answer, literally taken is true;" that is the translation; "for, if it be demanded what is the fact, the judge cannot answer it; if it be asked, what is the law of the case, the jury cannot answer it." This is the opinion of Mr. Justice Vaughan, in the famous case of Bushell. Then he goes on to say, "a man cannot see by another's eye, nor hear by another's ear, no more can a man conclude or infer the thing to be resolved by another's understanding or reasoning, and though the verdict"-[Here is the material part, the distinction between the judge and the jury, a distinction that juries ought never to forget at any rate]" and though the verdict be right that they give, yet they being not assured it is so from their own understanding, are forsworn, at least in foro conscientia," " in the tribunal of conscience. This being the case, I trust you will do your duty, which is a much more interesting duty than mine. Most of you seem to be men of responsible characters in life; you will attend to the observations of the learned judges on the bench, who will make many excellent observations to you no doubt; but you will remember they are not to be the rules of your verdict; that in matters of law they are decisive, but you are the only persons to consider and to determine matters of fact. If you are prepared to determine that every man who says a reformation cannot be effected without a revolution must go to prison, after the manner of imprisonments of this day, you are not the men that I believe you to be. If you can take upon yourselves to say, that all the mat-Yes; I was close to him. ters in this record (and you must not travel out of it) were ever spoken by the defendant, if you can say so likewise, you are not the men I take you to be. On the other hand, if you think the honest character of an Englishman is still to be preserved; if you think that a freedom of speech and a freedom of communication is still to go forward between Englishmen, remember that words, if even sworn to, are a sort of things very indeterminate, easily misconceived, and misrepresented, for words are no more than wind: the recollections of men frequently vary it, and the imaginations of men vary it likewise. If this is your opinion, you will find the defendant not guilty. But if those prejudices which have been endeavoured to be instilled into your minds by a knot of men terrible to this country and to its justice, are to give way (which I cannot believe you will suffer them to do) to that which is the main object of EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT. Benjamin Davis sworn.-Examined by Mr. Gurney. You are a cheesemonger in Shoreditch ?— Yes. Do you recollect Mr. Briellat coming to your house on the evening of the 17th of October last?-Very well. At what time did he come?-I believe it was between seven and eight in the evening. What evening in the week was it?-Thursday evening. Who was in your shop when Mr. Briellat came in ?-Mr. Fortescue, a wheelright, and two other men. Do you recollect their names?-Yes, one was Horam, and I do not recollect the name of the other. Those were the persons present, besides the witness Woodbridge?—Yes. When Mr. Briellat came in, we have heard you had some little conversation about the news, did you see Mr. Briellat produce any book?-He did. What did he read?-I think it was a prophecy, taken out of the 11th chapter of Revelations, and the 13th and 14th verses, concerning the second woe. * See in this Collection, Vol. VI. p. 1012. Can you recollect what were the words that he read?-The words, I think, were about the earth quaking, and a tenth part of the city falling. Was there any thing in that book respecting kings?-Not that I recollect. Did you attend to what Mr. Briellat read? Did you hear every thing he said?—I did. Now, to the best of your recollection, did he say any thing whatever, in the reading of that book, respecting the abolition of kings from the face of the earth?-No such thing. That you positively swear?--Yes. Did he say any such words, not reading them in the book?-No, he did not. Did any conversation pass after Mr. Briellat had concluded the reading out of that book?-None at all, not a word. Then I need scarcely ask you, if there was any conversation, after that, respecting kings? -No. Nor a wish that there were no kings at all? -No. If he had uttered such words must you not have heard them?-Yes. Or any words respecting the landing of the French? Not a word. Or, did he express a wish that 100,000 French would land to fight against the government party?—No. a Can you take upon yourself to swear that And, after he had read the book, it was put no such words were uttered by Mr. Briellat in his pocket without a single observation upon that occasion ?- No such thing. No. 'Which went out of the shop first, Mr. Briel- Not a single observation was made by any lat or the boy ?--The boy, one of his fellow- body? -No, not a word: away he went and servants called him. said no more about it. At what period of the conversation, or of the reading, did he go out?-While he was James Fortescue sworn.-Examined by Mr. reading the book one of his fellow-servants Vaughan. came and told him the supper was ready, or What business are you?-A coach and cart something of that sort, and he went away; wheelwright. Mr. Briellat went away with Mr. Fortescue. Where do you live?- In the Curtain-road, Shoreditch. Do you know Mr. Briellat, the defendant? The boy, Woodbridge, was there?-Yes. -Yes. And there was no conversation of any sort? Did you see him any time in October last -Yes. in the shop of Mr. Davis, in Shoreditch What was it about?-He had a little book Yes. that he said he was going to read, and he Were you present when he came in?-I seldom begins a book without reading it was, in about five or perhaps ten minutes bethrough fore he came in. Briellat read about the earthquake, and Will you relate, as well as you can recollect, then not a word more was said, but fortescue what passed during the time that you were and he walked out ?-I suppose he read on for there with him ?- Yes; I was in Davis's shop a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. when Briellat came up to the door, with some Did he put the book in his pocket?—I don't irons upon his shoulder, and some fish in his know. hand; he came in at the door and says, genHe did not say a word about the duke of tlemen, how do you all do? we made answer, York?--No. we were very well. What news have you, There was no conversation at all but merely says Briellat? We said, we have no news at talking about this book and reading this book, all, you are likeliest to know as you have been and that was all that passed ?-No, when in the city; says he, I know of none in parBriellat first came in, before he began read. ticular. We said, why, is there none at all? ing, there were some words passed; he came Why, says he, there are two or three things in and said, how do you do, gentlemen all? Alying; but I don't know what it is particuI believe that was the words, as nigh as I can larly, for I have almost forgot, says he, I must recollect. recollect; he recollected a bit: why, says he, You won't be positive ?