Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

botham had uttered these words, he should the legal mode of addressing the parliament. not have preached a single sermon more as Did Mr. Winterbotham speak of any other my assistant.

grievance, besides that respecting the repreDid Mr. Winterbotham utter the words sentation?-I do not recollect that he did, laid in the fifth count?-I heard no such sen- but that he stated to be one. tence delivered, I should have abhorred the Was there in your opinion any thing in man if he had.

Mr. Winterbotham's sermon which had any You do not then think the words were tendency to excite people to sedition?-No, spoken?--I am confident they were not. if there had I should utterly have resented it.

Did Mr. Winterbotham utter the words If it had had such tendency you think you charged in the sixth count?-He used a part should have noticed it? If it had, it could of them, but not as an assertion of his own, not have escaped me. but as an opinion that had been formed on What then is your opinion of the general the debates of the House of Commons, and tenor of Mr. Winterbotham's discourse ?-It the estimates laid before them : he did not appeared to me to be a fair, candid discussion deny that any of the national debt had been of the points of which he treated. paid off, nor did he say that those who in- Did Mr. Winterbotham show you the serspected the accounts laid before the House of mon before he preached it ?-He showed me Commons said so; but that on a review of the the outlines of it. * whole, it appeared like taking money out of Was the sermon Mr. Winterbotham preachone pocket, and putting it into the other. ed, consistent with thc outlines he showed

Did Mr. Winterbotham use the words laid you ?-Yes. in the seventh count?--No, I absolutely deny Did you ever sce the sermon after it was that he used them.'

preached - Yes, but it was at least four You are certain they were not uttered ?-I months after. am persuaded there were no such expressions Do you speak from recollection of what you in the sermon.

heard, or from what you read of the sermon! Did Mr. Winterbotham utter the words --From my recollection of what was preached; laid in the ninth count?—He said nothing the perpetual questions asked me about the like that count; but on the contrary, said we sermon have made me particular in remem. needed no revolution, we had already had bering it. One circumstance in particular one, and a glorious one.

made a great impression on my mind; it was Did Mr. Winterbotham utter the words said Mr. Winterbotham preached from the laid in the fourteenth count?-I am confident text, “ Bind their kings in chains, and nobles he did not, nor any like them.

in fetters of iron," and I was obliged, in a large What would have been your conduct to- circle of friends, often to repeat the text he wards Mr. Winterbotham, if he had uttered preached from, and the tendency of his disthe words laid in the indictment?-If Mr. course, so that I could not possibly forget it. Winterbotham had used any of the words as laid in the indictment, I should have despised

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Rooke. him, and should have deemed him an enemy Were you ever in business - Yes, as a of his king and country, both of which I res- linen draper, but did not personally attend to pect, and I would not have suffered him to it. continue with me as a minister.

How long is it since you quitted it?--About Did Mr. Winterbotham in his sermon point | seven years. out any particular grievances under which And you really think that there was no the people of this country laboured ?--He said passage in this sermon which had a seditious he thought it would be extremely happy for tendency ?-No passage in it, unless misapthis country, were the duration of parliaments prehended, could have any such tendency. shortened, and a reform to take place in the Why, what is your opinion of the words representative system.

laid in the several counts of the indictment? Did Mr. Winterbotham speak of any means --The greater part of them were never utfor thc accomplishment of this ?-Yes; he said tered. the proper mode of redress was an application But if they had been uttered, what then?to the parliament itself, and that it should be if the defendant should preach so as to make done peaceably.

the people discontented, or to stir up the peoThen the mode Mr. Winterbutham pro- ple to sedition--the people who attend on his posed, was a peaceable application to parlia- ministry would desert him. ment?-Yes; he said that he abhorred tumult But what is your opinion of the words in that the laws were not to be in the hands the indictment, would they have made the of a mob, and deprecated every other nieans but an application to parliament.

* Privileged with a connexion with an He did not exhort to any other means of aged and experienced divine, the defendant is redress, than what you have now stated, viz. happy in saying his pleasure and probt were an application to parliament ?-No; he said equally blended in doing this, as opportunity that no men or body of men, however res offered, with all the sermons he preacbedopectable, had a right to attempt it, except by Orig. Edit.

people discontented? Undoubtedly they would, if they had been used by the defendant. You say the defendant did approve of the revolution in France?—Yes.

