bone, otherwise Marybone, in the county of Middlesex, esquire, commonly called lord George Gordon, being a subject of our sovereign lord George the third, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, &c. not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, and entirely withdrawing the love, and true and due obedience which every subject of our said sovereign lord the king, should, and of right ought to bear towards our present sovereign lord the king, and wickedly devising and intending to disturb the peace and public tranquillity of this kingdom, on the 2nd day of June, in the 20th year of the reign of our sovereign lord the now king, at the parish of Saint Margaret, within the liberty of Westminster, in the said county of Middlesex, unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously, did compass, imagine, and intend to raise and levy war, insurrection, and rebellion, against our said lord the king, within this kingdom of Great Britain; and to fulfil and bring to effect the said traitorous compassings, imaginations, and intentions of him the said George Gordon, he, the said George Gordon, afterwards (that is to say) on the said 2nd day of June, in the 20th year aforesaid, with force and arms, &c. at the said parish of Saint Margaret, within the liberty of Westminster, in the said county of Middlesex, with a great multitude of persons whose names are at present unknown to the jurors aforesaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of 500 persons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner (that is to say) with colours flying, and with clubs, bludgeons, staves, and other warlike weapons, as well offensive as defensive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously assembled, and gathered together, against our said sovereign lord the king, most wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously did ordain, prepare, and levy public war against our said lord the king, his supreme and undoubted lord, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity; and also against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, That the said George Gordon, being a subject of our sovereign lord George the third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, &c. not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, and entirely withdrawing the love and true and due obedience, which every subject of our said sovereign lord the king should and of right ought to bear towards our said present sovereign lord the king, and wickedly devising and intending to disturb the peace and public tranquillity of this kingdom; afterwards, to wit, on the said 2nd day of June, in the 20th year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the now king, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 10th day of the same month of June, at the said parish of Saint Margaret within the liberty of Westminster in the said county of Middlesex, unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously did compass, imagine, and intend to raise and levy war, insurrection, and rebellion against our said lord the king, within this kingdom of Great Britain, and to fulfil and bring to effect the said last mentioned traitorous compassings, imaginations, and intentions of him the said George Gordon, he the said George Gordon, on the said 2nd day of June, in the 20th year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times, between that day and the 10th day of the saine month of June, with force and arms, &c. at the said parish of Saint Margaret, within the liberty of Westminster, in the said county of Middlesex, with a great multitude of persons whose names are at present unknown to the jurors aforesaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of 200 persons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner (that is to say) with colours flying, and with swords, clubs, bludgeons, staves, and other weapons, as well offensive as defensive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and traitorously assembled and gathered together against our said present sovereign lord the king; most wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously did ordain, prepare, and levy public war against our said lord the king, his supreme and undoubted lord, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity, and also against the form of the statute in such case made and provided." by virtue of a Habeas Corpus, directed to the On the 25th of January, 1781, the prisoner, lieutenant of the Tower upon the motion of Mr. Attorney General, was brought up to the bar of the court of King's-bench, and pleaded Not Guilty to his indictment, and the Court appointed the Trial for Monday the 5th of February. Monday, February 5, 1781, The Court being opened and the prisoner set to the bar, the jurors returned by the sheriff were called into court: William Atwick, of Portman-square, esq. not being a freeholder of the county of Middlesex, he was rejected as a juror. William Feast, of the City-road, esq. and brewer, excused on account of illness. Roger Griffin, of Islington-road, esq. challenged by the prisoner. John Dawes, of Islington, esq. and stock broker, challenged by the prisoner. Nathaniel Clackson, of