rosity and manly feeling of the noble person (the Duke of Norfolk) whose name I have been obliged to use in the course of this cause, in his interference to effect that separation which is falsely imputed to Mr Bingham. He felt so much commiseration for this unhappy lady, that he wrote to her in the most affecting style. I believe I have got a letter from his Grace to Lady Elizabeth, dated Sunderland, July the 27th-that is, three days after their separation, but before he knew it had actually taken place. It was written in consequence of one received from Mr Howard upon the subject. Among other things he says, " I sincerely feel for you.' "I Now, if the Duke had not known at that time that Mr Bingham had her earliest and legitimate affections, she could not have been an object of that pity which she received. She was indeed an object of the sincerest pity; and the sum and substance of this mighty seduction will turn out to be no more than this-that she was affectionately received by Mr Bingham after the final period of voluntary separation. At four o'clock this miserable couple had parted by consent, and the chaise was not ordered till she might be considered as a single woman by the abandonment of her husband. Had the separation been legal and formal, I should have applied to his Lordship, upon the most unquestionable authorities, to nonsuit the plaintiff; for this action, being founded upon the loss of the wife's society, it must necessarily fall to the ground if it appears that the society, though not the marriage union, was interrupted by a previous act of his own. In that hour of separation I am persuaded he never considered Mr Bingham as an object of resentment or reproach. He was the author of his own misfortunes, and I can conceive him to have exclaimed, in the language of the poet, as they parted

You have, therefore, before you, gentlemen, two young men of fashion, both of noble families, and in the flower of youth. The proceedings, though not collusive, cannot possibly be vindictive; they are indispensably preliminary to the dissolution of an inauspicious marriage which never should have existed. Mr Howard may then profit by a useful, though an unpleasant experience, and be happier with a woman whose mind he may find disengaged; whilst the parents of the rising generation, taking warning from the lesson which the business of the day so forcibly teaches, may avert from their families and the public that bitterness of dis

union which, while human nature continues to be itself, will ever be produced to the end of time from similar conjectures.

Gentlemen, I have endeavoured so to conduct this cause as to offend no man-I have guarded against every expression which could inflict unnecessary pain; and in doing so, I know that I have not only served my client's interests, but truly represented his honourable and manly disposition. As the case before you cannot be considered by any reasonable man as an occasion for damages, I might here properly conclude; yet, that I may omit nothing which might apply to any possible view of the subject, I will conclude with reminding you that my client is a member of a numerous family; that though Mr Bingham's fortune is considerable, his rank calls for a corresponding equipage and expense: he has other children-one already married to an illustrious nobleman, and another yet to be married to some man who must be happy indeed if he shall know her value. Mr Bingham, therefore, is a man of no fortune, but the heir only of, I trust, a very distant expectation. Under all these circumstances, it is but fair to believe that Mr Howard comes here for the reasons I have assigned, and not to take money out of the pocket of Mr Bingham to put into his own. You will therefore consider, gentlemen, whether it would be creditable for you to offer what it would be disgraceful for Mr Howard to receive.

SPEECH for JOHN HORNE TOOKE, Esq., as delivered by Mr ERSKINE in the Sessions House at the Old Bailey, on the 19th of November 1794.

THE SUBJECT.

THE following speech for Mr Tooke requires no other introduction or preface than an attentive reference to the case of Thomas Hardy in this volume; the charges being the same, and the evidence not materially different. It is indeed not easy to conceive upon what grounds the Crown could have expected to convict Mr Tooke after Mr Hardy had been acquitted, since the jury upon the first trial (some of whom were also sworn as jurors upon the second) must be supposed, by the verdict which had just been delivered, to have negatived the main fact alleged by both indictments, viz., that any convention had been held within the kingdom with intent to subvert, by rebellious force, the constitution of the kingdom. Nevertheless, the same propositions, both of law and fact, which, by reference to the former trial, appear to have been urged so unsuccessfully, were repeated, and again insisted upon, even after the following speech. had been delivered. For it appears from Mr Gurney's report (by whose license the Editor has published many of the speeches in this collection), that on Mr Tooke's addressing the Court (after Mr Erskine had spoken) as to the necessity of going into the whole of the evidence, the AttorneyGeneral answered as follows:

"Mr ATTORNEY-GENERAL. That address being made to me, I think it my duty to Mr Tooke to inform him, that I speak at present under an impression that, when the case on the part of the prosecutor is understood, it has received as yet, in the opening of his counsel, no answer; and I therefore desire that Mr Tooke will understand me as meaning to state to the jury, that I have proved the case upon the indictment.

"Mr ERSKINE. Then we will go into the whole case."-See Gurney's Trial of Tooke, vol. i., p. 453.

This took place on Thursday, the 20th of November 1794, and the trial accordingly continued till Saturday the 22d.

