pics that will be dwelt upon, I imagine, are the probability of the charge, and the credibility of the witneffes. It will be faid, that this plan is fo extravagant that it is impoffible for any man in his fenfes to embark in it. I do not quarrel this mode of reafoning. But I would caution you, Gentlemen, to make an allowance for the difference between you and them. You are cool and difengaged. Your minds are well regulated, and you have the habits of virtue. Those were men of a heated imagination, perfons long embarked in thefe projects, who had contemplated as reasonable the object of their purfuits. Enthufiafts are good and bad-there are religious enthufiafts and political enthufiafts-but all of them (it is of the very nature of their diforder) to over-rate the value of their object, and under-rate the obstacles which opppofe their fuccefs. You muft confider, not how you would behave, but how men would behave whofe minds were fo conftituted. What you look upon with abhorrence and think unattainable, they might confider as highly desirable and easily within their reach.

plice is incompetent. By me it will readily be granted that he ought to be confirmed by collateral evidence.Not that every word that he utters must be sworn to by another witnefs, for this would make the teftimony of an accomplice of no ufe, unless perhaps in a cafe of high treafon. But parts of his story muft coincide with what is depofed by witneffes of undoubted credit, fo as, upon the whole, to render it more probable that he has been fpeaking the truth, than that he has been fabricating lies. As the previous character of an accomplice may weigh much with the Jury, I know not whether it will be attempted to shew that these men had been guilty of great enormities before they entered into this affociation. I fhall not hesitate to confefs, that it is not unlikely fuch an attempt might, in fome measure, fucceed. This crime is not to be reached without a progress in wickedness. But I fhould rather think my Learned Friends would be very cautious before they undertook to prove these men to be of scandalous character. How fhall they account for Colonel Despard affociating with them? Will they not free themselves from one perplexity only to get into a greater? You will wait with impatience to hear how Col. Defpard, a man of birth, of educa tion, of genteel manners, of rank in the army, fhould affociate with the loweft of mankind. There cannot be a doubt that fome of them are guilty. The papers are fufficient to prove the confpiracy, independent of oral teftimony. It may not be immaterial to obferve, that the offence of adminiftering unlawful oaths, without any regard to the intention or confequences, is fubftantively a capital felony. A crimi nal purpofe is not to be doubted. "On. Colonel Defpard none of the papers were found." True! But does it therefore follow that no inference can be drawn against him? by no means! His advocates must be puzzled to explain the circumftances of a man in his condition of life, and of his habits, mixing in fociety where every thing muft fhock and difguft him. According to my hypothefis nothing is more plain. Meditating a defperate treason to be executed the following week, he mixed with those by whole inftrument

You should place yourselves, if poffible, in their fituation. Conceive you are freed from the reftraints of loyalty and law; that your heads are fet agog with the mad doctrines published by the French Revolution; that you have long confidered treafon as no crime; that you regard rebellion as a field for the exertion of a virtuous patriot; that you have kept company with enthufiafts and demagogues; that you have animated and inflamed each other by mutual exhortations and promifes. Under this deplorable delufion, and in your common found ftate of mind, would your impreffions, would your eftimate of things be the fame! Go ftill farther: Imagine that you are fettered by the world; that you have met with difapointment; that you are involved in difficulties; that you are vexed and irrited by inconveniencies brought down upon you by your own indifcretion. Now, might you not engage in defperate attempts, in the hope of bettering your fortunes? With regard to the witnefies, they can only be objected to on the score of credibility. It will not be contended that an accomVOL. LXV..

ality he was to raife himself to greatnefs. Where elfe could he find agents in fuch a fcheme? No where but in fociety of this mean and profligate kind. But if witneffes fhould come in, and fay, we were feduced by him, were prefent along with him at various meetings, where the whole plan for breakinto this houfe was debated and arranged—would you not believe that he was the infligator of the crime, and that he deferved to feffer not lefs than thole who had nofu been quite fo cautious? there can be no ftronger confirma tion than when the circumftance of two narratives coincide. Evidence in treafon is be tried by the fame rules as evidence in any crime of an inferior denomination. I do not fee, Gentlemen, that in this cafe you should have any extraordinary anxious feeling to extricate the prifoner. The crime imputed to him is one of the blackeft and moft mifchievous in the catalogue of guilt; and fociety cannot exift if it go unpunished. To the laft he is entitled to juftice, and he will have juftice. He is tried by the English law, before Englith Judges, and an English Jury. But if you permit your inclinations to mercy to exceed the limits of reafon, you will do what the prifoner has no right to expect, and what I moft folemnly protest against on the part of the public. Gentlemen, I have detained you longer than I intended; but I fhall now proceed to call the witneffes, in the confident hope that, if they fubftantiate the cafe I have fhewn to you, you will do your duty, however painful its difcharge may be to your feelings."