Then he approved of the revolution in France on the fifth of November last, when the king was in chains?—He did not approve of kings in chains, or nobles in fetters of iron; nor did I say he approved of the revolution at that time.

Did you approve of the revolution in France at that time?-I approved of it when the king of France approved of it and accepted the constitution, and of no other revolution.

Did Mr. Winterbotham approve of the French revolution on the fifth of November? or, if he did not, what revolution did he approve of?-He approved of the French revolution-but which revolution, I do not know; for I do not know what was the state of France on the fifth of November last: the revolution Mr. Winterbotham mentioned was the revolution celebrated at Birmingham-this revolution he approved of on the grounds he stated, and which have been stated in this court-but he never expressed any approbation of the cruelties in France, or of their keeping their king in confinement.

REPLY.

:

Mr. Serjeant Rooke. After the great length of time this cause has already taken, I am very sorry to be obliged to trouble the jury. I have explained my own sentiments at the outset, and I do not find that the learned gentlemen concerned for the defendant differ very materially from me. The learned counsel for the defendant, has contended for the lawfulness of admitting political discussions from the pulpit, especially on the fifth of November; and said he thought it the duty of clergymen to point out where the principles of the Revolution of 1688 have been departed from-If it were discussed in a fair, liberal, candid manner, I dare not say it is illegal:but I will say that the pulpit is a most improper place for discussing the subject of government; and that the clergy are of all people, the most incapable of the discussion, because their studies have a very different direction; and of all places, this was the most improper, in an assembly of between two and three hundred of low, ignorant people.-There could not have been a more ill-advised step taken than for Mr. Winterbotham, the defendant, in such a place, and before such a congregation, to have gone into the discussion that he has done. I have observed in the course of this trial, that the defendant and some of his witnesses, have been wandering to the principles of the Revolution, and to the terms on which his majesty holds his crown a subject that least of all becomes them, or persons in their situation to inquire into.The terms on which his majesty holds his crown Qught not to be the subject of investigation; for when once people come to make this a sub

The

ject of discussion(even among the ablest men), and to reason and speculate on the great principles of government, they endanger the constitution under which they have so long been happy, and which has been the envy of every surrounding nation. If this be the case when the ablest and best of men engage in the discussion, and I contend it is-what must be the consequence when the ignorant (of all people the most improper) begin to speculate on the high affairs of his majesty? words the defendant's counsel has stood forth in defence of, arc, in my opinion, extremely improper; "that his majesty has no right to the throne unless he keeps certain terms and conditions." What does this go to, but that whenever they catch or think they have caught their chief magistrate doing any thing which they think inconsistent, and which does not concur with their opinions of his duty, that he has no right to the throne any longer, and that they are absolved from their obedience? I shall always think it my duty to stand forward, and deny the principle: and the language my friend has used on this occasion, had better not have been used. We have been told of pulling majesty from the throne. The words we have heard to day are "that the people of England did themselves justice, and hurled the Stuarts from the throne"-but this is not the way we should be taught to look up to the throne; on the contrary, we should look up to it with reverence and veneration:-at the time of the Revolution, our ancestors were more cautious of its dignity; for the term they used was the term abdicated.

It is happy for us that they called in the present family, but the less we examine into the principles on which they called it the better-we should confine ourselves to the constitution as it is at present, and give our governors credit for doing their duty.

Having thus settled the principles between my friend and myself, I will call your attention to what has been brought forward in defence of this indictment.-It appears that this sermon was replete with those complaints which have been so much in vogue since the celebrated sermon of Dr. Price, which Mr. Burke so ably commented upon. The increase of taxes, and the high price of provisions, has been much insisted on; and the remedy proposed, is an application to the parliament; but I believe it will be admitted to be impossible for the parliament to take off the taxes, at least at present, or to lessen the price of provisions.