Islington, esq. challenged by the prisoner, Thomas Saunders, of Highgate, esq. not a freeholder. James King, of Mortimer-street, esq. not a freeholder. Henry Horace Hayes, of Percy-street, esq. excused by consent, both of the counsel for the crown and the prisoner. John Peter Blaquire, of Hampstead, esq. and stock-broker, challenged by the prisoner. Robert Vincent, of Hampstead, esq. and brewer, challenged by the crown. Thomas Collins, of Berners-street, esq. and surveyor, sworn. Thomas Parry, of Berners-street, esq. not a freeholder. Henry de la Mayne, of Berners-street, esq. and wine merchant, not a freeholder. Henry Hastings, of Queen Ann-street, esq. sworn. James Calvert, of Old-street, esq. and vinegar merchant, challenged by the pri soner. John Horsley, of Haberdasher's-walk, esq. challenged by the prisoner. George Friend, of St. James's-walk, Clerkenwell, esq. and dyer, not a freeholder. John Marshall, of Holywell-street, esq. and brewer, challenged by the prisoner. Thomas Proctor, of Holywell-street, esq. and brewer, challenged by the prisoner. Richard Barker, of Caroline-street, esq. not a freeholder. William Harrison, of Lamb's Conduit-street, esq. not a freeholder. Matthew Carrett, of Hatton-street, esq. and merchant, not a freeholder. Thomas Brown, of Arundel-street, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Thomas Bray, of Bedford-street, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Edward Hulse, of Harley-street, esq. sworn. Thomas Ahmuty, of Queen-street, esq. not a freeholder. Barington Buggin, of Harpur-street, merchant, not a freeholder. Edward Pomfret, of New North-street, wine merchant, sworn. Joseph Spackman, of Hackney, esq. not a freeholder. Gedeliah Gatfield, of Hackney, esq. sworn. Robert Mackey, of Hackney, esq. challenged by the crown. Joseph Pickles, of Homerton, esq. sworn. Cecil Pitt, of Doleston, esq. not a freeholder. Peter Mestaer, of Bethnal-green, esq. and ship-builder, challenged by the prisoner. Charles Digby, the younger, of Mile-endroad, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Thomas Sayer, of Bow, esq. not a freeholder. Edward Gordon, of Bromley, esq. and distiller, sworn. John Milward, of Bromley, esq. and distiller, challenged by the prisoner. William Daling, of Bromley, esq. challenged by the crown. VOL. XXI. John Perry, of Blackwall, esq. and ship! builder, challenged by the prisoner. Joseph Hankey, of Blackwall, esq. and ship-builder, challenged by the prisoner. Arthur Shakespear, of Church-street, Stepney, esq. and rope-maker, challenged by the prisoner. Robert Buttery, of White-chapel, esq. and corn-chandler, challenged by the crown. Thomas Flight, of Hackney, esq. challenged by the crown. Marmaduke Peacock, of Hackney, esq. sworn. Nathaniel Paul, of Clapton, esq. not a freeholder. Francis Degan, of Hammersmith, esq. sworn. James Scott, of Hammersmith, esq. challenged by the crown. Simon Le Sage, of Hammersmith, esq. and silver-smith, sworn. Stephen Pitt, of Kensington, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Robert Lathrapp, of Kensington, esq. not a freeholder. Thomas Ayliffe, of Kensington, esq. not a freeholder. Robert Armitage, of Kensington, esq. sworn. James Trimmer, the younger, of Old Brentford, esq. and brick-maker, challenged by the prisoner. Thomas Bramley, of Acton, esq. challenged by the prisoner. John Bullock, of Kensington, esq. not a freeholder. Thomas Moore, of Kensington, esq. not a freeholder. Edward Ellicott, of Hornsey, esq. and watch-maker, challenged by the prisoner. Henry Adkins, of Lambs Conduit-street, carpenter, not a freeholder. Robert Walford, of St. James's-walk, Clerkenwell, brewer, not a freeholder. Joseph Manwaring, of Islington, gentle- Thomas Collins, of Berners-street, esq. The Clerk of the Crown charged the Jury with the Prisoner. Counsel for the Crown-Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Bearcroft, Mr. Lee, Mr. Howorth, Mr. Dunning, Mr. Norton. 2 K Counsel for the Prisoner. Mr. Kenyon, the tholics in this country, contained in an act of hon. Thomas Erskine. Mr. Norton. May it please your lordship, and you, gentlemen of the jury, the noble prisoner at the bar, George Gordon, esq. commonly called lord George Gordon, stands indicted of high treason, in intending to levy war against his present majesty, within the kingdom of Great Britain; and, gentlemen, the indictment further states, that the prisoner, to effect this traitorous intention, did, on the 2d of June last, and at divers other times, between that day and the 10th of the same month, at the parish of St. Margaret's, within the liberty of Westminster, in this county, with a great multitude of persons, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, with weapons offensive and defensive, and with colours flying; being then and there unlawfully and traitorously assembled, most wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously did prepare and levy public war against our sovereign lord the king, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. and against the statute in such case made and provided. To this indictment the prisoner has pleaded that he is not guilty, and hath put himself upon his trial; we who are of counsel for the crown shall call our witnesses in