t was intended by the sentence, "to talk of the British
Constitution, &c." There was in the country a constitution not like the
Spanish Constitution, created in a day; but matured by the sense of ages,
altering and adapting it to times and circumstances until it became what
was a practical and not theoretical system of liberty. The learned
counsel had made some observations upon what had fallen from Lord
Colchester in the House of Commons; such observations he thought
irregular, but he permitted them sooner than it should be said that the
defendant, to use a familiar expression, had not "fair play." He did not
want the authority of Lord Colchester with respect to these corruptions,
because he had evidence of it in a case in which he tried twenty-four
persons for such practices. But was it the meaning of the passage, that
there was corruption in the House of Commons? No, the expression was
that the laws (which were corrupt enough to bring to punishment persons
guilty of those practices) were corrupt. Was this true? If there were
anything for which this country was more distinguished than another it
was the equity of the laws, and it was for this that the laws of England
were extolled by all foreigners. The writer could not mean the borough
of Grampound, or any other borough, when he said that corruption was the
oil of the system. When the writer said he did not "at that moment speak
of insurrection," what was his meaning? Why that insurrection would not
do then, but at some future time they might, when satisfied of their
strength, take advantage of all circumstances. As far as he understood
the nature of the Manchester and Stockport Rooms they were for
instruction, and if the writer did not go farther, then indeed would the
pamphlet be harmless. "Delay some time." "Have such meetings as those
at Manchester and Stockport; be assured of your numbers, and you can
overpower the Government." There could be no doubt that these passages
were libelous. The next question was, whether the defendant had or had
not published the libel? and it was in evidence that these copies were
purchased at two different times. The jury were not to take into
consideration the former conviction; and he could assure the jury that no
greater severity would be used than was sufficient to restrain this
licentiousness, which, if not restrained, would overturn this or any
other Government. The revolution recommended by this pamphlet would