“The Solicitor-General had also told them, that the law of the case was extremely clear. No doubt it was; but it was necessary to point out the precise question for their consideration, before they ventured to apply the facts of the case to that law; because the question here was not guilt, or innocence in the abstract, for although there was strong suspicion against the prisoner of moral guilt, yet the question they had to try was, whether he was guilty not only of high treason, but of that high treason which was specifically charged in this indictment. In order, therefore, to enable them to discharge their duty fully and fairly towards the prisoner, they must not only take into their consideration the precise question they had to try, but also apply the evidence produced, in order to see whether the specific charge of high treason was made out.

“The history of the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edw. III., was well known. It was passed in order to define what treason really was, and that the ignorance, and even cruelty, which had previously prevailed upon the subject, by the erection of certain acts into crimes against the state, might be exploded. That statute contained a few short and distinct propositions, which in fact comprehended the whole law of treason. In the language of Lord Coke it was called the blessed Statute, from the admirable regard manifested in it for the liberty and safety of the subject. It declared first, that whoever should compass or imagine the death of the King, should be guilty of high treason; and, second, whoever should levy war against the King and this realm, should be guilty of the like offence.

“A number of other enactments of treason had taken place at different times since then, introducing a most horrible system of cruelty and oppression, but at length it was found necessary to return to that blessed statute. It was true, that in the reign of his late Majesty a statute passed for extending the law of treason. He lamented that such a statute should ever have passed, and still more that any occasion for it should ever have existed. Upon both of these statutes the present indictment was founded.

“By the 23d of Edward III. it was made treason to compass or imagine the death of the King; and by the 36th Geo. III. it was made treason to attempt to depose him from his kingly office.

“By the statute of Edward, it was made treason actually to levy war; and by the statute of George, it was made treason to conspire to levy war.

“The four charges, therefore, which they had to try, were these: Did the prisoner at the bar compass, or imagine the death of the King? Did he conspire to depose him from his imperial dignity? Did he actually levy war against his Majesty? And did he conspire to levy war with an intention to compel his Majesty to change the measures of his government by force? These were the precise issues they had to try, and whatever might be their opinion of his guilt, as it respected other charges still pending over him, and for which punishment would reach him if he were guilty, yet unless they were conscientiously satisfied that he had actually committed some one of these four offences, they were bound to pronounce him Not Guilty.

“It had been admitted by the Solicitor General, that if the case in all its parts was not proved by unequivocal testimony, they were bound to acquit the prisoner; and he apologized for the evidence he proposed to offer, by saying, that in all cases of conspiracy it was necessary to have the evidence of some of the conspirators, in order to ascertain the purposes of their dark consultations.

“This was another of the miseries resulting from a departure from the statute of Edward. That admirable statute enacted, that before a man should be found guilty of the treasons there set out, he shall be ‘proveably convict’ of the same.

“Upon the meaning of the words ‘proveably convict,’ the great Lord Coke had written a whole section, shewing that they did not mean probably convict, but convict by the most unequivocal and satisfactory evidence.

“The object of the statute, therefore, in making this wholesome provision was to protect his Majesty’s subjects, whose lives might be at the mercy of the most infamous of mankind. It was necessary, therefore, that the Jury should examine the facts proved with the most scrupulous circumspection, before they made up their minds to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt.