paupers were provided: but still, Gentlemen, this is called a civil war.

Now, what was the purpose? The Solicitor General has, I think, truly stated to you that in which I most cordially unite, and shall take care you shall never forget ;-that if it shall appear to you that it was an assembly, for which you can assign no distinct object and motive, that then the Prisoner will be entitled to your acquittal. Now, let us see what the object and motive is, that they endeavour to assign and to fasten upon this unfortunate and miserable man an intention to overthrow the Government and Constitution of the country. Gentlemen, these are highsounding words: Magna Charta, Habeas Corpus, Revolution, Government, and Constitution, are words that almost every one now-a-days can ring an infinite number and series of changes upon without knowing what they mean. I do not take upon myself to define, with any distinctness, those complex terms, but it is my duty to enquire a little what they mean. The object was, it is said, with these miserable beings, to overthrow the Constitution ;-a Constitution composed of what? A Monarchy that has endured all the shocks of ten centuries-a Constitution composed of a King encompassed with all His mighty prerogatives, which the law and the wisdom of ages have thought fit to appoint to him-a House of Peers, consisting of all that, in the first degree, is great and dignified and wealthy in the realm-a House of Commons, composed of almost all that remains, or a great portion of what remains, of this great community as far as subjects can be distinguished for wealth, or influence, or power-an Army more numerous and as loyal as any King of England had ever the good fortune to command

a Navy equally great, equally powerful, and equally loyal-a dominion circumscribing nearly the whole earth, for such is now the extent of the realm of the King of England, consisting too of all that imports the administration of justice, comprising the independence and the integrity of the learned Judges of England, now so secure from all distrust or suspicion, that, for the last century,

no question or doubt could ever arise upon that subject. Consisting, gentlemen, as a vital part of that Constitu→ tion of the Trial by Jury-consisting, as another vital part of the Constitution, of that blessed Statute of Edward III, called the Statute of Treasons. These, and a thousand other things, go to the composition of this multifarious thing which we call the Constitution. Well, gentlemen, did the Prisoners intend to pull that downthis mighty instrument of power? Gentlemen, did they intend to overthrow all that I have represented to you? Had they the means of doing so?

But then it is said they intended to overthrow the Government: what, the Government is, as contra-distinguished from the Constitution, it is no easy matter to define; the Constitution I can consider as nothing else but the law itself, embodied in our vast and extensive establishments in church and State, these form the body and the law, the soul of the Constitution, whereof the Government is an integral and inseparable part, by which all its operations are actuated and moved; did they mean what is called the executive Government; that consists of The King and his Army and his Navy, and his Sheriffs, and his Justices of the Peace, and the administration of justice in general; all this, it is said by the Prosecutors, this miserable stonecutter was to overthrow; that that was his object; why, then, Gentlemen, can you, upon the evidence before you, lay your hands upon your hearts and say that the prosecutors have proved to your satisfaction, for that they must do before you can convict this man, that they have proved to your satisfaction that this was a civil war; that they have proved to your satisfaction that his object was to subvert and overthrow all these ancient and mighty institutions which I have endeavoured to present to you; let us see, rather, Gentlemen, whether their offence was not one of a very different character: the law of England never seems to me to have contemplated the possibility of a handful of miserable hungry paupers making civil war ; it is a perversion, I had almost said, I hope I shall be forgiven the expression, a perversion of common sense.

