work he read a great variety of extracts. I mean Mr. Jus tice Blackstone has laid down the law, as to levying war, almost in the same terms; he says,- "The third species of Treason is, if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm, and this may be done by taking arms not only to dethrone the King, but under pretence to reform religion or the laws, or to remove evil councillors or other grievances, whether real or pretended, for the law does not, neither can it, permit any private person or set of men to interfere treasonably in matters of such high importance, especially as it has established a sufficient power for these purposes in the High Court of Parliament; neither does the Constitution justify any private or particular resistance for private or particular grievances." And then he goes on to say," That to resist the King's forces, as by defending a castle against them, is a levying of war, and so is an insurrection with an avowed design to pull down all inclosures, all brothels, and the like the universality of the crime, making it a rebellion against the State, an usurpation of the power of Government, and an insolent invasion of the King's authority." And yet, after these grave authorities, after the law has not only been acted upon in the case of individuals, but has been laid down in works expressly written for the instruction and information of the public, you are told by both my learned Friends that the present prosecution is an attempt to extend the law, and, by your verdict, to introduce a new species of Treason not hitherto sanctioned by the law: that this is to be done through the medium of your verdict, and under the sanction of the Judges sent here to try this offence. Gentlemen, whatever other discontents in the present day may exist in the minds of misguided persons, it has not yet, I think, been suspected by any one that attempts would be made by the means of verdicts of Juries, and under the authority of the learned Judges of the land to introduce new laws and new penalties; my learned Friends however with the authorities to which I have referred before them, state to you gravely, that the present is an attempt of that sort; an attempt, on the part of the

Crown, to introduce new laws and new penalties before unheard of, except in those decisions which my learned Friend, Mr. Denman, intimates, ought never to have taken place. Gentlemen, no such attempt is, or, I trust, ever will be made; the only question which is presented to you, and upon which your decision is asked, is, whether the persons indicted have been guilty of the offence of High Treason as it is at present known to the law, as it exists in our statutes, and as it has been sanctioned and recognized by the decisions of Judges. If, after you have heard the exposition of that law by the learned Judges who here preside, you shall entertain any doubt upon the case now before you, it will be your duty to acquit the Prisoner; but if, after having heard that law expounded; if, after having heard the facts stated to you, you cannot, as honest men, doubt that the charge is made out, it is your bounden duty to find him guilty and recollect that in so doing you are not introducing any new law, or any new penalty, but that you are doing that which you have taken a solemn oath you will do, finding a verdict according to the evidence.

Gentlemen, I am extremely sorry at this late hour, notwithstanding the discussion to which this question has given rise, to keep you longer from the facts of the case; because I apprehend that, with respect to the law, there can be no real doubt: but, before I do So, I must advert to some observations which have been made upon the Riot 'Act, the Statute of George I; for you have been told that that Statute has enacted (in conformity to other old Statutes which had then expired), that, where a number of persons assemble together, and decline to disperse after a proclamation, it is a felony; and, therefore, my learned Friends argue, that if a number of persons assemble armed, although their object be to destroy the Government; yet, unless a magistrate comes out and makes a proclamation, and they do not then disperse, it is only a misdemeanor: for Mr. Cross stated, that if these persons had stayed till a magistrate came and read the proclamation, they would then have been guilty of felony; but, as

that did not take place, it was a mere misdemeanor, if it was any thing at all. But, according to one part of his argument, it appeared to me that his conclusion was, and I thought the impression attempted to be made upon your minds was, that because these men, taking the alarm, had dispersed before the magistrates came up, although they were guilty of the outrages detailed to you, and were armed in the hostile manner described, they were guilty of no offence at all, at most, however, of the lowest offence known to the law; that is, a misdemeanor. Gentlemen, neither the Riot Act, nor the Statute of Edward VI. made any alteration in the law of Treason,-it raised that which was before a mere misdemeanor into felony; but the Riot Act, any more than the Statute of Edward the Sixth, does not require that the persons should meet armed; the offence, under the Riot Act, is," If they are assembled together, and shall not disperse on notice:" and it says nothing of their being armed. I will refer you, however, to an authority to which my learned Friends have so repeatedly had recourse, namely, Lord Hale, who says, when adverting to the Statute of Edward VI. (on which my learned Friends have relied), "The actual assembling of many rioters, in great numbers, to do unlawful acts, if it be not in a warlike manner, or in the nature of war, as if they have no military arms, nor march, nor continue together in the posture of war, may make a great riot, yet doth not always amount to a levying of war." And then he adds, "See the Statute of 3 and 4 Edward VI. and the Statute. of 1 Mary, cap. 12." So that my Lord Hale, with these Statutes before him, which my learned Friends say have made such an alteration in the law of Treason, or have, for the first time, made it an offence for people to assemble together, says, That the assembling of a great number of people does not amount to High Treason, if it be not in a warlike manner: but what is his inference if it be in a warlike manner? Why, that then it is Treason. For he goes on to say," If divers persons levy a force of multitude of men to pull down a particular inclosure (that is, a single inclosure), this is not a levying of war within this