After the evidence on the part of the profecution cloted, Mr Serjeant Beft addreffed the Jury in behalf of the prifoner. After fhewing the impropriety of receiving words as evidence, he proceeded.-"Gentlemen of the Jury, I am aware that I may be told that going to a meeting for a treasonable purpofe is an overt act of treafon. I admit alfo that Colonel Defpard was at fome of these meetings, and that it is fworn he spoke the obnoxious words, but before you can convict him, thew me that he knew the meeting was a treafonable one; fhew me where you will find evidence to fix upon him a knowledge of its being a treasonable meet

ing, or that he attended it for treasonable purposes. The learned AttorneyGeneral has called upon me to explain the meaning of the printed card he has produced.-Is it connected with Colonel Defpard at all? I fay there is not a fingle tittle of evidence to connect him with that paper, except the teftimony of Francis, the most infamous man alive. Is there teftimony of the other charge?-I fay not, except fuch, as if received, would leave no fecurity for the life, liberty, or fafety of any man. Let us compare the cafes with other cafes of a like nature, which have gone before it. In Layer's cafe, did the Crown content themfelves with merely proving as much as is here proved? No, they proved that arms were found. They fhowed the hand writing of Layer, to prove the participation of the attempt. I call upon the learned Lawyers of the Crown to fhew me any other cafe fince the Revolution, where a man has been convicted on fuch fort of evidence; I fay fince the Revolution, for before that period, judges were objects of fufpicion, and not, as they are now, objects of refpect and veneration. I challenge the Solicitor General to produce me a fingle inftance; for I fay, no jury will believe that a traitorous intention existed, without the indi. cation of fome means of carrying it into effect.-I can, indeed, conceive a cafe of treafon, where it has just been meditated, before the means had been procured; but was that the cafe here? Was the treafon here inchoated? They fay it was all fettled, the Tower was to be carried, defended as it is, altho it did not appear in evidence that a poker, or any other weapon, was even prepared for the attack. Gentlemen, I fay, if the moft refpectable witneffes had proved fuch an improbable scheme, you could not believe them; you would fay, in this you must be mistaken.-If there are no deeds, then are there any writings? Can it be faid that the Colonel was fo cautious that he prevented any writings being found upon him? Was he cautious or incautious? He cannot be represented as both. If he were cautious, can you then believe the witneffes that be was telling every man those wild schemes which they have ftated here to-day? If he were incautious is it poffible but

fome

en records could convey any increase of ftrength. Gentlemen, I come now to a ground, which I think perfectly decifive to the prefent cafe. Though you heard the witneffes telling a tale of horror, which almoft freezes one's blood, yet it is with the utmost coolnefs they relate it. To the Grand Jury, not to you, who muft pronounce a definitive opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accufed; but to the Grand Jury, who were only to enquire whether there were grounds of fufpicion fufficient to put the prifoner upon his defence, his Lordship faid to them, if you find the ftory improbable, you will require the greater degree of evidence. I have, therefore, the authority of his Lordthip in saying, that if the cafe be an improbable one, you will require more cogent evidence; that it is a molt improbable cafe I need not fay. What is it? Fourteen or fifteen men at a common tap room, with no firearms but their tobacco-pipes, men of the loweft orders of fociety, without mind or intelligence, were to feize the King, the Bank, the Tower, the Members of both Houfes of Parliament. How were they to do it? Have they foreign connexions, have they affociates in the country? it was, indeed, talked of, but I fay it was not true, not a fingle iota of proof is there of any such thing in the cafe. The pencil of Cervantes never delineated any thing half fo ridiculous as this fcheme.

fome better evidence might have been furnished of his guilt, if he really were the traitor the witneffes reprefent him to be? Gentlemen, I come now to a most important topic. It is a moft important rule of evidence, that the cafe fhould be made out by credible witneffes. If I am afked, then, do you fay that accomplices ought not to be called? I do not fay but they may be called, and may be credited to a certain extent; but I think I can see a clear line of diftinction. They may be called to explain a transaction after a crime has been proved by more credible witnesses; but I infift, that the evidence of accomplices fhould not be let in until the clear cafe of guilt is made out by more unexceptionable evidence. Let us fee then if there is one tittle of proof in this cafe, but what comes from the contaminated evidence of accomplices. If there be not, it is not the cause of Colonel Defpard I am advocating; it is the caufe of every Englishman, of English law, and of English liberty. When you return to the ranks of fociety from whence you came, and lay afide your characters of jurors, if you convict on this unfupported evidence, you lay a foundation for mifchief which may hereafter defroy yourselves. But I may be told, Gentlemen, that there are four witneffes, namely, Blades, Emblin, Francis, and Windfor, and that although you ought not to convict upon one, yet the co current teftimony of four is decifive. It appears that this is one of the cafea where the concurrent teftimony of one hundred gives no ftrength to the fingle teitimony of one accomplice. Moft certainly, if witne fles come from dif. tant quarters, without concert with each other, and give the fame account of the fame tranfaction, this coincidence of evidence is forcible proof of its truth. But this obfervation lofes all force, when applied to the cafe of confpiracy; for if men meet and confpire to faften an object round the neck of an innocent man, they will all agree in the material facts. Then do you believe the confpiracy, or do you not? If you do not believe the confpiracy, there is an end of the cafe. If you do, the concurrent teftimony of thefe four witneffes is of no more force than one; any more than an aggregation of brok