houses in Scotland or acted in rebellious opposi | supplications, and you will meet with redress from tion to law, so as to entitle it to wrest the prisoner's expressions into an excitation of rebellion against the state, or of violence against the properties of English Papists, by setting up their firmness as an example? Certainly not. They have not even proved the naked fact of such violences, though such proof would have called for no resistance; since to make it bear as rebellious advice to the Protestant Association of London, it must have been first shown that such acts had been perpetrated or encouraged by the Protestant societies in the North.

Who has dared to say this? No man. The tabble in Scotland certainly did that which has since been done by the rabble in England, to the disgrace and reproach of both countries. But in neither country was there found one man of character or condition, of any description, who abetted such enormities, nor any man, high or low, of any of the Associated Protestants, here or there, who were either convicted, tried, or taken on suspicion.

a mild and gracious King, who will recommena it to his ininisters to repeal it." Good God! if they were to wait till the King, whether from benevolence or fear, should direct his minister to influence the proceedings of Parliament, how does it square with the charge of instant coercion or intimidation of the House of Commons? If the multitude were assembled with the premed. itated design of producing immediate repeal by terror or arms, is it possible to suppose that their leader would desire them to be quiet, and refer them to those qualities of the Prince, which, how. ever eminently they might belong to him, never could be exerted on subjects in rebellion to his authority? In what a labyrinth of nonsense and contradiction do men involve themselves, when, forsaking the rules of evidence, they would draw conclusions from words in contradiction to lan guage and in defiance of common sense?

The next witness that is called to you by the Crown is Mr. Metcalf. He was not in the lobby, but speaks only to the meeting in Coachmakers' Hall, on the 29th of May, and in St. George's Fields. He says that at the former, Lord George reminded them that the Scotch had succeeded by their unanimity-and hoped that no one who had signed the petition would be ashamed or afraid to show himself in the cause; that he was ready to go to the gallows for it; that he would not present the petition of a lukewarm people; that he desired them to come to St. George's Fields, distinguished with blue cockades, and that they should be marshaled in four divisions. Then he speaks to having seen them in the fields in the order which has been described; and Lord George Gordon in a coach surrounded by a vast con

As to what this man heard on the 29th of May, it was nothing more than the proposition of going up in a body to St. George's Fields to consider how the petition should be presented, with the same exhortations to firmness as before. The resolution made on the motion has been read, and when I come to state the evidence on the part of my noble friend, I will show you the impossibility of supporting any criminal inference from what Mr. Hay afterward puts in his mouth in the lobby, even taking it to be true. I wish here to be accurate [looking on a card on which he had taken down his words]. He says: "Lord George desired them to continue steadfastly to adhere to so good a cause as theirs was; prom-course of people, with blue ribbons, forming like ised to persevere in it himself, and hoped, though soldiers, but was not near enough to hear wheththere was little expectation at present from the er the prisoner spoke to them or not. Such is House of Commons that they would meet with Mr. Metcalf's evidence; and after the attention redress from their mild and gracious Sovereign, you have honored me with, and which I shall have who, no doubt, would recommend it to his min- occasion so often to ask again on the same subisters to repeal it." This was all he heard, and ject, I shall trouble you with but one observation I will show you how this wicked man himself (if namely, that it can not, without absurdity, be supany belief is to be given to him) entirely over-posed that if the assembly at Coachmakers' Hall turns and brings to the ground the evidence of Mr. Bowen, on which the Crown rests singly for the proof of words which are more difficult to explain. Gentlemen, was this the language of rebellion? If a multitude were at the gates of the House of Commons to command and insist on a repeal of this law, why encourage their hopes by reminding them that they had a mild and gracious Sovereign? If war was levying against him, there was no occasion for his mildness and graciousness. If he had said, "Be firm and persevere, we shall meet with redress from the prudence of the Sovereign," it might have borne a different construction; because, whether he was gracious or severe, his prudence might lead him to submit to the necessity of the times. The words sworn to were, therefore, perfectly clear and unambiguous-"Persevere in your zeal and

14

The Chaplain of the House of Commons.

had been such conspirators as they are represented, their doors would have been open t strangers, like this witness, to come in to report their proceedings.

The next witness is Mr. Anstruther,15 who speaks to the language and deportment of the noble prisoner, both at Coachmakers' Hall, on the 29th of May, and afterward on the 2d of June, in the lobby of the House of Commons. It will be granted to me, I am sure, even by the advocates of the Crown, that this gentleman, not only from the clearness and consistency of his testimony, but from his rank and character in the world, is infinitely more worthy of credit than Mr. Hay, who went before him. And from the circumstances of irritation and confusion under which the Rev. Mr. Bowen confessed himself to have heard and seen, what he told you he heard

