The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-08 00:00:00

by Lord George Gordon. This multitude having I
first proceeded to the House of Commons to inti-
midate and overawe the Legislature while discussing
public measures, they increased in numbers, and
such flagrant outrages were committed that during
two or three days and nights all London was in a
blaze. I believe that at one time there were net less than
35 tires raging in the metropolis, and the direct and avowed
object was to cause a repeal of the Act for the relief of the
Roman Catholics. Lord George Gordon was indicted for
high treason. It was then clearly laid down by the
Learned and excellent Chief Justice who presided, and
no doubt, as the law now stands, correctly laid down, that
the acts charged did amount to a levying of war. The
question then was whether the object and intent of Lord
George Gordon, the prisoner at the bar, as proved by his
acts to the satisfaction of the jury, were treasonable or
not. It is important to bear in mind that this was acknow-
' lodged to be a levying of war, and the question still re-
mained behind as to what was the intent or object in the
mind of the prisoner, whether he did not intend to com-
pel the Legislature to alter the law or subvert the Con-
stitution. The evidence given in that case was incom-
parably stronger than any that has been offered against
the prisoner at the bar; and yet, after being
tried before Learned Judges, and by a bold and un-
compromising jury, Lord George Gordon was acquitted.
There is no doubt that it was a high misdemeanour, for
many were punished with minor penalties for their parti-
cipation in it; and if Lord G. Gordon had been indicted
for a riot and tumult he would have suffered the punish-
ment awarded by the law for that offence. But;the ques-
tion having been raised of levying war to dethrone the
sovereign or to alter the laws or subvert the Constitution,
the prisoner was acquitted. Gentlemen, I have troubled
you with references to these cases i❑ order that you may
keep it quite clear and distinct in your own minds, that
there may be a levying of war—that a party charged
with treason may have levied war, may have been present
at acts of violence, may with his own hand have sacri-
ficed human lives, may have destroyed a whole regiment of
her Majesty's troops, and still the question remained be-
hind, with what intent was this done—whether it was a mere

levying of men, or a levying of war against the Sovereign and
to subvert the ConstH Whatever rnay have been the
mischief—whatever may have been the riot—whatever may
have been the bloodshed, if you will, the question, still is
what was the intent and design on the mind of the pri-
soner at the time when he committed those acts. Be-
cause if we are to say that whenever a riot, a tumult, or
bloodshed occurs, it is a levying of war against the So-
vereign, you know on every occasion when an outrage
occurred, the individual would be indicted for high
treason, and, instead of suffering the fine or imprison-
ment which would be appropriated to his offence, he would
be consigned to the most awful of all deaths which the law
can inflict upon a human creature. It is therefore of un-
speakable importance to observe the distinction between
riot, tumult, and even bloodshed on one hand, and, on
the other, that treason alone with which the prisoner now
stands charged. The question, therefore, for you will be
what was the real intention and design of the assembly of
people who met on the 4th of November, and how far Mr.
Frost was a party to any criminal intention. I shall now,
Gentlemen, refer you to the charge of Lord Mansfield in
the case to which I referred—the case of Lord George
Gordon—because it extremely resembled in many of
its principal features the case which you have now to
Oonsider. In both, multitudes of people assembled
together—in both great outrages were committed.
I have described to you those which occurred in
Lord George Gordon's case—you but too well know those
which are connected with the present. When the case
was gone through, and Lord Mansfield had laid down the
law as it was recognised by the most eminent lawyers, he
said, " There were two questions for the consideration of
the Jury. First, whether this multitude did assemble and
commit acts of violence"—of that you know, Gentlemen,
there could be no doubt—" with intent to terrify and
compel the Legislature to repeal the Act called Sir
George Savile's. If upon this point your opinion should
be in the negative, that makes an end of the whole ; the
prisoner ought to be acquitted. But if your opinion
should be that the intent of this multitude, and the vio-

lence they committed, was to force a repeal, there arises a
second point, whether the prisoner at the bar incited,
encouraged, promoted, or assisted in raising this insur-
rection, and the terror they carried with them with the
it tent of forcing a repeal of this law ? This, Gentlemen,

is the whole of the evidence on either side ; you will
weigh this evidence, and all the observations made at
the bar or which occur to yourselves upon it—l avoid
making any. The points for you to determine are, whether
this multitude were assembled and acted with an intent

to force a repeal of this ao-called Sir George Saville's
Act ; and if you think such was their intent, whether the
share the prisoner had in getting together such a number
of people to go down to the House of Commons--in
meeting them in St. George's-fields—in talking to them in
the lobby—in wearing the cockade on Friday and Satur-
day—or in any other part of his conduct—had the same
intent, by the terror of an outrageous multitude and the
violence they committed, and threatened,'to force a repeal
of this Act. If there was no such intention either in the
mob or the prisoner, he ought to be acquitted ; but if you
think there was such an intent in the multitude, incited,
promoted, or encouraged by the prisoner, then you ought
to find him guilty. If the scale hang doubtful, and you
are not fully satisfied that he is guilty, you ought to lean
on the favourable side and acquit him." Lord Mansfield i
leaves two questions, the one as to the intent of the mul-
titude and the other as to the intent of the prisoner ; and
his Lordship added, as my Lords will add to whatever in-
structions they may give you, Gentlemen, " If the scale
hang doubtful, and you are not fully satisfied he is guilty,
you ought to lean on the favourable side and acquit him."
That is the charge of my Lord Mansfield in that case ; and
elthough there a tumult occurred and outrages were com-
mitted—although a multitude came to the verge, to the
very door of the Legislature, twenty thousand in number,
to overawe the Members in their debates—and although
Lora George Gordon was so closely connected with them
in their subsequent outrages that he, like Mr. Frost, gave
a protection to a person who applied to him for it—yet,
although his acts were wreng in deed, they were not held
to be done with a treasonable intent, and he was acquitted.
Before I leave that part of the subject I may tell you what
that circumstance was, how a pe!son may mix himself up
with the multitude, what power he may exercise over
them, and yet how far short his acts may be of the guilt
of high treason. During the riots a man of4the name of
Pond, who bad heard that his house was next to be pulled
down—for you know, Gentleman, they were pulling
down, burning, and destroying houses in every direction
—applied to the prisoner for a protection, which he gave
him in these terms :—" All true friends of Protestantism
will, I hope, protect and do no injury to the property of
any true Protestant, as I am well assured that the pro-
prietor of this property is a staunch and true friend of the
cause. ( Signed) George Gordon." The prisoner gave this
protection in order that it might have an influence over
the multitude which were assembled for committing out-
rage and under it the property was saved ; and yet the
Jury held that although he might be guilty of riot, of se-
dition, of unwarrantable, nay, even of criminal acts, they
were not satisfied that he intended to subvert the Gove, n-
ment or dethrone the Sovereign, and they acquitted him
of high treason. Gentlemen, my object in alluding to all
this is to guide your minds to this proposition, that what-
ever may have been the loss, whatever may have been the
outrages, whatever may have been the painful and melan-
choly consequences attendant on the transaction of the 4th
November, still the great question in the ease—that upon
which your verdict must depend—is what was the intent
and design in the minds of the multitude—what was the
intent and design in the mind of Mr. Frost, the prisoner.
And their Lordships will tell you that, in order to come
to any conclusion importing the guilt of the prisoner, it
iee-t be proved to your perfect conviction that he en-
tertained the intent and design stated in the indictment.
I propose now, Gentlemen, shortly to call your attention to
that intent and design as stated in that indictment.
Because, if upon the evidence you should find no proof or
proof insufficient to satisfy you that the prisoner intended
to do that which has been stated to be his intention in
the indictment, then there is an end to the case and the
prisoner will be entitled to a verdict of acquittal. The
indictment contains several counts. I shall not complain
of the number of those counts, but I do think that the
Attorney-General would have afforded a better opportu-
nity for the accomplishment of justice, and would have
exhibited a more indulgent spirit towards the accused, if
be had said that the count which he meant to sustain by
evidence was that charging the prisoner with intent, by
force, to subvert the Constitution and the Government, or
to force an alteration in the law. That, in my judg-
ment, would have been the better and the more indulgent
course. For, my Lords, when we look to the indictment
I think it will be found that the parts of it charging the
prisoner
with, by force, endeavouring to subvert the -o-,,Con-
stitution and Government of the country, to change by
force the law, and to compel her Majesty to alter her mea-
suros—l think that this is all contained in the indictment,
which has been endeavoured to be sustained by evidence,
or which it was the intention of my Learned Friend to
sustain.
The Attorney-General—There is nothing about intent
in this.
;fr. Kelly—My Learned Friend is mistaken. The first
..riti.nt states that the prisoner and others did levy war
ageinee the Queen, and further, that, with arms in their
hands, If with intent, by and with the said last-mentioned
arms, to arm themselves, and the false traitors, in order to
at....lck, sight with, kill, and destroy the soldiers, troops,
and I.2recs of per said Lady the Queen, and other liege
and faith.cul subjeatee, and to raise, make,
and levy insurrec-
tion, rebelliesn, and wet', against our said Lady the Queen,
in this realm, lod thereby :t9 etebvert and destroy tho Con-
stitution and (.30`t.ernment of 41;3 realm as by law esta-
blished, and to alter an:,
d change the lews of this realm by
force." Then there is a c::.'Ult for levying war, and then
for compassing to depose the (,jug en. With regard to this
last count, it would doubtless be eee::emed a lose of time
were; Ito waste a word upon it, and I only ziention it for the
purpose
.acts alleged against the prisoner. Then there is a count
charging the prisoner and others with conspiring to seize
upon
Newport,
and upon the Post-ottiee there, and the lazt
et'llit is for levying public war against U.:, Queen. It
nee..iis to me, Gentlemen, that ,e' shout going theough all
the indictment, it will be sufficient C.-;r my purpose to refer ,
to it generally. It is saie! in the iuelectment that the
pr:ner, with
.
• others charged with levying r.ar and other
so
acts, with intent to subvert ,alie Govern got
--cot and
overt
. . ,
and to co el the Queers to
Constitution a the country,
or, in other words, the 4.4.4rge may be
alter her measures,
reduced to this—
that acts were done by them
to alter her measuree wieh the
intention of compelling the Queen the L
n G i
and, by force, to compel an alteration of eaw. e _
tlernen, this is the question in this case, upon wisich the
life of the prisoner hangs.
g His life depends upon eheee,
aven:nnts 111 the indictmenta being made out; and, being
counsel for the Crown—it wrs the
e.:.0. it becanis? the 4-neral, to you, 9entlemen, to
duty- of the.
Attu:'neY:
ro
all,
.b;.; duty to the eir,;,lappy
public justice, and, a.t. 0
,c which 1,4„ zas about to 4up-
' to state the chari-,
prisoner-- 1,, -d Friend
conceive tiOt my . ...,.
pan: by evidefide. I curia
to do ; for, akii.ot,;./...'
felt this to be hig bounden duty
it is their privilege, yet it is
not the custom for the
address ti k^ Court be-
other law officers of the Cres,i, to
We, therefore, t
fore the Counsel for the prisoner. .
intrusted, way
1.
whose advocacy the 11:3 ,t;f. the acc,l,lsed xis ,