Page images
PDF
EPUB

TRIAL

OF

JOHN HORNE TOOKE,

FOR

high reason,

AT THE

SESSIONS HOUSE IN THE OLD BAILEY,

Monday the Seventeenth, Tuesday the Eighteenth, Wednej-

day the Nineteenth, Thursday the Twentieth, Friday
the Twenty-first, and Saturday the Twenty-second of

November, 1794.

VOL. II.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND,

By JOSEPH GURNEY.

LONDON:

SOLD BY MARTHA GURNEY, BOOKSELLER, HOLBORN-HILL,

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Major Cartwrighting
Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney General.
As far as appears by the books of the Constitutional So-
ciety, the last time you were present, in that Society, was the
25th of May, 1792?

4. It must have been somewhere about that time.
2. Have you feen M. Toeke fince the 25th of May,

4,792 ?

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 seen Mr. Tooke, till I saw hiin in this Court.

2. Of course you can know nothing of the proceedings of the Constitutional Society since May, 1792, except as you may have seen them in print, or otherwise--- You have not been prefent at any that passed?

A. Certainly not.
2. You were no party to the addrefies to France ?

A. I was a party to one address; I cannot recollect the date; but I was present at that Society, to the best of my remembrance, when a letter, or an address, or something of that kind, was sent to the Society called the Friends of the Constitution, or Friends of Freedom, at Paris, known by the name of Jacobins,

2. That

B 2

1

Q. 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 sure.

Q: With respect to any future addresses 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 subject of a Convention was agitated.

2: You were, of course, not a member of the Society at à 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 succefs attend its efforts ?

A. I do not remember any correspondence of that kind.

2. Do you remember any conversation previous to the 25th of May, 1792, (what passed afterwards you do not know) in which Monarchy and Aristocracy were spoken of by any body as vipers writhing under the grasp of infant Freedom ?

A. I do not remember such conversation.

2. If any member of your Society had faid, in a letter to a country Society, that the vipers, Monarchy and Aristocracy, were writhing under the grasp of infant Freedom, and expressed his hopes that success should attend those efforts, you would have been vastly surprised, should 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 such expressions, that it would not have surprised you if such a letter had been written?

A. If it had applied to any Government where Monarchy and Aristocracy had been vipers to Freedom, I lould have thought it well applied.

2. Then, Q: 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?

4. That is a general question, to which it is very difficult to give a clear and fatisfactory answer; because I conceive that the meaning and the force of expressions depend upon the context of the compositions in which they are introduced.

2. I quite agree with you in that, there is no doubt about it that it does You have stated what, indeed, all the world knew, that you were the father, at least you are complimented with the title of the father, of the Society for Conftitutional Information-You have likewise stated, 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 also said that the letter which the Society for Constitutional Informacion sent the Friends of the People, was a solemn admonition to them for the purposes you have mentioned ?

A. Yes.

2: I take for granted that you could not posibly doubt but that that letter would be very well understood to be such by those to whom it was addressed-Have you seen the letter?

A. In fo large a Society, as that of the Friends of the Peo.ple, 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 offensive, because every man has not sense to take advice.

You are a member, you say, of the Friends of the People?

A. Yes.

Q: You may recollect my Lord John Ruffel's writing an answer to that letter?

A. I do. 2: You may recollect also that, at a general meeting of the B 3

Friends

« PreviousContinue »