‘Copy of my [that is, Mr Sharp’s] testimony, which I signed at the Privy-Council.
‘The Society for Constitutional Information adjourned, and left the delegates in the room. The most gentleman-like person (of the Corresponding Society), took the chair, and talked about an equal representation of the people, and of putting an end to war. Holcroft talked about the Powers of the Human Mind.’
‘This’ [says Mr Sharp,] ‘is the whole that I signed. The other particulars of the conversation before the Privy-Council are as follows.
‘Mr Holcroft talked a great deal about Peace, of his being against any violent or coercive means, that were usually resorted to against our fellow-creatures; urged the more powerful operation of Philosophy and Reason, to convince man of his errors; that he would disarm his greatest enemy by those means, and oppose his fury.—Spoke also about Truth being powerful; and gave advice to the above effect to the delegates present, who all seemed to agree, as no person opposed his arguments. This conversation lasted better than an hour, and we departed. The next time the delegates met, Holcroft was not present. This is the substance of what I remember of that conversation.’
Mr Sharp was again examined before the Grand Jury; and this was his evidence. ‘I mentioned Mr Holcroft’s disposition and conversation, when we met, about reasoning men out of their errors, who was a sort of natural Quaker, and was for the peaceable means that philosophy and reason point out to convince mankind. He was against violence of all kinds; but did not believe in the secret impulses of the Spirit, like the Quakers.’
The evidence of Mr Symmonds was to the same purpose.—Mr Adams, also, the secretary of the Constitutional Society, had several times declared his utter astonishment that Mr Holcroft in particular could be indicted; because of the repeated and ardent manner in which he, and every body had heard him declare his sentiments in favour of peace and non-resistance.
On evidence like this was Mr Holcroft indicted and committed to prison as guilty of high-treason.
The only circumstance which seems to throw any light on this mysterious transaction, which resembles a dream, or the extravagance of a bewildered imagination, rather than any thing real, is the following. Some months before the presenting the bill of indictment, Mr Holcroft had called, with another friend, on Mr Sharp, who had been apprehended, but was suffered to remain in his own house in the custody of an officer. Mr Holcroft made some remarks intimating his dislike of violence. This the officer, who was a King’s messenger, but of a lower and more illiterate order, seemed to feel as an attack upon his profession; and turning to Mr Holcroft, whom he no doubt conceived to be a dangerous person, he affirmed that he had seen him at the meetings of the Corresponding Society. This was denied; and he again asserted he had seen him there. The man who could imagine and persist in one falsehood, might imagine and persist in another. On his repeating his assertion, Mr Holcroft said to him, ‘It is a wicked lie, Sir.’ The man afterwards said, that if he had not seen him at the Corresponding Society, he had seen him at Mr Thelwall’s lectures; to which Mr Holcroft replied, that he had been present once, and never but once, at a lecture delivered by Mr Thelwall. This short scene was, however, construed into a design to affront the officer, produce violence, and favour the escape of Mr Sharp; over whom, on the man’s reporting this tale at the Privy Council, a double guard was placed the next day.
Such is the history of the share which Mr Holcroft had in the trials for High Treason.[[13]]