If Mr. Bowen, therefore, had ended here, I can hardly conceive such a construction could be decently hazarded consistent with the testimony of the witnesses we have called. How much less, when, after the dark insinuations which such expressions might otherwise have been argued to convey, the very same person, on whose veracity or memory they are only to be believed, and who must be credited or discredited in toto, takes out the sting himself by giving them such an immedi ate context and conclusion as renders the proposi tion ridiculous, which his evidence is brought forward to establish; for he says that Lord George Gordon instantly afterward addressed himself thus: "Beware of evil-minded persons who may mix among you and do mischief, the blame of which will be imputed to you."

sufficient to overawe the House, or to their
strength to compel it, or to the prudence of the
state in yielding to necessity, but to the indulg-
ence of the King, in compliance with the wishes
of his people. Mr. Bowen, however, thinks
proper to proceed; and I beg that you will at-
tend to the sequel of his evidence. He stands
single in all the rest that he says, which might
entitle me to ask you absolutely to reject it. But
I have no objection to your believing every word
of it, if you can because, if inconsistencies prove
any thing, they prove that there was nothing of
that deliberation in the prisoner's expressions
which can justify the inference of guilt. I mean
to be correct as to his words [looking at his
words which he had noted down]. He says "that
Lord George told the people that an attempt had
been made to introduce the bill into Scotland,
and that they had no redress till the mass-houses
were pulled down. That Lord Weymouth then
sent official assurances that it should not be ex-
tended to them." Gentlemen, why is Mr. Bow-nation.
en called by the Crown to tell you this? The
reason is plain because the Crown, conscious
that it could make no case of treason from the
rest of the evidence, in sober judgment of law;
aware that it had proved no purpose or act of
force against the House of Commons, to give
countenance to the accusation, much less to war-
rant a conviction, found it necessary to hold up
the noble prisoner as the wicked and cruel au-
thor of all those calamities in which every man's
passions might be supposed to come in to assist
his judgment to decide. They therefore made
him speak in enigmas to the multitude: not tell-
ing them to do mischief in order to succeed, but
that by mischief in Scotland success had been
obtained.

But were the mischiefs themselves that did happen here of a sort to support such a conclusion? Can any man living, for instance, believe that Lord George Gordon could possibly have excited the mob to destroy the house of that great and venerable magistrate, who has presided so long in this high tribunal that the oldest of us do not remember him with any other impression than the awful form and figure of justice: a magistrate who had always been the friend of the Protestant Dissenters against the ill-timed jealousies of the Establishment-his countryman, too -and, without adverting to the partiality not unjustly imputed to men of that country, a man of whom any country might be proud? No, gentlemen, it is not credible that a man of noble birth and liberal education (unless agitated by the most implacable personal resentment which is not imputed to the prisoner) could possibly consent to the burning of the house of Lord Mansfield.17

16 Then Secretary for the Southern Department. 17 This reference to Lord Mansfield, then seated on the bench as presiding judge at the age of eightysix, is not only appropriate and beautiful in itself, but, as managed by Mr. Erskine, forms a most convincing proof in favor of Lord George Gordon. This was one of Mr. Erskine's excellences, that he never

Gentlemen, if you reflect on the slander which I told you fell upon the Protestants in Scotland by the acts of the rabble there, I am sure you will see the words are capable of an easy expla

But as Mr. Bowen concluded with telling you that he heard them in the midst of noise and confusion, and as I can only take them from him, I shall not make an attempt to collect them into one consistent discourse, so as to give them a decided meaning in favor of my client, because I have repeatedly told you that words imperfectly heard and partially related can not be so reconciled. But this I will say that he must be a ruffian, and not a lawyer, who would dare to tell an English jury that such ambiguous words, hemmed closely in between others not only innocent but meritorious, are to be adopted to constitute guilt, by rejecting both introduction and sequel, with which they are absolutely irreconcilable and inconsistent: For if ambiguous words, when coupled with actions, decipher the mind of the actor, so as to establish the presumption of guilt, will not such as are plainly innocent and unambiguous go as far to repel such presumption? Is innocence more difficult of proof than the most malignant wickedness? Gentlemen, I see your minds revolt at such shocking propositions. I beseech you to forgive me. I am afraid that my zeal has led me to offer observations which I ought in justice to have believed every honest mind would suggest to itself with pain and abhorrence without being illustrated and enforced.

I now come more minutely to the evidence on the part of the prisoner.

Examination of

the prisoner.

