GENERAL HISTORY. 



[5 



not be ascertained how far this 

 information was correct. The 

 Attorney general having promis- 

 ed that he would prove that Bran- 

 dreth was present at several meet- 

 ings anterior to the 8th of June, 

 was called on by the counsel for 

 the prisoners to produce that evi- 

 dence on the first, second, and 

 third trials, yet he persevered in 

 the course he had first adopted, 

 of leaving all the former proceed- 

 ings in obscurity. The ministers 

 had previous information of Bran- 

 dreth's designs, yet they did not 

 seize him. He was suffered to 

 go on till he had effected all the 

 mischief in his power ; and the 

 only use proposed to be made of 

 the suspension, was not made 

 of it. 



The conclusion of his speech 

 related to the prosecution of 

 Hone. If (said Sir Samuel) the 

 prosecutions were not vindictive, 

 why were they undertaken ? The 

 publications themselves were 

 stopped before the Attorney-ge- 

 neral attempted to suppress them; 

 but this injudicious attempt 

 brought them again into public 

 notice, and gave them infinitely 

 greater currency than they would 

 have obtained in their original 

 state, with a great mass of con- 

 cealed, forgotten, and unknown 

 parodies attached to them. The 

 least criminal of the parodies was 

 the last prosecuted, and the pro- 

 secution was persevered in after 

 a double failure, because, accord- 

 ing to the explanation of a learn- 

 ed friend, the Attorney - general 

 thought it would have manifested 

 weakness in himself to have relin- 

 quished it. He could not forget 

 that they were the same govern- 

 ment who had endeavoured to 



excuse thrir own acts in requiring 

 prisoners to confess they had 

 done wrong, by giving security 

 for the peace. 



The Solicitor General began 

 his remarks by observing, that the 

 statement or the proceedings 

 which had taken place at Man- 

 chester was not fair with respect 

 to the hon. and learned gentle- 

 man. He had confounded those 

 Eersons who were brought up to 

 e tried for misdemeanors, with 

 those who were accused of high 

 treason. He must know that the 

 persons who had been arraigned, 

 and against whom no evidence 

 had been offered, were only those 

 who had been called " the Blan- 

 keteers." These men, though a 

 bill had been found against them 

 by the grand jury, had been dis- 

 missed, as the restored tranquil- 

 lity of the country made it unne- 

 cessary to punish them, it appear- 

 ing that they were weak instru- 

 ments in the hands of others, and 

 had besides suffered enough for 

 their past conduct. 



With respect to the trials at 

 Derb3', he said it was with sur- 

 prise he had listened to any 

 attempt to cavil at those proceed- 

 ings. From the part he had taken 

 in those prosecutions, it was with 

 reluctance that he alluded to 

 them; but thus far he could as- 

 sert wnth confidence, that no man 

 who had attended to those trials 

 but was convinced that a more 

 satisfactory judicial investigation 

 never took place. He denied 

 that the Attorney-general had 

 stated, in the first trial, that 

 he was in possession of proofs of 

 meetings having taken place at 

 which Brandreth was present, an- 

 terior to the 8th oi June. The 



Attorney- 