15 This gentleman was a member of Parliament.

and saw, I may likewise assert, without any of- | authorized either the court or its law servants tc fense to the reverend gentleman, and without tell you so? Or can it be decently maintained drawing any parallel between their credits, that that Parliament was so weak or infamous as to where their accounts of this transaction differ, the yield to a wretched mob of vagabonds at Edinpreference is due to the former. Mr. Anstruther burgh what it has since refused to the earnest very properly prefaced his evidence with this prayers of a hundred thousand Protestants of declaration: "I do not mean to speak accurately London? No, gentlemen of the jury, Parlia to words; it is impossible to recollect them at ment was not, I hope, so abandoned. But the this distance of time." I believe I have used his ministers knew that the Protestants of Scotland very expression, and such expression it well be- were to a man abhorrent of that law. And though came him to use in a case of blood. But words, they never held out resistance, if government even if they could be accurately remembered, are should be disposed to cram it down their throats to be admitted with great reserve and caution, by force, yet such violence to the united sentiwhen the purpose of the speaker is to be meas. ments of a whole people appeared to be a measured by them. They are transient and fleeting; ure so obnoxious, so dangerous, and withal su frequently the effect of a sudden transport, easi- unreasonable, that it was wisely and judiciously ly misunderstood, and often unconsciously mis- dropped, to satisfy the general wishes of the narepresented. It may be the fate of the most in- tion, and not to avert the vengeance of those low nocent language to appear ambiguous, or even incendiaries whose misdeeds have rather been malignant, when related in mutilated, detached talked of than proved. passages, by people to whom it is not addressed, and who know nothing of the previous design either of the speaker or of those to whom he spoke. Mr. Anstruther says that he heard Lord George Gordon desire the petitioners to meet him on the Friday following, in St. George's Fields, and that if there were fewer than twenty thousand people, he would not present the petition, as it would not be of consequence enough; and that he recommended to them the example of the Scotch, who, by their firmness, had carried their point.

Gentlemen, I have already admitted that they dia by firmness carry it. But has Mr. Anstruther attempted to state any one expression that fell from the prisoner to justify the positive, unerring conclusion, or even the presumption, that the firmness of the Scotch Protestants, by which the point was carried in Scotland, was the resistance and riots of the rabble? No, gentlemen; he singly states the words, as he heard them in the hall on the 29th, and all that he afterward speaks to in the lobby, repels so harsh and dangerous a construction. The words sworn to at Coachmakers' Hall are, that he recommended temperance and firmness." Gentlemen, if his motives are to be judged by words, for Heaven's sake let these words carry their popular meaning in language. Is it to be presumed, without proof, that a man means one thing because he says another? Does the exhortation 10 temperance and firmness apply most naturally to the constitutional resistance of the Protestants of Scotland, or to the outrages of ruffians who pulled down the houses of their neighbors? Is it possible, with decency, to say, in a court of justice, that the recommendation of temperance is the excitation to villainy and frenzy ? But the words, it seems, are to be construed, not from their own signification, but from that which follows them, viz., "by that the Scotch carried their point." Gentlemen, is it in evidence before you that by rebellion the Seotch carried their point? or that the indulgences to Papists were not extended to Scotland because the rabble had opposed the'r extension? Has the Crown

Thus, gentlemen, the exculpation of Lord George's conduct on the 29th of May is sufficiently established by the very evidence on which the Crown asks you to convict him. For, in recommending temperance and firmness after the example of Scotland, you can not be justified in pronouncing that he meant more than the firm ness of the grave and respectable people in that country, to whose constitutional firmness the Legislature had before acceded, instead of brand ing it with the title of rebellion; and who, in my mind, deserve thanks from the King for temper ately and firmly resisting every innovation which they conceived to be dangerous to the national religion, independently of which his Majesty (without a new limitation by Parliament) has nc more title to the crown than I have.

Such, gentlemen, is the whole amount of all my noble friend's previous communication with the petitioners, whom he afterward assembled to consider how their petition should be presented. This is all, not only that men of credit can tell you on the part of the prosecution, but all that even the worst vagabond who ever appeared in a court the very scum of the earth-thought himself safe in saying, upon oath, on the present occasion. Indeed, gentlemen, when I consider my noble friend's situation, his open, unreserved temper, and his warm and animated zeal for a cause which rendered him obnoxious to so many wicked men-speaking daily and publicly to mixed multitudes of friends and foes, on a subject which affected his passions—I confess I am astonished that no other expressions than those in evidence before you have found their way into this court. That they have not found their way is surely a most satisfactory proof that there was nothing in his heart which even youthful zeal could magnify into guilt, or that want of caution could betray.

Gentlemen, Mr. Anstruther's evidence, when he speaks of the lobby of the House of Commons, is very much to be attended to. He says, "I saw Lord George leaning over the gallery," which position, joined with what he mentioned of his talking with the chaplain, marks the time,

