TRIAL OF JOHN HORNE TOOKE, FOR high Treason, AT THE SESSIONS HOUSE IN THE OLD BAILEY, ON Monday the Seventeenth, Tuesday the Eighteenth, Wednef- VOL. II. TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, By JOSEPH GURNEY. LONDON: SOLD BY MARTHA GURNEY, BOOKSELLER, HOLBORN-HILL, As Major Cartwright, Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General. far as appears by the books of the Conftitutional Society, the last time you were prefent, in that Society, was the 25th of May, 1792 ? 4. It must have been fomewhere about that time. 2. Have you feen Mr. Tooke fince the 25th of May, 792? A. I think it is highly probable that I attended at the Society till about the time that I left town, fince which I have not feen Mr. Tooke, till I faw him in this Court. 2. Of course you can know nothing of the proceedings of the Conftitutional Society fince May, 1792, except as you may have seen them in print, or otherwife-You have not been prefent at any that passed? A. Certainly not. 2. You were no party to the addreffes to France? A. I was a party to one addrefs; I cannot recollect the date; but I was prefent at that Society, to the best of my remembrance, when a letter, or an addrefs, or fomething of that kind, was fent to the Society called the Friends of the Conftitution, or Friends of Freedom, at Paris, known by the name of Jacobins, That must have been before the 25th of May, 1792, as that was the last day that you were in the Society? A. To be fure. 2. With respect to any future addreffes to France, you were no party to them? A. Certainly not. 2. You were no party to any correspondence with Norwich, or any other place, about a Convention to be held, either in Scotland or England? A. While I attended the Society I do not remember that the fubject of a Convention was agitated. 2. You were, of course, not a member of the Society at a time when a letter was written to the Editor of the Patriot, at Sheffield, in which it is stated that the vipers, Monarchy and Aristocracy, are writhing under the grasp of infant Freedom, and, in which the Society fays, may peace, happiness, and success attend its efforts? A. I do not remember any correfpondence of that kind, 2. Do you remember any conversation previous to the 25th of May, 1792, (what paffed afterwards you do not know) in which Monarchy and Ariftocracy were spoken of by any body as vipers writhing under the grafp of infant Freedom? A. I do not remember fuch converfation. 2. If any member of your Society had faid, in a letter to a country Society, that the vipers, Monarchy and Ariftocracy, were writhing under the grasp of infant Freedom, and expreffed his hopes that fuccefs fhould attend thofe efforts, you would have been vaftly surprised, fhould not you? A. It would have depended upon the particular circumstances to which the letter applied. Q: Do you mean to say that if it had been convenient to write a letter with fuch expreffions, that it would not have furprifed you if fuch a letter had been written? A. If it had applied to any Government where Monarchy and Aristocracy had been vipers to Freedom, I should have thought it well applied. 2. Then, Then, I ask you, if it had been applied to the English Monarchy, by any member of your Society, after May, 1792, should not you have been surprised? A. That is a general queftion, to which it is very difficult to give a clear and fatisfactory answer; because I conceive that the meaning and the force of expreffions depend upon the context of the compofitions in which they are introduced. 2. I quite agree with you in that, there is no doubt about it that it does-You have ftated what, indeed, all the world knew, that you were the father, at leaft you are complimented with the title of the father, of the Society for Constitutional Information-You have likewife ftated, if I understand you, that you were, and still are, a member of the Society of the Friends of the People? A. Yes. 2. You have alfo faid that the letter which the Society for Conftitutional Information fent the Friends of the People, was a folemn admonition to them for the purposes you have mentioned? A. Yes. 2. I take for granted that you could not poffibly doubt but that that letter would be very well understood to be fuch by those to whom it was addreffed-Have you feen the letter? A. In fo large a Society, as that of the Friends of the People, I thought that it was very likely that there might be different opinions formed; because, in large Societies, that which may appear to one man to be good and wholesome advice, may, to others, appear offenfive, because every man has not sense to take advice. 2. You are a member, you fay, of the Friends of the People? 2. You may recollect my Lord John Ruffel's writing an answer to that letter? A. I do. 2. You may recollect alfo that, at a general meeting of the |