I before told you that it was not till November, 1779, when the Protestant Associa tion was already fully established, the evidence for that Lord George Gordon was elected President by the unanimous voice of the whole body, unlooked for and unsolicited. It is surely not an immaterial circumstance that at the very first meeting where his Lordship presided, a dutiful and respectful petition, the same which was afterward presented to Parliament, was read and approved of; a petition which, so far from containing any thing threatening or offensive, conwent out of his case for an illustration or a picture which refreshed the mind, but he brought back with him an argument.

veyed not a very oblique reflection upon the benavior of the people in Scotland. It states, that as England and that country were now one, and as official assurances had been given that the law should not pass there, they hoped the peaceable and constitutional deportment of the English Protestants would entitle them to the approbation of Parliament.

death, retailing scraps of sentences which they had heard by thrusting themselves, from curiosi ty, into places where their business did not lead them; ignorant of the views and tempers of both speakers and hearers, attending only to a part, and, perhaps innocently, misrepresenting that part, from not having heard the whole.

The witnesses for the Crown all tell you that Lord George said he would not go up with the petition unless he was attended by twenty thou sand people who had signed it. There they think proper to stop, as if he had said nothing further; leaving you to say to yourselves, what possible purpose could he have in assembling such a multitude on the very day the House was to receive the petition? Why should be urge it, when the committee had before thought it inexpedient? And why should he refuse to present it unless so attended? Hear what Mr. Middleton says. He tells you that my noble friend informed the petitioners that if it was decided they were not to attend to consider how their petition should be presented, he would with the greatest pleasure go up with it alone. But that, if it was resolved they should attend it in person, he expected twenty thousand at the least should meet him in St. George's Fields, for that otherwise the petition would be considered as a forgery; it having been thrown out in the House and elsewhere that the repeal of the bill was not the serious wish of the people at large, and that the petition was a mere list of names on parchment, and not of men in sentiment. Mr. Middleton added, that Lord George adverted to the same objections having been made to many other petitions, and he, therefore, expressed an anxiety to show Parliament how many were actually interested in its success, which he reasonably thought would be a strong inducement to the House to listen to it. The language imputed to him falls in most nat

It appears by the evidence of Mr. Erasmus Middleton, 18 a very respectable clergyman, and one of the committee of the Association, that a meeting had been held on the 4th of May, at which Lord George was not present; that at that meeting a motion had been made for going up with the petition in a body, but which not being regularly put from the chair, no resolution was come to upon it; and that it was likewise agreed on, but in the same irregular manner, that there should be no other public meeting previous to the presenting the petition. That this last resolution occasioned great discontent, and that Lord George was applied to by a large and respectable number of the Association to call another meeting, to consider of the most prudent and respectful method of presenting their petition: but it appears that, before he complied with their request, he consulted with the committee on the propriety of compliance, who all agreeing to it except the Secretary, his Lordship advertised the meeting which was afterward held on the 29th of May. The meeting was, therefore, the act of the whole Association. As to the original difference between my noble friend and the committee on the expediency of the measure, it is totally immaterial; since Mr. Middleton, who was one of the number who differed from him on that subject (and whose evidence is, therefore, infinitely more to be relied on), told you that his whole deportment was so clear and unequivocal, as to entitle him to assure you on his most solemn oath, that he in his conscience believed his views were per-urally with this purpose: "I wish Parliament to fectly constitutional and pure. This most respectable clergyman further swears that he attended all the previous meetings of the society, from the day the prisoner became President to the day in question; and that, knowing they were objects of much jealousy and malice, he watched his behavior with anxiety, lest his zeal should furnish matter for misrepresentation; but that he never heard an expression escape him which marked a disposition to violate the duty and subordination of a subject, or which could lead any man to believe that his objects were different from the avowed and legal objects of the Association. We could have examined thousands to the same fact, for, as I told you when I began to speak, I was obliged to leave my place to disencumber myself from their names.

This evidence of Mr. Middleton's as to the 29th of May, must, I should think, convince every man how dangerous and unjust it is in witnesses, however perfect their memories, or however great their veracity, to come into a criminal court where a man is standing for his life or

18 The first witness called for the prisoner.

see who and what you are; dress yourselves in your best clothes"-which Mr. Hay (who, I suppose, had been reading the indictment) thought it would be better to call "ARRAY YOURSELVES." He desired that not a stick should be seen among them, and that, if any man insulted another, or was guilty of any breach of the peace, he was to be given up to the magistrates. Mr. Attorney General, to persuade you that this was all color and deceit, says, "How was a magistrate to face forty thousand men? How were offenders in such a multitude to be amenable to the civil power ?" What a shameful perversion of a plain, peaceable purpose! To be sure, if the multitude had been assembled to resist the magistrate, offenders could not be secured. But they themselves were ordered to apprehend all offenders among them, and to deliver them up to justice. They themselves were to surrender their fellows to civil authority if they offended.

