Mr.ERSKINE'S DEFENCE of JOHN MR R. Erkine commenced by a brief recapitulation of the occurrences on Hardy's trial, when he had contended against the united efforts of the most eminent gentlemen at the bar, who had been retained on the part of the crown. He rejoiced in the fuccefs which had marked his exertions in that trial, because he had been inftrumental in the acquittal of an obfcure and innocent individual. The emotions which he then felt were no lefs fincere than impreffive; but if there was a deficiency of talent on his part, it was his lot to have been very ably fupported by his learned and ingenious friend Mr. Gibbs. [Mr. Erskine was here unaccountably interrupted by a noise among the ftrangers.] Silence having been refumed, he proceeded by obferving, that fuch triding interruptions could not in the leaft difconcert, or divert him from his grand object, In referring to Hardy's cafe, he had not only to combat the champions of the bar, but had to repel the paffions and prejudices of mankind, raifed, at this particular crifis, to the highest degree of frenzy. But this obfcure, unlettered man, obtained not only an honourable acquittal from a jury of his countrymen, but an enviable triumph againft prejudice, recorded in the joyful and fympathetic bofom of every good man, actuated by the moft lively fenfations. When he reflected on the pleasure which he derived from the late glorious ftruggle in favour of innocence, he felt himself ftimulated by thofe emotions which the Supreme Being only, who "Sits in the whirlwind, and directs can enforce, to itrengthen him in the In explanation of the law of treafon, Mr. Erfkine referred to the fame authorities of Hale and Foster as he did on the trial of Mr. Hardy. He then endeavoured to explain the difference of opinion between him and the attorney general, on the conftruction of the law. The attorney general confeffed, that to conftitute the crime of high treason, it was neceffary that the guilt fhould exist in the mind; and the evidence he adduced was meant to prove this intent by the overt acts, difclaiming any recourfe to conftructive accumulation, or any other kind of treafon. The charge against the prifoner was, by overt acts attempting to overthrow the king's government by force, and thus confpiring his death. But before they could convict him of fuch offence, they must be fatisfied that force was to have been employed. Upon this point he cited the authority of Hale-that, when a man confpires the death of the king or his imprifonment, to gather company, or fend letters in execution thereof, is an overt act of high treafon : but the overt act itfelf was not high treafon. It could go no further than to prove the trea fonable intention. In the present cafe the attorney general had done all that he was entitled to do, and could prove no more than what was already before the jury; yet there was not the flightest evidence of any defign being formed againft the king's perfon, however the proceedings may be thought to operate against the government; and upon that ground he muft infift that the proof most completely failed. The convention at Edinburgh, which was the great ground-work of the charge, was evidently affembled for the purpose of deliberating on the means of reforming the abufes in government, and the reprefentation of the people in parliament, without the least inC tention tention of accomplishing the object by force. He was happy, on this occafion, to have that authority, which of all others was moft defirable, namely, that of the lord chief juftice Eyre himself, in his charge to the grand jury, to fhew that, whether the proceedings of the focieties or the convention led to the death of his majef ty or not, was not a matter of inference but a matter of fact, upon which the jury was to decide. Nothing in the proceedings or publications of either breathed any fuch tendency; and the fame learned judge had told them, that no man was juftifiable in applying to the language of another any other meaning than that which he profeffed. By the ftatute of 25 Edward II. it was expressly provided, that no matter of implication should go to a jury on a charge of this nature, but that the prifoner mull be provably attainted. He would then afk what were the proots brought in fapport of this profecution? Lord Hale faid, that fuch charges fhould not be made out by inference or Aretches of wit; neither would he attempt to defend his client by wit, if he poffeffed any. Before fo grave a bench, and on fo folenin an occafion, all appearance of levity would be indecorous, otherwite there was no part of this evidence which was not open to the broadeft ridicule. What was become of the humane character of the British law, if the life of a fubject was to depend upon evidence too light to pluck a feather from a fparrow's wing, and which would not be admiffible in a lawfait refpecting ol? If the jury, after hearing him in the prefent addrefs, fhould think it neceliary to go into any further evidence, he would prove to them, that major Cartwright, a gentle man of the firit character, talents, and refpectability in the kingdom, was the original founder of the fociety for conftitutional information. It had for its object a parliamentary reform-an object, for the attainment of which, the fociety of the Friends of the People was fince inftituted-an object by which the greatest and best men of the country hoped to prevent unneceffary and ruinous wars; to remedy the abufes in the ftate; to prevent the increase of taxes, and guard against the profligate expenditure of our money. It was an object which the late earl of Chatham always had at heart, and which formed a leading feature of his character. The duke of Richmond, whofe authority in the country was defervedly high, and who was a man not to be fufpected of taking up opinions on light or trivial grounds, had not only expreffed himfelf an advocate for a radical reform in the reprefentation, but publifhed a letter, in which he declares it to be indifpenfable, and afferts the inherent right of the people to enforce it. Thefe epinions, taken up fo deliberately, and fo generally circulated with fuch prodigious effect, that nobleman muft, no doubt, ftill entertain, however inopportune he may think the prefent moment to be for acting upon them. He (Mr. Erfkine) differed much from the noble duke refpecting uni verfal fuffrage; but there were many who held different fentiments. The noble duke vindicated the right of the people to enforce the principle of univerfal fuffrage; and the crown lawyers of the day never brought him to an account for it. Mr. Tooke was an advocate for a parliamentary reform upon a much more moderate plan, and yet his blood is called for, while the duke of Richmond is not thought to have offended. Why were the feven perfons now in Newgate felected as traitors, and their accomplices fpared? Could any man in his fenfes believe, that thefe these feven men intended to erect | England. But by