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 reason, 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 nothing 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 pastor 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:Garrick had a favorite harpsichord, which One 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 tells people from the pulpit that the taxes are oppressive-that they 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 advised 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 or 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 prin ciples of those heads of the conventicle 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 spoken of; and I will venture to say that man has no rights whatever in opposition to the supreme being; and that man blasphemes and talks 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. 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 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 man if you think him innocent; on the contrary, I intreat you to acquit him. 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. any thing, he had no doubt but it would occur 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 Mr. Baron Perryn, after stating the words it appeared to him that this sermon might charged in the different counts of the indict-have been preached without any intention of ment, and the innuendos there laid, pro- exciting sedition; but it was certainly a disceeded to state the evidence given by the cussion which was improper, as it was deliwitnesses on the part of the prosecution; and vered to some of the lowest class of the then said that on the part of the defendant a people; and that it was also ill-timed, for his great number of witnesses had been called, majesty had lately issued a proclamation who had given a very contrary evidence to which ought to have cautioned the defendant, those on the part of the prosecution.-He said and he should have waved any such discusthat with regard to those witnesses, they de- sion at that period. The judge said, the most nied that the defendant used words any thing material part for the consideration of the jury like the greater part of the words charged in was whether the words were spoken in the the indictment ;-the clergyman, Mr. Gibbs, sense laid in the indictment; and the jury did the same, but admitted that some parts of should consider that if the defendant was them were spoken, but in a different sense found guilty by them, his punishment would from that laid in the indictment; and said be his utter ruin, and therefore they would that if they had been spoken as laid in the put the best construction they could upon the indictment, he would have discharged Mr. matter, and show the utmost lenity in favour Winterbotham from being his assistant, and of the defendant. 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. TALESMEN. Joseph Ewen, of Littleham, Devon, MR. CLAPP opened this cause, by observ In the first count of and concerning the government and magistracy of this kingdom and the subjects thereof, these seditious words following: quiet, molest and disturb the peace and com- the time of the delivery were considered. He mon tranquillity of our lord the king, and of told his audience his text applied to the prethis kingdom, and to traduce and vilify our pre-sent times, and that it became him to treat it sent happy constitution, and to bring our said politically-which he did particularly with lord the king and his government of this respect to France and this country; the kingdom into hatred and contempt with all serjeant stated, that the audience Mr. Winthe subjects of this realm, and to asperse and terbotham addressed was not an audience scandalize our said lord the king and his go- calculated to fathom the depth of political vernment of this kingdom, and to excite the subjects, and was therefore more easily desubjects of our said lord the king to sedition ceived by specious pretences: and he thought against his government,-on the 18th day of no motive could be adduced that would have November last, did preach, speak-and pub-influenced Mr. Winterbotham at that time lish the following words, to wit: to have gone into a political discussion, but that of exciting rebellion and discontent. The serjeant said, this sermon was not delivered on a day that called for a discussion of such a nature, it was on the 18th of November, 1792, when the situation of France was not very eligible; the government was overturned, Paris was a scene of misery, one massacre had followed another, the palace itself was violated-the guards murdered— the king and queen thrown into a dungeon, and the goverment seized by a mob. He said, it was at this time that Mr. Winterbotham thought proper to tell his auditory, that all the powers of magistracy were usurped, and to utter the words they had heard read. The serjeant said, there were persons who thought all government an usurpation, and he supposed Mr. Winterbotham to be one of those, or he would never have considered the then situation of France to be a blessing, or have said that he expected the same blessing was awaiting us, and that we should soon have to boast of having introduced among us, that equality our neighbours the French had acquired. The serjeant, after some other general comments on the text and on the absurdity and wickedness of those who wished to throw us into a state of anarchy and rebellion by preaching up equality, concluded by observing he should call his witnesses to prove the words laid in the indictment, and he had no doubt but the jury would find the defendant guilty. "Darkness has long cast her veil over the land;" (meaning amongst others this kingdom)" persecution and tyranny have carried universal sway;" (meaning amongst others in this kingdom)" magisterial powers" (meaning amongst others magisterial powers in this kingdom)" have long been a scourge to the liberties and rights of the people" (meaning amongst others the people of this kingdom). "It does not matter by what name these usurped powers are known, whether by king, senate, potentate, or stadtholder, they are in either sense usurped." In the second count, these seditious words following: "The yoke of bondage among our neighbours," (meaning the French) "seems now to be pretty well broken, and it is expected the same blessing is awaiting us," (meaning the subjects of this kingdom)" when persecution and tyranny shall be no more; when enjoying" (meaning when the subjects of this kingdom enjoying)" the liberties of a free people, we" (meaning the subjects of this kingdom)" shall boast of having introduced among us" (meaning the subjects of this kingdom) that equality our neighbours" (meaning the French)" have acquired." The third count, similar to the first. Mr. Serjeant Rooke said he was again called upon to prosecute Mr. Winterbotham for sedition; he had yesterday substantiated the charges in one indictment, and he had no doubt but he should be able to do the same by this. The words laid in the indictment, and which he should prove to have been uttered by Mr. Winterbotham, he stated to be of the most inflammatory nature; and said they went so far as to aim at the total destruction and subversion of all the governments of Europe: for Mr. Winterbotham had not contented himself with objecting to this or the other form of government, but he had asserted that they were all usurped. Of the design and tendency of this sermon, the serjeant said, there could be no doubt, if the manner in which Mr. Winterbotham introduced it, and Edward Lyne examined by Mr. Serjeant Were you at the meeting in How's lane on the evening of the 18th of November last?