had a point in view which had not hitherto been discovered-he meant the the establishment of the doctrine of constructive misdemeanour. He exhorted them most impressively not to lend themselves to the introduction of such a system. Constructive treason appeared most horrible to the mind of an Englishman; but constructive misdemeanour, if once established, would be infinitely more dangerous. Whenever constructive treason was attempted to be established, an Englishman would feel that a stab was made at his own liberties; but the evils of constructive misdemeanours were not so apparent. The punishment awarded to them, when established, many would say, was only imprisonment-was only a separation from a man's family-was only a partial loss of his comforts-was only the ruin of his business; or, if it were a fine, was only a sum of money, which his friends might make up for him. There could not be a more fatal mistake if they allowed power to obtain that advantage, it would soon expand itself to higher crimes; and whenever government wished to get rid of an obnoxious individual, they would only have to bring a charge of conspiracy against him. What had the defendants been doing? They met with out the King's writ-that was no crime. If they had said that they had the King's writ, and so imposed a member upon the House of Commons, they would have been guilty of a most infamous fraud; but they had no intention of doing any thing like that. They meant to give a strong indication of what Manchester and Birmingham wanted, and which, if they had, he, for one, believed would tend more to the discontinuance of the riotous mobs which sometimes disgraced those towns than any other measure whatsoever. Mr Hill spoke in favour of Major Cartwright.

On the following day, (August 4,) Mr Wooler, for himself, addressed the Court in a speech of three hours and a quarter, of which we can only insert some of the most prominent passages. He challenged the learned Serjeantand he knew no man was better acquainted with the law than the learned Serjeant was to point out any statute, or any part of a statute, which, by implication, or by insinuation, could lead the people to suppose that the meetings which they had been in the habit of attending were illegal. It was the right of every man to hold whatsoever political opinions he pleased, and to lay them before the public for their ultimate decision. It was not sufficient, as the learned Serjeant had asserted, that individuals should be at liberty to maintain what he termed innocent and harmless opinions. Their rights and liberties could be traced to a higher and nobler source, and those rights and liberties entitled them to hold whatsoever opinions they thought proper. If he stated a political opinion, any person who pleased might attack it for its absurdity or its unsoundness; that was a matter of which posterity were to judge. But the person condemning that opinion had no right to go further and say, "You are an evil, malicious, and ill-disposed person," because he thought in a particu lar manner on a particular subject. The earliest information which the people received of there being any thing wrong or illegal in their assembling together, was derived from the London papers in August last. That information appeared in the shape of a proclamation, which he would read to them. The proclamation began by stating, "Whereas, for some time past, large bodies of people have been illegally assembled together, and at such meetings endeavours have been made, by treasonable speeches, to bring the

government of this country into hatred and contempt." This was the first sentence of a proclamation coming from the highest authority in the country; and he would maintain that a more libellous attack on the crown and on the government never issued from what was termed "the seditious press." Here it was stated, that the present careful and vigilant administration knew that seditious and treasonable speeches had, for a considerable time, been addressed to the passions of the people, and yet they never once thought of acting on that knowledge. Were they not here libelling themselves? Were they not accusing themselves of a gross dereliction of duty, in allowing such treasonable and seditious expressions to be used, without endeavouring to bring the offenders to justice? The proclamation went on thus-"And at one of the said meetings, the individuals assembled did attempt to constitute and appoint a person there nominated to sit, in their name and behalf, in the Commons House of Parliament, contrary to law." Now, the conscientious advisers of his Majesty ought, in justice, to point out what law was violated on the occasion alluded to; but, notwithstanding all the clamour that had been made about the law of the case, the learned Serjeant had not introduced to their notice a single statute, or even the shadow of a statute, that prohibited such meetings. He would now call the attention of the Jury to the indictment, and he thought the courts of law ought to be ashamed when they saw such a contemptible string of words crowded together, without sense or meaning, merely to puzzle the understanding. It was a matter sufficient to excite a man's indignation, when he considered the contemptible and ridiculous heap of nonsense by which such prosecutions were introduced to

