you will find your verdict according to that evidence, however painful it may be. If you should feel yourselves compelled to find the Prisoner guilty, you will have no hesitation in doing so if you are of opinion he is guilty, for you are to find a verdict according to the evidence: If on the other hand, you find him not guilty, you will satisfy your consciences in so finding, and you will receive great pleasure, and so will every person who hears you. The verdict, whatever it may be which you give upon this subject, will, I am satisfied, be agreeable to the evidence.

This crime being to be tried like all other offences, I now proceed to state what the charge is. The indictment states in the first count, that the Prisoner, with divers other persons, being traitorously assembled and gathered together against our Lord the King, wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously, did levy and make war against him within this realm, and being so assembled together, arrayed and armed against our Lord the King, did then, with great force and violence, parade and march in an hostile manner, in and through divers villages, places, and public highways, and did then and there traitorously attempt and endeavour, by force and arms, to subvert and destroy the Government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established. That is the charge in the first count, and upon this charge a question will arise in point of law,-what is the levying of war, according to the true construction of the Act of Parliament which has been so often referred to ?

There is another count, which charges him with having, with divers other persons, compassed, imagined, invented, devised, and intended to deprive and depose the King of and from the style, honor, and kingly name of the Imperial Crown of this realm, and with having committed divers acts, in order to prove the compassing and imagination he had. We cannot know what passes in a man's mind, except from something which proceeds from him. in the way of act or declaration.

There is another charge, that he and other persons

conspired to levy war against the King, in order to compel him to change his measures, and under that count the indictment states the same acts as are applied to the second charge, which acts will appear as we proceed in the course of the statement of the evidence to be attempted to be proved. You will say whether they are satisfactorily established.

Now, Gentlemen, it is very important that you should understand clearly what is meant by the terms in the Act of Parliament "levying war against the King." It must be levied against the King in his realm. The words may apply to divers things, but I shall not trouble you by stating how many things may be considered as a levying of war within this Act of Parliament. I shall endeavour, by very shortly stating to you the law, as I understand it, to be unquestionably settled, to make the meaning of the Statute very clear, so far as it relates to the acts which are given in evidence before you, and then you will consider whether the acts so proved bring the Prisoner within the law as I shall endeavour to state it.

of

The Act of Parliament in which are the words levying war, and that are now to be construed, is the Statute of 25th Edward III. The Act runs thus" when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King," and so on, enumerating some other things which are not now the subject of consideration; " or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm, he is guilty of High Treason," the words are" if a man do levy war against the King in his realm." Then the question is, what is levying war against the King in his realm? Now, Gentlemen, I will read to you an exposition of this law, in words which are very short and very clear, and being short and clear I rather prefer to use them as my own, instead of my own, which, perhaps, may not be so clear." If there is an insurrection, that is, a large rising of the people, in order by force and violence to accomplish or avenge, not any private object of their own, not any private quarrels of their own, but to effectuate any general public purpose, that is considered by the law as a levying of war." There

must be an insurrection; force must accompany that insurrection; and it must be for an object of a general nature; but if all these circumstances concur, that is quite sufficient to constitute the offence of levying war.

Gentlemen, I think I may venture to state to you from the best information I have been able to acquire in the course of a pretty long life, from the decisions of Courts of law, and from the opinions of Sir Matthew Hale, Mr. Justice Foster, Lord Coke, and every other person who has written upon this subject, that what I have now stated to you is the correct result, and a faithful declaration of the law. If there is an insurrection, that is, a large rising of the people, in order by force and violence to accomplish or avenge any private object of their own "that would not be High Treason, that would not be levying war against the King; but if it be to effectuate any general public purpose, that is considered by the law as a levying of war." There must be an insurrection; force must accompany that insurrection, and it must be for an object of a general nature; but if all those circumstances concur, insurrection, force attending it, and the object of a general nature, that is quite sufficient to constitute the offence of levying war.

Gentlemen, it must be a public object; therefore tumults that have a private object, in which the parties have private individual interests are distinguished. They are distinguished, indeed, by the Statute itself from attacks on the regal authority of the realm. If, therefore, it should appear, as indeed has been contended, that the insurrection or tumult under consideration, was only the effect of a prevailing spirit of tumult, violence, or disorder, directed to any private object, or any thing but an attack aimed at the Royal authority of the realm, that would not be Treason, and no person who administers the law will ever, I trust, attempt to confound tumults of the sort I have mentioned with Treason, which is an attempt to overturn the established Government of the country; as for instance, in order to put a plain case, which is a very clear one, and in putting which I am using the words of a very

great Judge: if a body of men assemble together, and with force destroy a particular inclosure, for instance, that is not an attack of a general nature; it is a high misdemeanor, but not Treason; but if they assemble with force to put an end to all inclosures, that is of a general and public nature, and it constitutes Treason;" if there should unfortunately be an assemblage of men with force to destroy a chapel or other obnoxious building, that being confined to a particular object, would not be Treason; but if the same power was applied to destroy all chapels, or all offensive buildings, that has been held clearly to be High Treason.

Now, Gentlemen, the law being so, as I understand it, I will proceed to state the evidence, and I request you to consider whether the transactions of which you have heard were the effect of a wild violent tumult, however improper and disgraceful it might be, for a particular purpose, or whether it was for the purpose of altering the measures of Government, or destroying the Government. I state it for you information, without any doubt of the truth of the proposition, that it is Treason to raise an insurrection to reform any national grievance to alter the established law or religion-to punish Magistrates to introduce innovation of a general concern to obstruct the execution of some general law by such an armed force as have been described by the evidence or for any other purpose concerning the Government of a public and general nature. And, Gentlemen, the sense of it is very clear--insurrections of this nature, though not levelled directly against the person of the King, are yet an attack upon his regal office, and on the majesty of his Government; they tend to dissolve all Government, society, and order; for the King is bound in duty to enforce the Acts of the legislature, and uphold the laws; any resistance therefore to this must in its consequences extend to the endangering of his person and Government, by involving the State in a general destruction; and in this view this species of Treason falls properly and necessarily within the clause of the Act of Parliament, as to levying war against the King.

You will have the goodness to recollect what I have given you the trouble of hearing from me; and if I have made myself understood by you, I think you will have very little difficulty in understanding the nature of your duty upon this important occasion; the duty itself I am sure you will discharge faithfully.

There is, as I told you before, in the Indictment, andther charge; indeed there are two other charges, which are introduced by a new Act of Parliament, made in the 36th year of his present Majesty's reign, and which is to last no longer than His Majesty's life, and a little time afterwards, but during that period it is the law.

"If any person shall, during the natural life of the King, and until the end of the next session of Parliament, after a demise of the Crown, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm, tending to death or destruction, and so on, or to deprive or depose him from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or of any other of His Majesty's dominions of countries, or to levy war against His Majesty within this realm, in order, by force or constraint, to compel him to change his measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe both houses, or either house of parliament." Then there are other particulars stated, and then the Act declares that if any man shall declare, by overt act, such intention, he shall be guilty of High Treason. These are stated as two of the charges in this Indictment, and the question, Geatlemen, is-Whether the Prisoner at the bar is or is not guilty of any one of these three charges.

Gentlemen, the first witness who is called on the part of the prosecution is Anthony Martin. Gentlemen, you recollect that the evidence is all on one side-there is no testimony on the part of the Prisoner-no attempt even to contradict any of the witnesses for the prosecution -- many of the witnesses for the prosecution have passed even without any cross examination;-the learned Counsel in their speeches have, as they were at perfect liberty to do, endea,