After the acquittal of Mr Tooke, even a third trial was proceeded upon, viz., that against Mr Thelwall, after which all the other prisoners were discharged. We do not state these facts as presuming to censure the advisers of the Crown on these great state trials; on the contrary, we departed, as has been seen in the case of Hardy, from the original plan of the publication, from an anxiety to give the most faithful representation of the proceedings, without the publication of the entire trials, as published by Mr Gurney; which at the time were extensively circulated, and are, no doubt, still preserved in many libraries.

By comparing the introduction of the following speech with that for Thomas Hardy, it will be seen what high ground the advocate felt he occupied in consequence of the former acquittal.

THE SPEECH.

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY,-When I compare the situation in which, not many days ago, I stood up to address myself to a jury in this place, with that which I now occupy-when I reflect upon the emotions which at that time almost weighed and pressed me down into the earth, with those which at this moment animate and support me, I scarcely know how to bear myself, or in what manner to conduct my cause.

I stood here, gentlemen, upon the first trial, not alone indeed, but firmly and ably supported by my honourable, excellent, and learned friend, whose assistance I still have.

[Here Mr Erskine was interrupted by the noise made by some workmen, which the Court ordered to be stopped; which being done, he proceeded.]

*

Gentlemen, I am too much used to public life to be at all disconcerted by any of these little accidents; and, indeed, I am rather glad that any interruption gives me the opportunity of repeating a sentiment so very dear to me:-I stood up here, not alone, but ably and manfully supported by this excellent friend, who now sits by me; yet, under circumstances of distress and agitation, which no assistance could remove, and which I even now tremble to look back upon. I appeared in this place as the representative of a poor, lowly, and obscure mechanic, known only, of course, to persons in equal obscurity with himself; yet, in his name and person, had to bear up against a pressure which no advocate in England ever before had to contend with, for the most favoured or powerful subject. I had to contend, in the first place, against the vast and extensive, but, after the verdict which has been given, I will not say the crushing, influence of the Crown. I had to struggle, from the very nature of the case, with that deep and solid interest which every good subject takes, and ought to take, in the life of the chief magistrate appointed to execute the laws, and whose safety is so inseparably connected with the general happiness, and the stability of the Government. I had further to contend with an interest more powerful and energetic-with that generous and benevolent interest, founded upon affection for the King's person, which has so long been, and, I trust, ever will remain, the characteristic of Englishmen. These prepossessions, just in themselves, but connected with dangerous partialities, would, at any time, have been sufficiently formidable; but at what season had I to contend with them? I had to contend with them when a cloud of prejudices covered every person whose name could be mentioned or thought of in the course of my defence-prejudices not only propagated by honest, though mistaken zeal, but fomented in other quarters by wickedness beyond the power of language to express-and all directed against the * Mr Gibbs, afterwards Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Attorney-General.

societies of which the prisoners were members; only because they had presumed to do what those who prosecuted them had done before them in other times; and from the doing of which they had raised their fortunes, and acquired the very power to prosecute and to oppress.

I had to contend, too, with all this in a most fearful season; when the light and humanity even of an English public was with no certainty to be reckoned on-when the face of the earth was drawn into convulsions-when bad men were trembling for what ought to follow, and good men for what ought not-and when all the principles of our free constitution, under the dominion of a delusive or wickedly infused terror, seemed to be trampled under foot. Gentlemen, when we reflect, however, upon the sound principles of the law of England, and the exalted history of its justice, I might, under other circumstances, have looked even those dangers in the face. There would have still remained that which is paramount to the ordinary law, and the corrector of its abuses;-there would still have remained that great tribunal, raised by the wisdom. of our ancestors, for the support of the people's rights-that tribunal which has made the law itself, and which has given me you to look at that tribunal which, from age to age, has been the champion of public liberty, and which has so long and so often been planted before it as a shield in the day of trouble. But looking to that quarter,-instead of this friendly shield of the subject, I found a sharp and destroying sword in the hand of an enemy: THE PROTECTING COMMONS WAS ITSELF THE ACCUSER OF MY CLIENT,

AND ACTED AS A SOLICITOR TO PREPARE THE VERY BRIEFS FOR THE

PROSECUTION. I am not making complaints, but stating the facts as they existed. The very briefs, I say, without which my learned friends (as they themselves agree) could not have travelled through the cause, were prepared by the Commons of Great Britain !-came before the jury stamped with all its influence and authority, preceded by proclamations and the publication of authoritative reports in every part of the kingdom, that the influence of the prejudgment might be co-extensive with the island.

I had, therefore, to contend with an impeachment, without the justice belonging to such a proceeding. When a subject is impeached by the Commons of Great Britain, he is not tried by a jury of his country. Why? Because the benevolent institutions of our wise forefathers forbade it. They considered that, when the Commons were the accusers, the jury were the accusers also. They considered the Commons in Parliament, and the Commons at large, to be one and the same thing; though one would think, from the proceedings we are now engaged in, and everything connected with them, that they had no connexion with one another; but that, on the contrary, the House of Commons was holding out a siege against its constituents, and supporting its authority against the privileges of the people, whose representatives they are and