tend, that anything that is contemptuous to the sovereign of the country, anything grossly reflecting upon the administration of the magistracy of this country, or persons holding the offices of magistrates, according to the law of this country, such as it is, and such as I hope it will continue to be, has never been suffered with impunity.

Gentlemen, when you consider, not merely whether the prosecution is to produce a verdict of guilty, but whether the prosecution is expedient and proper, it is not unnecessary to advert to the circumstances of the times, and the temper with which the particular defendant may have proceeded, who is charged with guilt by an indictment brought before a jury of this country.

Gentlemen, this doctrine of equality and no king has been held in this country, which never did, and which, I hope, never will, interfere with the right of free, of temperate, of sober, and of ample discussion, conducted under those restraints, upon every political subject, in which the interests and the happiness of Englishmen can be concerned; but, gentlemen, when a doctrine of this sort, equality and no king, a doctrine which either means this, or it means nothing, that there shall be no distinction of ranks in society, is brought forward, under circumstances so peculiar as those which attended the statement of this doctrine by the defendant, it becomes the duty of those who are entrusted with

watching over the laws of this country, under the control of juries who are finally to decide between them and individuals who may be charged with a breach of them, at least to do their duty in stating this to the public, that no one shall dare to hold language like this, without being prepared to tell a jury of this country upon what grounds he conceives himself justifiable in holding it under the circumstances of the present case.

Gentlemen, advert a little to the time; this was in November, 1792. There does not exist upon the face of the earth, I hope, a man more zealously attached to this doctrine than I am. I mean, that every man in this country, and in every country, has an equal right to equal laws, to an equal protection of personal security, to an equal protection of personal liberty; to an equal protection of that, without which, it requires no reasoning to prove, that neither personal security, nor personal liberty, ever can exist, I mean to an equal protection of property, that property which the labor of his life, under the blessing of Providence, may have gained to him, or which the superior kindness of Providence may have given him, without bestowing the labor of life in order to acquire it; all this sort of equality is that which the constitution of Great Britain has secured to every man who lives under it, but is not the equality which was connected

with the doctrine no king, upon the 6th of November, 1792.

Gentlemen, that country, from which it appears, from this conversation, Mr. Frost came, and to which it appears, from this conversation, that he expected to go, in the year 1789 had framed what was called a constitution, and almost everything that was valuable in it was borrowed from the constitution of this country in which we live, which had provided for the equal rights of man to equal laws; it had laid down in doctrine, however ill or well it supported the principle, the equal right of every man to the protection of his personal liberty, of his personal security, and of his property. But in 1792, that first year of equality, as it was called, a different system of equality, connected materially with this system of no king, had been established; a system, which, if it meant anything, meant this, it meant equality of property, for all other equality had been before provided for.

Gentlemen of the jury, it is every man's birthright to have a certain species of equality secured to him, but it neither requires reasoning, nor is it consistent with common sense, and cannot be consistent with reason and common sense, because it is not consistent with the nature of things, as established by the Author of nature, that any other system of equality should exist upon the face of the world.

Gentlemen, this equality recommended by this gentleman, advisedly, as I think you will be satisfied in this transaction of the 6th of November, 1792, is a system which has destroyed all ranks, is a system which has destroyed all property, is a system of universal proscription, is a system which is as contrary to the order of moral nature as it is contrary to the order of political nature; it is a system which cuts up by the roots all the enjoyments that result from the domestic relations of life, or the political relations of life; it is a system which cuts up by the roots every incentive to virtuous and active industry, and holds out to the man who chooses to live a life of profligacy and idleness, that he may take from him who has exerted through life a laborious and virtuous conduct, those fruits which the God of justice, and every law of justice, have endeavored to secure to him. This is the only sort of equality that can be connected with this doctrine of no king, upon the 6th of November, 1792.

Gentlemen, I am ready to agree that where the charge is that words have been spoken, it is fit for those who prosecute for the public to remember that in that situation they are in a certain degree advocates for the defendant; for no man can do his duty who wishes to press a defendant, charged upon the part of the public with acting more improperly than he shall appear, upon the candid examination

of the circumstances, to have acted; it is fit for me also to observe, that the degree of criminality of these words will depend very much upon the temper, the circumstances, the quo animo, with which this gentleman thought proper to utter them.

Gentlemen, I will not depart from this principle which I have before stated, that if men will dare to utter words, expressions of more serious import than those which produced the mischief to which I have been alluding in other places, it will be the duty of persons in official situations to watch for you and the public over that which they conceive to be a blessing to you and the public; at least to inform those gentlemen that they must account for their conduct; it will be for them, if they can, to account for it satisfactorily.

Gentlemen, you will hear from the witnesses with what temper, with what demeanor, and in what manner, these words were uttered; and I allude again to that which will be described to you, I mean the feelings of the persons present, as some degree of evidence, which will have its due, and not more than its due weight, in your minds.

Gentlemen, I will read to you the words of Mr. Justice Forster, as containing the principle upon which, though the law holds seditious expressions as an exceeding high misdemeanor, it has not thought proper to consider them as a crime of the magnitude of high treason. He says, "As to mere