When a man thinks proper to tell the people from the pulpit such things as Mr. Winterbotham has told them, he is not a preacher of the doctrine of peace, but makes use of the pulpit for his own seditious purposes; and I appeal to the jury whether these are proper topics for such a place " Our streets and poor-houses are crowded with poor, and our gaols with thieves, because of our oppressive or heavy taxes.-It is time for you to stand

would have escaped unmolested, had it not been for an arch fellow, who told the people that it was Garrick's harpsichord, but begged them not to touch it, as Garrick set great store by it, and they immediately tore it to pieces. So when a man teils people from the

forward in defence of your rights." As to the payment of the national debt-" I speak boldly, I deny it: it is like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other." This I think has been proved even by the defendant's own witnesses; for though one set of his witnesses said that he gave no rea-pulpit that the taxes are oppressive-that they son, another said that there were reasons, and that the reasons were taxes. Shepheard said he gave a reason, and said heavy taxes, in part, were the cause of this: but he did not recollect the word oppressive. Holland said, "I will not say but he thought the weight of taxes might be the cause."-Another witness doubted whether any reasons were given-but all agreed that the word oppressive was not used.

It was a sermon which has excited general attention, it was a sermon shown to the rev. Mr. Gibbs before it was preached, and which many people came to hear because it was said, there would be a political sermon.

It is very extraordinary that every one of the witnesses for the defendant should take upon them to say, that the word oppressive was not used, and yet the sermon was not shown to them till four months afterwards.The defendant did not show it to the mayor; which he would have done had there been rothing improper in it, and would have said, here is my sermon, read it, and convince yourselves there is no sedition in it: but instead of this, at the end of four months he produces a garbled sermon, which he reads to those poor deluded wretches instead of the real one; and the jury have seen from the manner of giving their evidence how they look up to their pastor. They told the jury that their recollection was founded upon what they heard at the time, and yet they did not at that time know the defendant was to be indicted. Ready recollection is the consequence of particular attention, and what could make those witnesses so positive? What could induce them to say that the word oppressive was not in the sermon ?

I consider these poor men and women in a state of delusion, and cannot think they could say so, except with such consciences as their paster has fitted them up with. When told our laws are buried in obscurity-has that a tendency towards conciliating people to their government? When the minister, speaking of the national debt, says, that part of it had been paid off, but tells them that it is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other-can there be a doubt whether these words have a tendency to peace or sedition? The defendant says that we are unequally represented that we ought to have frequent parliaments; and at the same time he tells them from the pulpit, to go peaceably and petition parliament: this reminds me of a pleasant story about Garrick, who at one time had offended the audience, and they were endeavouring to demolish the scenes:Carrick had a favorite harpsichord, which

[ocr errors]

are not adequately and equally represented, that the voice of the House of Commons is not the voice of the people,—and in the same breath tells them they ought to go quietly and petition parliament-I ask whether he does not do it on the same principle as the man desired the people not to touch Garrick's harpsichord? The witnesses for the defendant tell us that some of the armaments he disapproved of, and said they were voted contrary to the voice of the people, and that he advise them to go to the very parliament who voted them to seek redress, but there was to be no anarchy or confusion. Is that preaching the gospel of peace, or is it an insidious mode of setting the people against government?—There are men whose hearts are open, who wear their hearts upon their sleeves: if such a man comes forth and says openly, I don't like your constitution; I don't like your government;-I could rather shake hands with that man than I could with the insidious character who equivocates, and dares not avow those principles which are lurking in his heart.-I desire the jury to consider these men, and defy them to have a doubt as to the principles of those heads of the conventicle. One of Mr. Winterbotham's witnesses said that in the latter part of the sermon, the defendant said we should stand forth in defence of our rights: this he said in answer to a question on the fourteenth count, but he said it was to be in a constitutional and legal way that they were to come forward in defence of their rights. But what are those rights? I desire to digress a little on the subject of the rights of man, which the philosophers of the age, to the curse of the times, have so much spokea of; and I will venture to say that man has no rights whatever in opposition to the supreme being; and that man blasphemes and taiks of having absolute rights independant of the deity, who talks of rights in any other way than in subordination to the society in which he lives; and yet these atheistical philosophers talk of the rights of man! There are no absolute rights of man--and if we talk of civil rights of man; while in a state of civil society, man has no rights but what that society which he lives in allows him.-When these gentlemen therefore talk of standing forth in defence of their rights, they talk blasphemy to their Creator, and treason to the constitution. Man has no natural rights but what is consistent with the duties he owes his Creator, and as to civil rights he has only what he is allowed by the society in which he lives. What do they mean by rights? One of the witnesses for the defendant said, the rights which we are in want of,-they have no such rights.