the Court. It made one wonder that the law should give the learned Serjeant the power or the audacity to call on a jury to find him and his fellow-defendants guilty of all the crimes contained in this string of absurdity and nonsense. By the law of England, every charge ought to be clear and specific; but the learned Serjeant could not point out any thing like law, not even the presumption of law, except it was his own presumption of the law, that could bear him out in making this multitude of vague accusations. To read the indictment would be a total waste of time-to comprehend it was utterly impossible. The learned Serjeant had told them that the highest class of misdemeanour consisted in the endeavour to excite disaffection in the minds of the people against the government, and this, he contended, had been done by attacking the integrity of the House of Commons. The integrity of the House of Commons consisted in its pure connexion with the people-in its justice to the interests of the people-in its exercise of its controlling power over every species of public corruption. Who had attacked that integrity? Was the sale of seats at Barnstable, Grampound, and Penrhyn, any part of that integrity? Was the barter of a seat, for a writership by Lord Castlereagh, any part of that integrity? Was that act a part of the integrity of the House of Commons, at which the late Speaker, Mr Abbot, said,

46 our ancestors would have started with indignation," and which a minister of the Crown defended on the principle of the notoriety of the thing? Were those who complained of such corruptions attacking the integrity of the House of Commons? If complaining of such a state of things was exciting disaffection, it was, as Mr Denman had well said, exciting it against that which must

inevitably excite it. No attack was made on the integrity of the Houseno attack was made on the third branch of the legislature, nor on its controlling power, nor on the general power which it possessed to form laws for the people; but it was directed against corrupt acts, which rendered the exercise of those powers a usurpation. The learned Serjeant had not, he thought, treated the reformers fairly. Let him point out how and where they had erred. Let him not shoot his arrow in the dark, and say he had struck the deer, when he had not touched it.-No; let him come forward, with his target of law before him, and trace the acts of the reformers, and point out where they have behaved criminally. Had there been any indication of an attempt to force the House of Commons to admit Sir C. Wolseley, then there would be ground for supposing that a seditious conspiracy existed. But what said the resolution?-It declared that the people of Birmingham had a right to be represented. How-with force? No; by sending Sir C. Wolseley. And unless Sir Charles was a Guy of Warwick, capable, by himself, of turning out 658 members by the shoulders, as Mr Hobhouse said, his election amounted to nothing. He was requested to write a letter to the Speaker; and although he knew Sir Charles had considerable talents-sufficient, at least, to enable him to draw up such a letter-it was impossible for him to write one that would force the House to admit him to take a seat. What was done was done merely to try the right. In the same way a man might make a claim to an estate. If he established it, the estate became his; if he could not, he must, of course, withdraw it; but it would be very unjust if the unsuccessful claimant were indicted for a conspiracy to injure the person in possession, be

cause he exhibited a claim which he conceived to be just. Almost every session, persons who had been seated in the House of Commons were removed by the decision of the committees to whom election-petitions were referred. What was this but a trial of right? He recollected one case, where four members were returned for the same borough. Now there must have been a conspiracy amongst the electors to return two of these persons. But the House said "No; those people were merely mistaken in what they have done.” Why may not the people of Birmingham say, with equal propriety, "We are not conspirators; we also were mistaken with respect to the right?" But he contended that they had not mistaken their right. They had a right to be represented, and to state their opinions fairly on the subject. The people of Birmingham had before petitioned the House of Commons, and their petitions were laid on the table unnoticed. They, with reluctance, proposed to petition again, and they took every means to act legally; and their complaint, remonstrance, and petition, were now on the table of the House. But, notwithstanding that circumstance, those who drew up and assented to the matter of that document were now called seditious and disaffected. He doubted much whether, in the present proceeding, this Court was not infringing on the privileges of the House of Commons, because, if any offence were committed, it was committed against the privileges of that House, and not against the law of the land. Therefore, the authorities in the Court were liable to be committed for a contempt of those privileges, in daring to try the cause. But the people of Birmingham had not committed any breach of those privileges. They had not called Sir C. Wolseley

a member of parliament-no, they made him their representative, as they were competent to do, for a variety of purposes. Were not the delegates of 1793, who took up the great case of reform, and to whom definite duties were entrusted-were not they representatives? Sir Charles Wolseley was called "legislatorial attorney." Were members of parliament so denominated? If they were, it was a very new designation. They did not elect him to a seat in the House, but merely appointed him to ask for that which they conceived to be their due. The learned Serjeant had informed him, that a conspiracy to affect "a legal purpose" was odious in the eye of the law. A conspiracy against the state was undoubtedly a crime, because it threatened mischief to the state; but to conspire to serve the state could not be criminal. To constitute a conspiracy, it should have a tendency to oppose or subvert some law, with the knowledge of the persons concerned. That was the legal and rational acceptation of the word. If men united together to do acts mischievous and prejudicial to others, that constituted conspiracy; and therefore he inferred, that such an offence could not, from the evidence, be fairly imputed to the defendants. He proceeded to expatiate on the mottos that were inscribed on the flags. The first was, "Major Cartwright, and the Bill of Rights and Liberties." After paying a high compliment to the Major's character, he argued, that any man had a right, if he pleased, to inscribe his name on the collar of his dog, or to paint it on his door; and he conceived, when the learned Serjeant adverted to the Major's Bill of Rights, that he ought to have pointed out some defect in ithe ought to have shewn that it contained some poisonous principle that rendered it dangerous. The next in

scription was, "The Sovereignty of the People." Did not the learned Serjeant know that this was the standing toast of the Whigs? Had he not heard that it was proposed at their dinners, even antecedently to the health of the King? If the people were the source of power-if they were the basis of authority-if they were so recognised by the greatest characters this country ever produced, why should it be considered improper for them to re-echo the sentiments of their leaders, and to inscribe it on a banner? The English people had frequently exercised the rights of sovereignty. Who gave to King William the Crown? who placed the dynasty of the Brunswick Family on the throne? who fought their battles, and supported their claims?

The people. Did they not act, on those occasions, not only as the possessors of sovereign authority, but as the dispensers of power? The third inscription was, "Sir C. Wolesley, and no Corn-Laws." What was there improper in this inscription? Was it not known that the manufacturing interest, and various other interests, disliked that measure? It did not follow that those who marched under this banner would go to the House of Commons, and compel them to repeal this law. No such thing; but, whether they were right or wrong, they were justified in expressing their dissatisfaction at the measure. The last inscription was, "T. J. Wooler, and the Liberty of the Press." In descanting on this motto, Mr Wooler strenuously repelled the insinuation that he was one of those who abused the liberty of the press. If the Attorney-General were present, and denied the truth of this statement, he would say, that he wrote his own unworthiness. If he had abused the liberty of the press, he was not concealed, but was amenable to the law. Two prosecutions

had been instituted against him; on one he received a verdict of acquittal, and on the other a special verdict was returned, which was much more gratifying to his feelings. That verdict was, "Guilty, if truth be a libel by the law of the land." Guilty of telling the truth! Could any thing more honourable be said of him? could a more flattering epitaph be placed on his tomb-stone? He was, before the public, a mark too conspicuous to be neglected or overlooked if he abused the liberty of the press. He wrote strongly, because he felt strongly ; but he would cease to write, if any in dividual could convict him of dealing in private slander, or of publishing opinions which he did not conscientiously hold. The Jury were now about to try a right which they might themselves be shortly called on to exercise. He besought them to recollect that they

were the guardians of the rights and privileges of Englishmen, and that on their verdict depended the security of all they held dear.

Mr C. Pearson read an address by Major Cartwright in his own defence, which occupied four hours and a half. Mr Lewis spoke in his own defence. Mr Vaughan replied.

The Lord Chief Baron summed up, and charged the Jury, who, after retiring for twenty minutes, brought in a verdict of Guilty, against all the defendants.

Bills of exceptions were taken against the manner in which the Jury had been struck, and were argued in the Court of King's Bench; but as the decision upon them was not given during the present year, we shall reserve till next Volume our report of the proceedings.

As cases of treason are tried by English law, and cannot be brought before the ordinary Scottish Courts, a Special Commission was appointed by the crown, consisting of all the members of the Scottish Court of Justiciary, with the addition of Sir Samuel Shepherd, Chief Baron of Exchequer, and Mr Adam, Lord Commissioner of the Jury Court.

According to English law, it was necessary, that the indictment should be submitted to a Grand Jury; and as this body, as well as trial for treason, was new to Scotland, the LORD PRESIDENT, on the Jury being impanelled,

delivered to them a CHARGE, illustrative of their duties, and of the law of treason. The following are the principal heads :

Trials for treason have been of very rare occurrence in this country. Not that we have been without materials in Scotland; for the two rebellions in 1715 and 1745 furnished a numerous list of traitors; but, by special sta tutes, the trials then all took place in England.

The cases of Watt and Downie, in 1794, are, I believe, the only trials for treason which have taken place in Scotland since the Union.