support of the prosecution; and if the evidence shall prove the charge to your satisfaction, then it will be your duty, under the direction of the court, to find the prisoner guilty. Mr. Attorney General. [Wallace.] May it please your lordship, and you gentlemen of the jury, I am also of counsel in support of this prosecution against the prisoner at the bar, which imputes to him a crime in the highest class of offences known to the law of this country-that of high treason; and the particular species of high treason you find, from the opening of the indictment, is levying war against the king within his realm. The offence of levying war against the king within the statute of the 25th of Edward 3, is of two sorts, the one directly and immediately against the person of the king, the other, called constructive levying of war, is against the majesty of the king, as a great and numerous insurrection of the people to effect by force an alteration of the established law of the country, the redress of national grievances, or the reformation of evils real or imaginary, in which the insurgents have no particular or special interest. It is of the latter kind of levying war with which the prisoner at the bar stands accused by this indictment. You, gentlemen, who reside in this county, are not strangers to the occasion of this prosecution-In the month of May in the year 1778, an act of parliament passed to repeal certain provisions affecting the Roman Ca *Stat. 18 G. 3, c. 60. parliament made in the 11th and 12th year of which it was the object of this act to repeal king William 3. The particular provisions were these; by the statute of king William every popish priest, exercising any part of his tual imprisonment; every person of the popish function in this kingdom, was liable to perpereligion keeping a school, or taking upon himself the education, government, or boarding of youth, was liable to the same punishment. And by another part of this act, Roheriting or taking by devise or limitation man Catholics were rendered incapable of inany estates from their parents or others, unless they should take oaths and subscribe a declaration, which by their religion they could. not conscientiously do, and their estates were Protestants, and them and their families left to go immediately over to their next of kin being which made them incapable of taking an esto starve. There was another provision too tate by purchase. could only be justified by the necessity of the This act containing such severe penalties. case, for the salvation of the state and our religion. It is the height of severity to punish men for serving God in their own way, or employing themselves in one of the most important duties to society, the education of be doomed to a loathsome prison for their youth; that men shall for these reasons alone lives, and to the perpetual society of the most profligate and wretched of mankind, is cruel and horrid. The other part of the act was extremely severe in depriving a man of his birthright and inheritance. The history of the times indeed does not furnish any proof of the necessity, nor afford an apology for the hardship of these provisions; an account of the commencement and progress of the act is given by a very learned divine, who was at that time a member of the House of Peers, bishop Burnet. It originated in party faction, in opposition to the court at that time. The Bill was brought into the House of Commons that the court party might reject it, and draw upon themselves the odium of a measure in favour of the Catholics, for those that brought in the Bill did not mean it should pass; they were disappointed in their view, for the court party made no opposition to it. They then wished to drop it, but they could not; upon which bishop Burnet says, they added very severe and unreasonable clauses to the Bill and sent it up to the House of Lords, in hopes that that House would reject it; in this they were disappointed too, for the House of Lords did not reject the Bill, but suffered it to pass with the se vere penalties and punishments I have stated. It is too much, in my opinion, for any party or faction to stake upon their game the liberties and fortunes of others. The Catholics submitted to this law, they Stat. 11 and 12 W. 3, c. 4. expected, no doubt, that parliament would see the hardships imposed upon them by these provisions, and administer redress. They made no application, and indeed the penalties and punishments appeared to every body so extremely harsh and severe, that very few prosecutions were carried on upon this act; in my own time I only remember one, which was against a person for saying mass in a house somewhere about Wapping; he was convicted, and of course doomed by the provisions of this act to perpetual imprisonment. But the Roman Catholics were still liable to private extortionary demands, which they yielded to, to avoid either prosecution, or that they might have the liberty of enjoying what had long been in their families and had descended to them as their birth-right. This law remained in the statute book (and though seldom put in execution was sufficient to occasion perpetual alarms) till the year 1778, when an act of parliament was brought into the House of Commons to relieve his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects against the particular provisions I have stated. The propriety and justice of that measure, the circumstances attending it pretty plainly evince. this kingdom. None could receive the benefi of this repeal, who did not give the public that pledge. Upon the passing of this act, many of the Roman Catholics of the first characters and fortunes in the kingdom, and others of all descriptions, came in, and gave the security to government, under the sanction of an oath, which the act required; no person at that time seemed dissatisfied; but in the winter following it was supposed that a Bill would be brought into parliament, to take off some penalties which were inflicted by the laws of Scotland upon the Roman Catholics of that country. And in the beginning of February were received from Edinburgh, and published in every paper, accounts of a most violent insurrection in that country, to put a stop to that measure. It appeared from these accounts that, upon the 2d of February, an insurrection happened in the city of Edinburgh, that two Roman Catholic chapels had been attacked and set on fire; that the houses of the Roman Catholics there in different parts of the town, were attacked, ransacked, and demolished; that the utmost exertions of the civil magistrate, assisted by some of the fencibles, could not suppress the tumult; nor until the provost of the city gave assurances in the most public manner, that the scheme was dropped, that no act of parliament would be applied for, respecting the Roman Catholics of Scotland, could any check be given to the violence and outrages committing to the destruction of many innocent men. This put an end to an attempt to obtain the act of parliament, conceived by some gentlemen of distinction of that country, to be a very salutary, proper, and just measure. I take notice of this insurrection in Scotland, because when I come to state to you the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, it will be found to be a very material circumstance. The Bill was brought in by a member of the House of Commons distinguished for his love of the civil rights of mankind, and for his firm and zealous attachment to the Protestant religion, and who besides possesses every public and private virtue that can adorn the citizen and the man. I mean sir George Savile -it passed through the House of Commons with almost unanimity, the opposition made to it from some was not to the principle of the Bill, but that it did not go far enough in the redress; it should in the opinion of those have been extended to other penalties, for I must inform you that in the time of passing the act of king William, the Roman Catholics stood by law excluded from any share in government, from any office of trust, civil or military, and the persons of that religion performing any part of their functions, as priests or keeping of schools or educating youth, stood liable to many pecuniary penalties, and in some instances to temporary imprisonments. This was their situation at the time when these additional penalties and punishments were inflicted upon them. This repeal was not absolute and extending to all affected by the statute of king William, but was conditional, and restrained to those who should take an oath established, by that act, of the strongest assurance of their loyalty and affection to the government, and an abjuration in explicit terms of every pretender to the crown and go-to vernment of this kingdom, and besides a positive renunciation of any authority of the see of Rome, in civil or temporal cases, within See Mr. Burke's most eloquent speech to the electors of Bristol. Burke's Works, vol. 4. p. 1. Ed. of 1801. Things remained for some time quiet in this country, but an association was formed, called the Protestant Association, every one of you, gentlemen, have heard of it, and where pains were taken to create a belief that the repeal of the statute of king William would be attended with immediate danger to the state, and to the Protestant religion; upon that ground it seems a petition was determined upon, and if they apprehended danger, they did right to petition; it is the inherent right of the subject to petition parliament; and whenever they imagine a case proper for the consideration of parliament, they do right to bring it before them; and I believe this petition was at one time intended have been presented in a legal, constitutional, and orderly manner. You will find, for I shall give you the general outlines of the business before I state the particular conduct of the prisoner, that upon the 2d of June, in consequence of public advertisements published in the news-papers, and pasted up at the corners of streets, and hended, I think about thirteen, that night or the next morning. On Saturday they paraded in different parts of the town, but I do not find that much mischief was done: on the Sunday they appeared in Moorfields, they there attacked a chapel in that neighbourhood, and the houses of many Roman Catholics, situated thereabouts, and completely demolished the houses and effects of these unfortunate people. I only give in general, an account of what they did: I am convinced