It stands thus on the testimony of the defendant's own witnesses. I put it to the reverend head of the flock, what was his opinion of these expressions? and the reverend gentleman at last answered me, that though he did not think they were used, yet he thought they had a seditious tendency.

Notwithstanding their wishing and praying for peace, they either deceive themselves, or they attempt to deceive others.-If they are the objects of delusion I pity, but should choose to have but little communication with them. As the defendant's own witnesses, notwithstanding their being aided and assisted by the sermon, cannot be positive as to the identical expressions, the witnesses for the crown cannot; but, under his lordship's direction, I contend that it is not necessary to prove the exact words. It was yesterday ruled in the other court, and acquiesced in by the counsel for the defendant, that if you lay two sentences in the count and prove one of them, if that is of a seditious tendency it is sufficient. The first object therefore of the jury, must be the tendency of the words. The reverend doctor (Mr. Gibbs) has no doubt about their tendency; but if the witnesses for the prosecution are to be believed, they proved much stronger words; and if the jury do not join in opinion with the reverend gentleman, that they were not uttered, they can have no doubt as to their tendency, or the motives with which they were spoken.Can the jury believe all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution to be perjured? The witnesses have proved that the defendant spoke of the method of tax-gathering in England, and said this is not liberty for a Briton and then of the late armaments-three of them he disapproved of, and said they were voted by the House of Commons contrary to the opinion of the people-not a word of this is contradicted by their own witnesses.

[ocr errors]

They have proved a direct avowal that they ought to disturb the government until they got what the witnesses called their rights. The witnesses for the prosecution went on to prove several of the counts, and if they were .not spoken, or words of a similar tendency, they must be perjured. As to the profession, of the defendant's witnesses who said they would have left him had he uttered those seditious expressions, that depended upon the humour of the hearer-one set of men thought the words seditious which another did not.-The defendant's witnesses have said they should have fired at expressions like those mentioned in the indictment, and yet they could hear of the taxes and laws being oppressive, and of armaments voted contrary to the sense of the people, of inadequate representation and the like, without thinking these words any way seditious.-But are those words which would have occasioned such abhorrence, worse words than the defendant's own witnesses have proved? The words "it is time to stand forward in defence

of your rights," are proved by Pearce, to have been spoken yet they made so little impression on the other witnesses for the defendant that they all deny that they were spoken.-The negative which such people put on what the witnesses for the crown have proved, is vague, idle and illusory, for they spoke to their recollection-their recollection has been refreshed by a garbled sermon, read to them at the distance of four months. If the witnesses for the prosecution are positive, and those for the defendant are doubtful, the jury will certainly believe those for the crown rather than the defendant. I will not weary the jury-some of the words are certainly proved; all the witnesses for the crown have proved that the defendant said, about paying off the national debt,-" I speak boldly, I deny it."-One of the defendant's witnesses said the defendant was no egotist, for that he did not use the word I; but being asked what he said with respect to the Revolution of 1688, he said I believe he did say I, there,-and about the French Revolution-he might say I there.-This shows there is a shuffle, and the best way to extirpate it, is to get rid of it first of all from the hearts of their pastors, for till then the individuals of the flock will be deceitful.

Whether the words, "I speak boldly, I deny it," are true or not, the count is proved. It is one among the many passages of this sermon, which I contend is seditious.-Though the witnesses may differ in opinion-it is for the jury to decide whether Mr. Winterbotham meant to stir up his hearers to mutiny and rage, or to keep the people in that state of peace for which their pastors pray. The jury will recollect the assembly was composed of between two and three hundred of the lowest of the people-and that the witnesses for the crown have as fair a claim to their belief as the witnesses for the defendant; and if that is your opinion, you will have no doubt in finding the defendant guilty.- Much indeed has been said of his being a man of an enlightened mind, is he so?-Then he will endeavour to spread that light among all those audiences he may hereafter address. He feels that conviction will be his ruin, but disdains to take the advantage of such a defence. If conviction should ensue, he will meet it boldly: he disdains to apply to the mercy of the jury-he does well, because mercy has nothing to do there.-In this court, the jury have nothing to think but what is the truth of the case: and without giving way to indignation on the one hand, or compassion on the other, all I have to do on the part of the crown, is to intreat the jury to decide on the evidence:-If the defendant said the words in the way of fair, liberal, candid discussion, without any seditious intention-far be it from me to wish you to convict him. It is from this tribunal we derive our happiness; on a jury we depend for our property and our lives; therefore I do not ask you to convict a