-Yes; I went there with Mr. Darby, in consequence of a report that Mr. Winterbotham had preached a seditious sermon on the 5th of November. Were you there before the defendant began his sermon?-Yes, we were; we heard him begin. Do you recollect the text he preached from?--Yes, it was Rom. 13th ch. 12 ver. "The night is far spent, the day is at hand, let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." How did he treat this text?-After the preamble to his sermon, he said, he felt himself bound by the present juncture of affairs, to apply the text politically;--we were then $ in the aisle, but on Mr. Winterbotham's proposing his intention to treat his subject politically, we went into a pew and sat down ;He then repeated the words of his text, and said, "Darkness has long cast her veil over the land, persecution and tyranny have carried universal sway." He then expatiated on that head, and proceeded, Magisterial powers have long been a scourge to the liberties and rights of the people; it does not matter by what names these usurped powers were known, whether by king, senate, potentate, or stadtholder, they are in either sense usurped.' This he endeavoured to prove by the following part of his discourse, which I do not recollect. He then adverted to the affairs of France, and said, "The yoke of bondage amongst our neighbours, seems now to be pretty well broken, and it is expected the same blessing is awaiting us; when persecution and tyranny shall be no more, when enjoying the liberties of a free people we shall boast of having introduced amongst us that equality our neighbours have acquired." He then immediately or soon afterwards rejoined, "To possess such an acquisition, we were to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light." Do you recollect any thing more of the sermon?-There is no other particular passage that I can recollect the words of. Did you ever take minutes of what you heard?-Immediately on leaving the meeting, with those observations strongly impressed on my mind, I went home to my lodgings, and there made minutes; and I am sure these are the very expressions the defendant used. Cross-examined by Mr. Gibbs. Pray, Mr. Lyne, how came you to go to the meeting, on the evening on which this sermon was preached?-I went with Mr. Darby, in consequence of the rumours which were circulated respecting the former sermon. You say you went in consequence of certain rumours which had been circulated respecting the former sermon; I would ask you if you believed those rumours ?-No; I disbelieved the report. I believe you are not one of Mr. Winterbotham's congregation?-No, I am not. Then as you are not in the habits of attending Mr. Winterbotham, and as you disbelieved the reports in circulation respecting the former sermon, I would ask you what were the motives with which you went on that evening?-I went as the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, to take his part, that I might have an opportunity to defend him against the accusations circulating concerning him. Then it was your general christian philanthropy that led you to the meeting as the friend of Mr. Winterbotham?-Yes it was my general christian philanthropy that led me to go there. As the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, I would ask you, what is your opinion of the whole of the sermon ?—I considered the whole of the sermon as totally seditious. Was there no part of it but what was seditious?--There were many moral and religious sentiments, but the whole, in a chain, was seditious. Pray how long do you think Mr. Winterbotham was, in preaching this sermon?About three quarters of an hour. And though you went to the meeting as the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, and though Mr. Winterbotham was three quarters of an hour in preaching, you do not recollect any passage in the discourse but what was seditious?-At that time I did not wish to recollect any that were not seditious. Though you were the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, you had no wish to retain any passage in your memory but those you thought seditious?-I endeavoured to retain in my mind those which were so strong. But you don't recollect any other sentence in the whole sermon, but those you have given in evidence?—I can't repeat any other sentence. In what part of the meeting were you, during the time Mr. Winterbotham was preaching?-I remained in the aisle till he talked upon politics, and then I sat down in a pew. I think you said, if you had thought Mr. Winterbotham would have been prosecuted you should not have attended; pray how came you then to be an evidence?-When he said he should treat his subject politically, I then determined to attend to what he said, intending to take part against him if called upon. Pray in what manner did Mr. Winterbotham begin his sermon?-He gave a moral exposition of the text at first; but I don't remember what he said, neither the words nor the tenor of them. Then there was nothing seditious in the first part of the sermon?-I really think the first exposition of the text was such as any clergyman might have used in any place of devotion. But you don't remember any thing of this part of the subject which you think was unexceptionable?-I cannot repeat any sentence; I did not endeavour to store in my mind any part of it. Though you went to the meeting as the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, and for the express purpose of vindicating him from what you conceived to be false accusations, yet you did not endeavour to store in your mind any sentence of that part of the sermon which you conceived to be unexceptionable? You say you went as the friend of Mr. Winterbotham, that you might have an opportunity to take his part; that was your motive for going?—Yes; and if I had thought he would have been prosecuted I would not have-No, I did not. gone. As you say you cannot repeat any sentence |