practice obferved on these trials, it is of all others a fpecies of accufation the most to be dreaded by an Englishman. The evidence permitted to be given, appeared to consist of every thing done, written, or spoken, at any time, or place, or by any perfons whatever, who, by the ingenuity of the Crown lawyers, could be connected with the design of which the parties flood accused. For instance, fuppofe a member of a political society votes against any particular motion, and that he is in a minority: the question is, of course, carried against his opinion, as being the act of the fo ciety at large; the refult is, that fuch member may be tried for his life upon this very act, which he has thus endeavoured to prevent.In answer, I know, it may be said, that a defendant has only to call the other perfons prefent, in explanation of his conduct; which is all very true and plaufible, provided he knows before-hand the time, and place, and nature, of the fact alledged. But if, as in the case of the gentlemen above mentioned, the evidence is to begin for years before the day of trial, their papers feized, and themselves imprisoned, the chance of a defence is doubtful indeed; as witneffes

witneffes may be dead, or may have left the kingdom, or may have forgotten every circum→ stance in question, not thinking, at the time it happened, they should be ever called to give an account of it; which, as every one knows, is a very common answer in our courts of justice.

The delay of justice is a hackneyed topic; but its uncertainty is a much more serious caufe of complaint. Thus, in a criminal prosecution, it is pretended, that the accused, having a copy of his indictment granted him, he is made acquainted with the matter of it, and so enabled to prepare for his defence. The truth of this is worth fome enquiry. Of all the incidents attending any tranfaction, time and place are the most effential, as tending to fix it with certainty. When a man is indicted, the law fays, that both the time and place of the act he is charged with, shall be fpecified; and fo it is upon the fcroll of parchment, of which he has a copy allowed him for his information. But, when the cause comes to trial, the law is fatisfied, if any other day is proved, to be that, on which the offence was committed; fo that the information given in the indictment, if erroneous, has only

one effect; viz. to mislead the accused, instead of inftructing him. In the like manner, if the place proved, be different from the place laid in the indictment, it is all the fame, provided both places are within the county where the affizes are held. In this ftate of things, therefore, I should be glad to know, how the accufed is enabled with certainty to prepare for his defence.

With thefe trials are involved many other important questions: as connected with parliamentary reform, they are, alfo, of great public concern. Henceforward, it will not, I hope, be imputed to men as a capital crime, that they endeavoured to promote this object, because they thought it neceffary to their country's liberty. This question was faid by the Lord Chancellor, during the last feffion of parliament, to have been entirely laid at rest in the year 1782. But, how, and by whom? Did any committee of enquiry (which was Mr. Pitt's propofition) prove to us, that the reprefentation of the people was not defective? Or, does the vote of a majority in the House of Commons against any enquiry into the state of their own body, prove to us, that that body

is

is in health? And how, otherwife, did the public receive any satisfaction on the subject? For this question has been revived three times in parliament, fince the year 1782. No man, however, can doubt but that it was intended to have been laid at reft in the year 1794, when the Habeas Corpus Act was fufpended, and when fo many innocent persons were committed under that fufpenfion, in order to their being profecuted for High Treason.However, trial by jury was ftill left us, and their lives were preserved to the community. The confequences of an oppofite verdict to that delivered, would have been dreadful indeed: they may easily be conceived; the fyftem of terror being no novelty in the history of mankind.

Sir William Temple fays, that, upon the firft report of the Duke of Alva's expedition against the Flemings, "the trading people of "the towns and country began in vast num"bers to retire out of the provinces, fo, as "the Dutchefs * wrote to the King, that, in a

*The Dutchefs of Parma, who had the government of the Low Countries before the Duke of Alva, under Philip the Second,

❝ few

"few days, one hundred thousand men had "left the country, and withdrawn both their

money and goods, and more were following

every day." Had Meffrs. Hardy, Tooke, &c. been convicted, that event "would have made up a force, which nothing in England could "look in the face with other eyes than of "aftonishment, fubmiffion, or despair."* The advocates of parliamentary reform would not have waited for warrants of apprehension, and a trial upon constructive treason, while a fingle veffel could have been procured, and their families conveyed to any land of fafety. Parliamentary reform would then, indeed, have been little heard of; and fo far the queftion might have bcen laid at reft. Happily for those, whose minds are imbued with public principles, the life of an English fubject is better protected. in this age, than it was a century ago.Jurors, it is plain, are now more enlightened; and, in cases of treason, the Statutes of William and of Anne are powerful protections to brave and innocent men. During the reigns of

* Observations upon the United Provinces of the Nether

lands, p. 34.

Charles