But if you believe the witnesses on the part of the crown have really spoken the truth (and I see no reason to doubt it), then on the other hand I demand his condemna-dant; and secondly, whether he spoke them

tion.

The crown has the same right to justice as an individual, and the meanest individual has the same right as the crown and I am well assured that the jury will decide agreeably to the evidence; and with your decision, I and all those with whom I am concerned, shall rest perfectly satisfied.

SUMMING UP.

man if you think him innocent; on the con- | any thing, he had no doubt but it would occur trary, I intreat you to acquit him. to the jury from their own notes.-He said that the jury were to judge from the whole evidence;-First, whether the words laid in the indictment were spoken by the defenwith an intention of exciting sedition, and with the sense laid in the indictment: and if they were of opinion that they were spoken, and with the intent laid in the indictment, they would consequently find the defendant guilty; but on the other hand, if they thought the words were not spoken, or that they were spoken in a different sense from that laid in the indictment, they would then find him not guilty. The learned judge said that it appeared to him that this sermon might have been preached without any intention of exciting sedition; but it was certainly a discussion which was improper, as it was delivered to some of the lowest class of the people; and that it was also ill-timed, for his majesty had lately issued a proclamation which ought to have cautioned the defendant, and he should have waved any such discussion at that period. The judge said, the most material part for the consideration of the jury was whether the words were spoken in the sense laid in the indictment; and the jury should consider that if the defendant was found guilty by them, his punishment would be his utter ruin, and therefore they would put the best construction they could upon the matter, and show the utmost lenity in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Baron Perryn, after stating the words charged in the different counts of the indictment, and the innuendos there laid, proceeded to state the evidence given by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution; and then said that on the part of the defendant a great number of witnesses had been called, who had given a very contrary evidence to those on the part of the prosecution.-He said that with regard to those witnesses, they denied that the defendant used words any thing like the greater part of the words charged in the indictment;-the clergyman, Mr. Gibbs, did the same, but admitted that some parts of them were spoken, but in a different sense from that laid in the indictment; and said that if they had been spoken as laid in the indictment, he would have discharged Mr. Winterbotham from being his assistant, and despised him.

The learned judge then impartially stated the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the defendant, and said that if he had omitted

The Jury desired to withdraw, and after being locked up about two hours and a half, they brought in a verdict of Guilty.

580. Proceedings on the Trial of an Indictment against WILLIAM WINTERBOTHAM, for Seditious Words uttered in a Sermon, preached on the 18th of November, 1792; tried at Exeter, before the Hon. Sir Richard Perryn, one of the Barons of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, and a Special Jury, on the 26th of July: 33 GEORGE III. A. D. 1793.

The counsel were the same as on the preceding trial.

JURY.

Richard Hawkins, of Dodbrook, Devon, F.
Thomas Heathfield, of Woodbury, ditto.
William Leigh, of Salcombe Regis, ditto.
Thomas Gregg, of Sidbury, ditto.

Samuel Walkey, of East Budleigh, ditto.
Thomas Huckle Lee, of Lympston, ditto.
William Land, of Silferton, ditto,-esqrs.

TALISMEN.

Joseph Ewen, of Littleham, Devon.
William Merson, of Northmoulton, ditto.
James Tapp, of ditto, ditto.

William Lake, of Witherage, ditto.
James Hodge, of Luppit, ditto.

MR. CLAPP opened this cause, by observ
ing that this was a prosecution against the de-
fendant, William Winterbotham, for that he
maliciously and seditiously intending to dis

« VorigeDoorgaan »