Statute; but if they levy war to pull down all inclosures, or to expulse strangers, or to remove councillors, or against any Statute, as, namely, the Statute of Labourers, or for enhancing Salaries and Wages, this is a levying war against the King, because it is generally against the King's laws, and the offenders take upon them the reformation which Subjects, by gathering together, ought not to do. Thus, with the Riot Act of Edward VI. before him, Lord Hale, on whom they rely, states that if persons assemble in a warlike manner to effect a public purpose, it is a levying war, and it is the crime of High Treason, and therefore with respect to the Riot Act, give me leave to say, it has no more to do with the offence under trial than with any other offence in the Statute Books; for if this assembly of armed persons had for its object the overturning the Govern ment, or the effecting an alteration of the laws, notwithstanding the Riot Act, it always has been considered, and is still considered as High Treason.

Then, Gentlemen, what are the points for your consideration-In the first place, what are the acts these per sons have committed, and what is the evidence which has been adduced in support of those acts. My Friend Mr. Denman has found fault with the Attorney General for having alluded in his address to some meetings at which the Prisoner at the bar, Brandreth was present, previous to the 8th of June. I know not whether the Attorney General distinctly stated that or not, but if he did, I think one of you who have heard the evidence can entertain the least particle of doubt, that before the 8th of June, Brandreth, and many of the persons whose names have been introduced to you, had met and had formed the plan which they were then compleating;was Brandreth unknown to the persons who were present on the 8th of June?-do you recollect a circumstance which occurred when Mac Kesswick came in-do you remember that Brandreth did not at first recollect him, and that Mac Kesswick reminded him he had seen him before. Was this then the first time that Brandreth had been with these persons-when William Turner comes in, does he affect

any surprize at seeing Brandreth at the table? what was his expression on his entering the room-why he asked on coming in "where is the account of arms and ammunition you were to get." Was this, therefore, a sudden, an accidental meeting of these persons? I say then, that if my learned Friend did state to you that it was probable there had been antecedent meetings, it is evident that there had and that there must have been-but sufficient for this purpose is it to shew that there was a plan on that day it is unnecessary for us to trouble you beyond that. What passed when Martin and Asbury went there?-whom does Martin find when he comes to the White Horse at Pentridge ?-he finds a number of persons in this house-the Prisoner at the bar sitting at a table, and the whole conversation about the intended revolution; and here I could not help feeling for my learned Friends-they had a difficult and an anxious task to perform-and what is the attempt which is made to explain the term revolution, as it was used upon this occasion-these persons, who are represented to you by their Counsel upon other occasions as the lowest and most ignorant, borne down by their distresses, and acting under the impulse of their misery, are supposed to be discoursing on a Sunday morning at the White Horse Inn on the Revolution of 1688. Gentlemen, as I before observed, when we have difficulties to encounter, it is frequently impossible for us to get over them. My learned Friend Mr. Cross knew to what the term revolution would be considered by you to apply—but he was driven to his ingenuity to endeavour to make some plausible explanation of the word; and he can give no other explanation than that these persons who are talking of rising the next day, are, when speaking of a revolution, referring to what had passed a hundred and twenty years ago. Gentlemen, this is too much;-it is perfectly obvious that their whole discourse that day was upon the subject of what they intended to effect the following night. But Brandreth had a map before him can my learned Friends give any explanation of that circumstance had the map any thing to do with the Revolution of 1688

were the places marked out