the term "anothemselves into a parliament, and ther convention," it was evident affume legislative functions? The that it was meant to be precifely cafe itself, fimply ftated, conveyed fimilar to that which was held in to the mind of every man, inter al Scotland. The folicitor general arevidence, that they could have no gued, that the convention at Edinfuch intention. With what fhew of burgh manifeftly intended to aflume reafon, or juftice, could they make the functions of government. But Mr. Tooke refponfible for all the how was this made out? The conexpreffions or opinions of perfons vention was an unarmed body of belonging to, or correfponding with men, which employed no force, nor the fociety of which he was a mem- was intended to ufe any. They ber? And if fuch refponfibility was were directed to purfue their obje& to take place, how many who will by legal and conftitutional means, hold their lives as tenants at will of which they thought themselves comthe minifter, are there to be found plying with, as they certainly did no in this country? more than what their fuperiors, in 1780, had done in London before them. That Mr. Tocke's name was upon the books when the refolution was taken to fend delegates to the convention, was that kind of evidence which would not be valid on a litigation for 10l. or for fuch an offence as fhooting a partridge, or a hare. Yet fuch was the evidence now brought to fubftantiate, against his client, the weighty charge of high treafon. The fact was, that though Mr. Tooke's name appeared upon the books, he was not prefent at this meeting. He was fent for to Wimbledon, to affift on the occafion; and because he declined attending, he was branded by fome of the members as a spy of government. Mr. Fox, whofe opinions were known to be adverfe to univerfal fuffrage, was left in a minority upon that question, in the convention of 1780; and, as chairman of the meeting, was obliged to fign its refolutions. Yet was Mr. Fox not refponfible for the opinion of his colleagues upon that occafion. He then came to obferve upon the evidence. The first charge made, was on a letter from the Norwich fociety, in 1792, requesting to know what were the objects aimed at by the fociety for conftitutional information. But to this the answer, fo far from being enigmatical, was precife and explicit. It referred them to their former addreffes, for the character of their defigns, and exhorted them to purfue fteadily the fame conftitutional methods. The letter from the Sheffield fociety, which had been infifted on fo much, required nothing more than a reform upon the duke of Richmond's plan. But had it been otherwife, it had nothing to do with Mr. Tooke, who did not write the letters himself, nor had the power of preventing their being written by others. Another leading charge against the prifoner, was the refolution of the fociety to hold a convention in If men's lives were to depend upon evidence fo flight, there was an end at once to all fecurity in England. From the whole tenor of the prisoner's conduct, it was clear, that his views were to obtain a reform in the reprefentation of parliament, and that only. There were, no doubt, as there always must be in large bo lies of men, difcordant opinions. Some were for univería!, and feme for limited faff age; but the grand object of the focieties and the convention was, to lay the wishes of the people for a reform C before before their reprefentatives, whofe wifdom would correct the crude ideas of the multitude. Mr. Tooke was all this time engaged in a courfe of ftudy, the refult of which would be of lafting benefit to his country. His learning and abilities fully qualified him to inftruct his countrymen, and he had paid no less than 100l. for packs of cards, by which he could better methodize the inftructions he meant to convey. That, in the midst of these ftudies and researches, he fhould be all the time plotting treafon against the government, would exceed the extravagance of what may be read in the Arabian Nights, or the Tales of the Fairies. But though Mr. Tooke, by his abfence from the meeting, might well defend himself from any part in fending delegates to the convention, he did not wish to avail himself of that advantage, as there were others who had not the fame excufe to offer; and that the delegation was an act lawful and constitutional. For this reafon he inftructed him, as his counsel and reprefentative, to defend this major as well as the minor of the accufation.. Some of the members of the Scotch convention were afterwards profecuted, but not for high treafon; their offence was confidered only as a misdemeanor. The government then knew every thing of which they were fince informed. They had fpies upon every man's conduct, and in every man's house. Nothing could have escaped them; and yet why did they let fuch a length of time elapfe before they protecuted? He would not accufe them of laying fnare for innocent blood. He rather fuppofed the fit of alarm came fuddenly on them, and they now food forward to charge that as high treafon, conftructively, which was only a mifdemeanor in the acting parties. The convictions in Scotland had given great off.nce, I which he, with many others, were of opinion to be illegal. Here, Mr. Fielding made fome remark across the table, upon which, Mr. Erfkine faid, he wifhed not to be corrected by him. The lord prefident alfo confidered the language as improper. Mr. Erskine contended that he was ftrictly right in faying, that the legality of thefe convictions had been questioned in parliament by many of its ableft members, and may be questioned again. They of course may be faid to have given offence to the country: whatever might have been charged on thofe convicts, against the authority of the judges in Scotland, had no application. here. To kill a judge in the execution of his office, was high treafon, by the ftatute of Edw. III. in England; but the law was not fo in Scotland. But to conftitute the treason, the judge must be actually killed: for confpiring to kill him was not treafon at all. Another charge against his client, was the fanctioning the refolutions, ftating, that Law ceafes to be an object of obedience when it becomes the inftrument of oppreffion:" and alfo a refolution, glancing at the character of Jefferies. He would fay nothing of the application of the character of judge Jefferies in this inftance; but would exprefs his individual opinion, that parliament would act wifely if it inftituted anniverfaries to remind us of bafe as well as glorious actions. While fome stimulated our emulation of the vir tues by which fome men distinguished themfelves above their cotemporaries, others fhould be held out to our execration, and expose vile and fcandalous actions to eternal infamy. They should fhew us how to eftimate the value of immortal good fame over the tranfitory enjoyments which lucre may procure us. Mr. Tooke, fo far from fanctioning the violent refolutions of the meeting, |