many of you were eye-wit of hand bills distributed, there was collected together in St. George's-fields, a multitude of people, or more properly, a very large army; I believe consisting (the particulars we may hear from the witnesses) of many thousands; 20, 30, or 40,000-under the pretext of presenting a petition to parliament. Though it is the birth-right of the subject to present a petition to parliament, yet the petitioners are not to dictate to parliament, or take from parliament their deliberation and judgment upon the subject; that would tend directly to the dissolution of the constitution, and the sub-nesses to what I am now stating. On the version of government. This body of men were arranged, according to the direction of the advertisement, into three or four divisions; the London to the right, the Scotch division to the left, and the Westminster to one part, and the Southwark division in another; one division, consisting of many many thousands, marched over London-bridge, through the city, down the Strand, and so to the House of Commons, with colours flying, distinguished by blue cockades, and making a march as regular as an army trained to it; they had bagpipes, which belonged, I fancy, to the Scotch division; in this way they marched; they arrived at the House of Commons about one o'clock; and, being joined by the other divisions, took possession of all the avenues leading to the House, and of the lobby, and it was with the utmost difficulty the members got admittance into the House; some members of each House were insulted and illtreated by the populace, as examples, I presume, of what the rest were to expect, if the wishes of the mob were not complied with; in this situation the petition was presented, and those in the lobby were desired to withdraw. If it was a constitutional purpose, they had in coming to the House, it was answered; but they would not stir, and with great riot and confusion insisted upon a repeal of the act; the cry was, A repeal! A repeal! No Popery! The civil power was in vain sent for to disperse them, they still kept possession; they besieged the House, they kept the members imprisoned. Thus they continued till between nine and ten at night, when the civil power, by the assistance of the military, were able to deliver the House of Commons from the disgraceful situation in which they had been to that time, and must have been confined till they had granted, as far as they could, the prayer of this petition, As soon as the House was delivered, they ordered the business to be considered, and adjourned to the Tuesday following; but the mob, not having succeeded in their purpose, and being driven from the House in the manner I have stated, immediately betook themselves to other measures; they instantly resolved to attack the chapels of the foreign ministers, which, in every civilized country, are protected and deemed sacred from insult; some of them were appre Monday, the men who were taken up were examined at sir John Fielding's: five of them were committed to Newgate: they were examined under the apprehension of a rescue from the violence that was without the door; it was with difficulty that they were conducted to Newgate by the guards; but, as soon as they were lodged there, these people made an attack upon the house of a Mr. Rainsforth, who had been active in apprehending them, and a witness against them; they made an attack too upon the house of a Mr. Maberly, who had been a witness before the magistrate; and also upon the house of sir George Savile; and they did other injury that night. The next day, being the Tuesday when the parliament was to meet again, all the parties of this army reassembled about the House of Commons, and there continued with great riot and confusion, with shouts for A repeal, and No Popery, till the House was obliged to adjourn. Upon this their first attack was upon the house of Mr. Hyde; the offence given by Mr. Hyde, was partly his attendance at the justices upon the Monday at the examination, but principally for his activity as a magistrate in saving the life of a member of the House of Peers, the earl of Sandwich, who, in going to attend his duty, had been violently attacked by the mob. They ransacked and set fire to Mr. Hyde's house, and burnt the furniture, and totally demolished every thing they could. In this they were accompanied with their colours, for they appeared again with their flags and with their cockades. Very large parts of the mob marched to Newgate; they set fire to the keeper's house; they attacked the prison; and, in a very short time, they set at large all the prisoners; a place which for its security seemed to be equal to a prison in the centre of the earth. They afterwards attacked and demolished many houses belonging to Roman Catholics, burnt and destroyed the furniture and effects. broke open the other prisons in and about this Upon the Wednesday they attacked and metropolis, with an exception of the Poultry Compter, and set at liberty all the prisoners; they continued their proceedings without controul or check all that night, and until some time the next morning; in that night various houses in different parts of the town were in flames at the same time; in short nothing |