The Court when fitting on February 5, wa compofed of WILLIAM, Earl of MANSFIELD, EDWARD WILLES, Efq; า Sir W. HENRY ASHHURST, Knt. Judges. AND Francis Buller, Efq; JURY. Thomas Collins, of Berners-street. Edward Pomfret, New North-street. Francis Degon, of Hammersmith. Council for the Crown, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Meff. Bearcroft, Dunning, Howarth, Lee, and Norton. Council for the Prifon Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Erskine. Affiftant Council Mr. Darrel. Attorney, Mr, Albany Walli D1 was ges. be Prifoner, yon, gine. nt Council, rrel. ney, Dany Wallis. THE TRI AL OF Lord GEORGE GORDON, FOR HIGH TREASON. N Friday the 8th of June, 1780, Lord George Gordon was apprehended, examined before his Majesty's Privy Council, and committed to the Tower, and on Wednesday, January 24, 1781, his Lordship was brought, by virtue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to the bar of the Court of King's-Bench, to be arraigned. He was dreffed in a plain black fuit, his hair, as ulual, ftrait and without powder. The Officer of the Tower, and four yeomen of the guard attended him; a numerous body of peace officers were placed in the hall and in the court, and a file B 2 of of foot foldiers was ftationed in the avenue be tween the coach-way and the entrance of the hall Previous to the indictment being read, hi Lord hip remarked, that befides the learned Counsel, whom he had the happiness to hav affigned to him, by virtue of the ftatute, Mr Kenyon and Mr. Erskine, he confidered himfel as under the protection of that wife and benevo lent maxim of the law of England, which re minds the Judges that they are of Council for the prifoner; an office which their Lordships huma nity would incline them to adopt, and in the dif charge of which, he was affured of every benefi that he could with, from their impartial juftice. He then begged to know if the court could inform him, why his trial, that he had earnestly defired, from the moment he was committed, had been delayed fo long. This, he feared, independant of the contingent inconveniencies, had given time for prejudices to operate, and for the minds of the public to be influenced against him. He likewife fuggefted an apprehenfion that endeavours might have been ufed to prejudicate his caufe in a quarter which, he trufted, would be ever inacceffible to fuch attempts. Lord Mansfield replied, the fuggeftion was of a nature that did not entitle it to an answer; but that the court declared they knew in this, as in every other inftance, nothing that did not come before them judicially. Why his lordfhip was not tried under the fpecial commiffion, they could not inform him, this being between the profecutor and the defendant; the duty of the court was neither to accelerate, nor to delay the trial. The e be: hall. , his arned have , Mr. imfelf enevo ch refor the humathe dif benefit uftice. t could arnestly ted, had d, indeies, had for the Inft him. at endea cate his would be n was of ver; but nis, as in not come p was not could not profecutor court was ial. The The prifoner then faid, that he perceived by the benefit of the ftatute, which had given him the infpection of the names of the panel, that no lefs than one hundred and feventy-nine had been returned by the fheriffs, instead of that fufficient number which the law required, whereby he was put to great difficulty and uncertainty of the characters, connections, and fentiments, of fuch a number of perfons, widely difperfed in this extenfive metropolis; fome of whom he underftood to be even papifts, and therefore highly unfuitable to be of the jury, where his conduct, as he conceived, in maintenance of the proteftant cause, had eventually brought him to a trial, in which his property, life, honour, and the reputation of his family, muft depend on the verdict. That no precedent of a panel, any thing near fo numerous, was to be found, unless that in the cafe of Henfey, in the year 1756; and then it appeared an extraordinary deviation from the reafonable number which equal juftice and ufage have established between the profecutor and defendant: yet that panel was exceeded by fixty, in the number of the prefent, it being then only one hundred and nineteen. The court acquainted him, that in point of timing this objection, it ought rather to be offered when the panel would be before them, after iffue joined, and before the jury was fworn. Then the objections, if offered to the whole array, and the challenges, whether peremptory or special, to particular jurors, would be taken duely into confideration, according to law. The The prifoner fuggefted farther, that he laboure under great difadvantages in point of evidence that two fervants of the duke of Buccleugh we in the lift of witnesses against him, who, he found were brought out of Scotland, to which part Great Britain it was evident, fince the late adju dication in the cafe of lord Macdonald, no com pulfory procefs could iffue to compel appearance therefore he fhould have no opportunity of con fronting his evidence. The court anfwered, that the profecutor an defendant would be on equal footing, as far as de pended upon their authorities; the whole proce of the court, so far as it extended, being alike in the power of either party. If any thing fhould arife affecting the admiffibility of this, or an other evidence, the feafon for accepting would be when the evidence was offered upon the trial. The indictment was then read, which was as follows: Copy of the Indictment preferred against Lord George Gordon by the Grand Jury. "Middlefex, "THE jurors for our Lord the King upon their oath prefent, That George Gordon, late of the parish of St. Mary le Bone, otherwife Marybone, in the county of Middlefex, Efq; commonly called Lord George Gordon, being a fubject of our faid Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his allegiance, but being moved and feduced by the inftigation of the devil, and entirely with |