What is a riot? a riot I conceive is this, that if a number of poor impotent men are clamouring about some grievances, real or imaginary, and upon petitioning, they find no redress, and assemble themselves in multitudes together, and by assembly endeavour to put themselves into an attitude of defiance and intimidation, in order to obtain their end; that I conceive to be a riot; the Statute law of England, Gentlemen, will bear me out in that conception of the crime, and I must beg leave, painful as it is to me, to repeat these things, to call you attention to an Act of Parliament that was passed upon this subject of riots so long ago as the first year of Queen Mary, which was about the year 1553, above two hundred and twenty years ago. It was then found, Gentlemen, as it is in these times, that the lower orders of people will have their grievances, real or imaginary; they will assemble for the purpose of exciting an intimidation; they will assemble for the purpose of convincing persons high in power that they have some strength of their own, a proceeding which I have no thought of justifying; but it is the nature of men in all ages so to do; the wisdom of our ancestors provided for the case, and by the Statute to which I am now taking leave to call your attention, it is enacted, "that if any persons to the number of twelve, or more, being assembled together, shall intend, go about, practice, or put in use with force and arms, unlawfully and of their own authority to change any laws made for religion by authority of Parliament standing in force, or any other laws or Statutes of this realm, and being commanded by the Sheriff, a Justice of the Peace, a Mayor or other Officer, by Proclamation in the Queen's name, to repair to their houses, shall continue together by the space of one whole hour after such Proclamation, or shall in a forcible and riotous manner attempt to do or put in use any of the things aforesaid, that shall be adjudged felony," not High Treason. Gentlemen, that Act of Parliament continued in force throughout the short reign of that Queen, and through the whole of the long reign of Queen Elizabeth, but it expired in the year 1603, and it was never revived till the year 1714, when a Statute, which you may have

often heard of, called the Riot Act, was passed, upon the Accession of the present Royal Family. But in that interval of a hundred years, from 1603 to 1714, for want of a Riot Act, many attempts were made to consider all riots for general purposes, as it is called, High Treason; but for now a hundred years past, during which time the Riot Act has existed, that doctrine has been altogether dormant, and I had hoped, dead.

It has been stated, Gentlemen, that a riot for a general purpose is High Treason; that is an attempt to define what is meant by making war against the King, in the Statute of King Edward: in attempting to define it, our law writers, who like ourselves, had happily few opportunities of seeing the law put in practice upon these subjects, tell us, that if a riot be for a general purpose, it is then war. What a general purpose is, seems to be of all things the most indefinite-a general purpose: instances also are put what is to constitute a general purpose, till at last by an artificial process of reasoning and defining, I had conceived that the doctrine of the Courts of Law had very much overstepped the fair interpretation and distinct meaning of the Statute of King Edward III.; but upon that subject I beg to be spared making further observations, because I think it best for the interest of my Client and my own duty, to confine your attention to that which the law of England has deemed a riot.

Gentlemen, in the year 1714, then another Act of Parliament was passed, which I have said is that denominated the Riot Act. You see the former Act of Queen Mary expressly puts the case of an assembling by force and arms to alter the laws; that is what is called a riot in that Statute: if it was High Treason, then the Legislature of that day was guilty of gross absurdity; why did not the learned Peers of Parliament, the learned Lawyers in the House of Commons, get up and say there is no occasion for such an Act of Parliament, it is High Treason, it is a constructive levying of war, and therefore no Act of Parliament need be passed; yet of such

importance was that Statute which made a riot to alter the laws by force and arms a felony, that the first Parliament in the reign of Queen Elizabeth thought it ne cessary to continue that Statute, and it was continued for the life of that Queen.

Well, Gentlemen, in pursuance of that notion of a riot, we have the Statute of the 1st. George I. which is entituled, "An Act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishment of the rioters :" and it recites, "That whereas of late, many rebellious riots and tumults have been in divers parts of this kingdom, to the disturbance of the public peace, and the endangering of His Majesty's person and Government, and the same are yet continued and fomented;"-fomented how?" by persons disaffected to His Majesty, presuming so to do, for that the punishments provided by the laws now in being, are not adequate to such henious offences." Yes, they were abundantly adequate, for a riot for a general purpose was a constructive levying of war, and therefore there was no necessity for this Statute of the 1st. George I.; but the Legislature expressly says, "that the laws now in being are not adequate to the punishment of such heinous offences, and by such rioters, His Majesty," and who else, "His Ma jesty and his administration have been most maliciously and falsely traduced with an intent to raise divisions, and to alienate the affections of the people from His Majesty." These, Gentlemen, were the reasons for the passing of this celebrated Statute, which as much as the more celebrated Statute of Edward III. seems to me to to be a vital part of the Constitution also. Then, Gentlemen, it proceeds to enact-"That if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the public peace, and being required or commanded by any Justice of the Peace, or by the Sheriff of the County, or his Undersheriff, or by the Mayor, Bailiff or Bailiffs, or other head Officer or Justice of the Peace of any City or other place, by proclamation to be made