-No; I said, how I will tell you, the first paragraph is, that they do you do, Mr. Briellat? I hope you are very have tried the queen of France, and it is rewell. He said, he had been towards the city; ported that she is cast for death, and, says he, and I asked him, what news? and he said, they say that they have sent a proposition or nothing particular; but I am almost tired. something of the kind to the emperor of GerO yes, there is news too, says he, they say many, it so be as he would wish to save her; the queen of France has been tried and cast, the proposition was sent, and they demanded and they had sent to the emperor of Germany an answer at such a time, about fourteen concerning it, that if he would draw his troops days, from them; that if so he he would draw from the frontiers, they would save the queen, his forces from the frontiers, that they would and would give him fourteen days to con- save she and make a good provision for ber sider of it; and he said, that the French army and her family; that was all very good we and the Spanish army had had a battle, and thought Why, says he, the French and the French had got the better; and, says he, Spaniards have had an engagement, and the I have got a book that was lent me, concern- Spaniards are drove from the frontiers, I ing the times now in France, a prophecy, I understand. That is all that I know about believe he called it, and then he read it. that He did not say any thing about the duke of That was the end of the news?-It was the York's army being taken? –No. end of the news; he said, he had got an old Recollect yourself?--Oh! I recollect per- prophecy, or something of that kind, in a fectly. pamphlet which he had seen soinewhere and Nothing about the duke of York having borrowed, that related to the present state of like to have been taken ?-No. affairs in France; when the news was over It was a book written by an anonymous he pulled it out of his pocket and opened it, writer?-I do not know, and began about the iniddle of it; the beginDid he not say so ?-No. ning of it was in 17:17; I took particular noNor any thing about the French attempting tice of the year, because it was the year I was to land here?- No. born in. But all at once he pulled out the book? Do you mean to say, that was the beginNo; I said let us bave the news first, and the ning of the pamphlet?-No; the beginning book afterwards. a a where Mr. Briellat began reading, there was a date of 1747, and this history or this prophecy was taken out of the Revelations, John the divine's prophecy, and it went on concerning the revolution in France, as it signified this prophecy prophesied much like the troubles in France at this present time, and it was supposed by the prophecy that this French nation was the place where these troubles should begin. What part of the Revelations was it that the prophecy supposed to have that meaning? The 11th chapter, I think; there was to be a very great woe and a very great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city was to fall. Was this explained to relate entirely to the affairs of France?-Yes; it was supposed that the nation of France was the place fixed for these troubles in that prophecy at this present troublesome time. How long did the reading of this prophecy last? He read about twenty minutes or better, near half an hour. He was an acquaintance of your's, was he not?—Yes. He lived by Kingsland ?-He lived in Kingsland-road, You have been acquainted with him some time, have not you?-No; but I have some reason to know him. Upon your oath, were you not a witness in his behalf at the Old Bailey?—No. I mean a man who was tried and convicted of a highway robbery at the Old Bailey, when you appeared in his behalf?-No. You remember his being tried?-No; I remember hearing talking of his robbing the mail. Do you remember his being hanged in the year 1778?-Sellons was not hanged. Which of them was then?-I don't know, I suppose it was his accomplice. Then you have heard of it?-I heard he had turned evidence. And you mean to say, you never were a witness for that man at the Old Bailey?No, nor any where else. Did you see the butcher's, boy, Woodbridge, there at that time?-I cannot say I-No; I speak the truth. did see him; there were some butcher's lads at the door, but they were there a very little time. You never were examined upon that trial? After the reading, what passed?-Nothing was said, but he shut up his book, took his fish in his hand and went away; I went with him part of the way; I staid till Mr. Briellat went away; he wished the people a good night, and I walked with him to the turning which goes to his house, and I went up Holy well-lane. Did you hear any conversation about the abolition of kings from the face of the earth on the part of Briellat? - No. You were there before he came in, and went away with him?—Yes. During that time did you hear any thing about the French landing 100,000 men, or about the duke of York?-Nothing at all. Can you positively recollect so as to be able to swear that?-I stand here before God and man, and I would not tell a lie. You had no concern at all in that trial?— Did you know any thing of this meeting at Do you mean to say, there was nothing in it about overturning monarchy?-Not a word. And this book was read and put in his pocket, without a single observation from him or any body else?—Yes. And as to the butcher's boy, whether he was there or not, you will not be positive?— No; as to Sellons, I was obliged to summon him at Whitechapel-court. Do you mean to deny that Sellons was either a principal or accomplice in the robbery James Fortescue cross examined by Mr. Sil- of the mail in 1778?—I know nothing about vester. You live in Holywell-street?-No, in the Curtain road. How long have you lived there?--Near twenty years. In the year 1778 you lived there?—Yes. You have been a witness here before?-No never upon any thing of any kind. In no court whatever?-No, no more than a trifling thing before a justice. Do you mean the jury should understand that you were never examined as a witness in a court of justice?-No. Never at the Old Bailey?-No, never. I never was there in my life. Do you remember a man of the name of Edward Sellons? -Yes. VOL. XXII. it any farther than people say. REPLY. Mr. Silvester. Gentlemen of the jury, it now becomes my turn to make a few observations upon the defence set up for this man at your bar. You have had a long declamation, of no less than an hour and a half, in which all ranks of men, from the highest to the lowest, have been libelled; there is not a man, there is not a court but what has been attacked, in my opinion, in a very improper manner. In the first place, we are told (and the gentleman avows it himself), that his principles are, that a reform is necessary, and that the constitution can be altered and ameliorated by a set of banditti assembling in fields round this metropolis. S P |