The prisoner sured without

But it seems that Lord George ought to have foreseen that so great a multitude could not be collected without mischief. Gentlemen, we are not trying whether he might or ought to

can not be cen condemning the

government.

why did not the Attorney General produce the record of some convictions, and compare it with the list? I thank them, therefore, for the precious compilation, which, though they did not produce, they can not stand up and deny.

have foreseen mischief, but whether he wickedly | in decency, to be silent. I see the effect this cirand traitorously preconcerted and designed it. cumstance has upon you, and I know I am war. But if he be an object of censure for not foresee-ranted in my assertion of the fact. If I am not, ing it, what shall we say to GOVERNMENT, that took no step to prevent it, that issued no proclamation, warning the people of the danger and illegality of such an assembly? If a peaceable multitude, with a petition in their hands, be an army, and if the noise and confusion inseparable from numbers, though without violence or the purpose of violence, constitute war, what shall be said of that GOVERNMENT which remained from Tuesday to Friday, knowing that an army was collecting to levy war by public advertisement, yet had not a single soldier, no, nor even a constable, to protect the state?

Gentlemen, I come forth to do that for government which its own servant, the Attorney General, has not done. I come forth to rescue it from the eternal infamy which would fall upon its head, if the language of its own advocate were to be believed. But government has an unanswerable defense. It neither did nor could possibly enter into the head of any man in authority to prophesy-human wisdom could not divine that wicked and desperate men, taking advantage of the occasion which, perhaps, an imprudent zeal for religion had produced, would dishonor the cause of all religions, by the disgraceful acts which followed.

Why, then, is it to be said that Lord George Gordon is a traitor, who, without proof of any hostile purpose to the government of his country, only did not foresee what no body else foresaw -what those people whose business it is to foresee every danger that threatens the state, and to avert it by the interference of magistracy, though they could not but read the advertisement, neither did nor could possibly apprehend ?19

Answer to the

pretense of deception on the part of the prisoner.

How are these observations attempted to be answered? Only by asserting, without evidence or even reasonable argument, that all this was color and deceit. Gentlemen, I again say that it is scandalous and reproachful, and not to be justified by any duty which can possibly belong to an advocate at the bar of an English court of justice, to declare, without any proof or attempt at proof, that all a man's expressions, however peaceable, however quiet, however constitutional, however loyal, are all fraud and villainy. Look, gentlemen, to the issues of life, which I before called the evidence of Heaven: I call them so still. Truly may I call them so, when, out of a book compiled by the Crown from the petition in the House of Commons, and containing the names of all who signed it, and which was printed in order to prevent any of that number being summoned upon the jury to try this indictment, not one criminal, or even a suspected name is to be found, among this defamed host of petitioners!

After this, gentlemen, I think the Crown ought, 19 This was the great turning-point of the case, and it would have been impossible to state it in more simple or more powerful terms.

Solomon [Job] says, "Oh that mine adversary had written a book!" My adversary has written a book, and out of it I am entitled to pronounce, that it can not again be decently asserted that Lord George Gordon, in exhorting an innocent and unimpeached multitude to be peaceable and quiet, was exciting them to violence against the state.

What is the evidence, then, on which this connection with the mob is to be proved? Only that they had blue cockades.20 Are you or am I answerable for every man who wears a blue cockade? If a man commits murder in my livery or in yours, without command, counsel, or consent, is the murder ours? In all cumulative, constructive treasons, you are to judge from the tenor of a man's behavior, not from crooked and disjointed parts of it. "Nemo repentè fuit turpissimus."21 No man can possibly be guilty of this crime by a sudden impulse of the mind, as he may of some others; and, certainly, Lord George Gordon stands upon the evidence at Coachmakers' Hall as pure and white as snow. He stands so upon the evidence of a man who had differed with him as to the expediency of his conduct, yet who swears that from the time he took the chair till the period which is the subject of inquiry, there was no blame in him.

You, therefore, are bound as Christian men to believe that, when he came to St. George's Fields that morning, he did not come there with the hostile purpose of repealing a law by rebellion.

But still it seems all his behavior at Coachmakers' Hall was color and deceit. Let us see, therefore, whether this body of men, when assembled, answered the description of that which I have stated to be the purpose of him who assembled them. Were they a multitude arrayed for terror or force? On the contrary, you have heard, upon the evidence of men whose veracity is not to be impeached, that they were sober, decent, quiet, peaceable tradesmen; that they were all of the better sort; all well-dressed and well-behaved; and that there was not a man among them who had any one weapon, offensive or defensive. Sir Philip Jennings Clerke tells

25 A witness, of the name of Richard Pond, called Gentlemen, I have all along told you that the Crown was aware that it had no case of treason, ing his house was about to be pulled down, he apin support of the prosecution, had sworn that, hearwithout connecting the noble prisoner with con- plied to the prisoner for protection, and in conse sequences, which it was in some luck to find ad-quence received the following document signed by vocates to state, without proof to support it. I can only speak for myself, that, small as my chance (as times go) of ever arriving at high ward assembled tumultuously about the House of Commons.