and cast a strong doubt on Bowen's testimony, | speaks of them in such a manner, as, so far from which you will find stands, in this only material conveying the hostile ilea, which he seemed sufpart of it, single and unsupported. "I then ficiently desirous to convey, tends directly to heard him," continues Mr. Anstruther, "tell wipe off the dark hints and insinuations which them they had been called a mob in the House, have been made to supply the place of proof and that peace-officers had been sent to disperse upon that subject-a subject which should not them (peaceable petitioners); but that by stead- have been touched on without the fullest support iness and firmness they might carry their point; of evidence, and where nothing but the most un as he had no doubt his Majesty, who was a gra-equivocal evidence ought to have been received. cious prince, would send to his ministers to re- He says, "his Lordship began by bidding them peal the act, when he heard his subjects were be quiet, peaceable, and steady"—not “steady” coming up for miles round, and wishing its re-alone; though, if that had been the expression, peal." How coming up? In rebellion and singly by itself, I should not be afraid to meet arms to compel it? No! all is still put on the it; but, "Be quiet, PEACEABLE, and steady." graciousness of the Sovereign, in listening to the Gentlemen, I am indifferent what other expres unanimous wishes of his people. If the multi-sions of dubious interpretation are mixed with tude then assembled had been brought together to intimidate the House by their firmness, or to coerce it by their numbers, it was ridiculous to look forward to the King's influence over it, when the collection of future multitudes should induce him to employ it. The expressions were therefore quite unambiguous; nor could malice itself have suggested another construction of them, were it not for the fact that the House was at that time surrounded, not by the petitioners, whom the noble prisoner had assembled, but by a mob who had mixed with them, and who, therefore, when addressed by him, were instantly set down as his followers. He thought he was addressing the sober members of the association, who by steadiness and perseverance, con'd derstand nothing more than perseverance in that vonduct he had antecedently prescribed, as steadiness signifies a uniformity, not a change of conduct; and I defy the Crown to find out a single expression, from the day he took the chair at the association to the day I am speaking of, that justifies any other construction of steadiness and firmness than that which I put upon it before.

What would be the feelings of our venerable ancestors, who framed the statute of treasons to prevent their children being drawn into the snares of death, unless provably convicted by overt acts, if they could hear us disputing whether it was treason to desire harmless, unarmed men to be firm and of good heart, and to trust to the graciousness of their King?

these. For you are trying whether my noble friend came to the House of Commons with a decidedly hostile mind; and as I shall, on the recapitulation of our own evidence, trace him in your view, without spot or stain, down to the very moment when the imputed words were spoken, you will hardly forsake the whole innocent context of his behavior, and torture your inventions to collect the blackest system of guilt, starting up in a moment, without being previously con certed, or afterward carried into execution.

First, what are the words by which you are to be convinced that the Legislature was to be frightened into compliance, and to be coerced if terror should fail? "Be quiet, peaceable, and steady; you are a good people; yours is a good cause: his Majesty is a gracious monarch, and when he hears that all his people, ten miles round, are collecting, he will send to his ministers to repeal the act." By what rules of con struction can such an address to unarmed, defenseless men be tortured into treasonable guilt? It is impossible to do it without pronouncing, even in the total absence of all proof of fraud or deceit in the speaker, that quiet signifies tumult and uproar, and that peace signifies war and rebellion.

I have before observed that it was most important for you to remember that, with this exhortation to quiet and confidence in the King, the evidence of all the other witnesses closed. Even Mr. Anstruther, who was a long time afterward in the lobby, heard nothing further; so that if Mr. Bowen had been out of the case altogether, what would the amount have been? Why, simply, that Lord George Gordon, having assembled an unarmed, inoffensive multitude in St. George's Fields, to present a petition to Par|liament, and finding them becoming tumultuous, to the discontent of Parliament and the discredit of the cause, desired them not to give it up, but to continue to show their zeal for the legal ob ject in which they were engaged; to manifest that zeal quietly and peaceably, and not to despair of success; since, though the House was not disposed to listen to it, they had a gracious Sovereign, who would second the wishes of his peo

Here Mr. Anstruther closes his evidence, which leads me to Mr. Bowen, who is the only man—I beseech you, gentlemen of the jury, to attend to this circumstance-Mr. Bowen is the only man who has attempted, directly or indirectly, to say that Lord George Gordon uttered a syllable to the multitude in the lobby concerning the destruction of the mass-houses in Scotland. Not one of the Crown's witnesses; not even the wretched, abandoned Hay, who was kept, as he said, in the lobby the whole afternoon, from anxiety for his pretended friend, has ever glanced at any expression resembling it. They all finish with the expectation which he held out, from a mild and gracious Sovereign.ple. Mr. Bowen alone goes on further, and speaks of the successful riots of the Scotch But he

This is the sum and substance of the whole. They were not, even by any one ambiguous ex pression, encouraged to trust to their numbers, as

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 immediate 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 | If Mr. Bowen, therefore, had ended here, I can strength to compel it, or to the prudence of the hardly conceive such a construction could be destate in yielding to necessity, but to the indulg-cently hazarded consistent with the testimony of 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 attend 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 ol 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 een made to introduce the bill into Scotland, and that they had no redress till the mass-houses were pulled down. That Lord Weymouth16 then sent official assurances that it should not be extended to them." Gentlemen, why is Mr. Bowen 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 warrant a conviction, found it necessary to hold up the noble prisoner as the wicked and cruel author 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 telling them to do mischief in order to succeed, but tnat 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

1 Then Secretary for the Southern Department. 17 This reference to Lord Mansfield, then seated on the bench as presiding judge at the age of seventy six, 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 ans 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 explanation. 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 fill November, 1779, when the Protestant Association 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 illust "ation or a picture which refreshed the mind, but he brought back with him an argument.