EUROPEAN MAGAZINE, AND LONDON REVIEW, For DECEMBER 1792. ACCOUNT of Mr. THOMAS HOLCROFT. WE gave an account of this writer European Magazine, vol. I. p. 48. given, but as complete a lift of his writings as we have been able to collect. DRAMATIC WORKS. COMEDIES. 1781. Duplicity. 1785. Follies of a Day, from Beau marchais. 1787. Seduction. 1791. School for Arrogance. MUSICAL PIECES SET BY SHIELD. 1777. The Crifis, or Love and Fear. After-piece, not printed.. 1784. Noble Peafant. An Opera. 1785. Choleric Fathers. An Opera. 1780. Alwyn. .NOVELS. 1785. Tales of the Caftle. flations.. TRANSLATIONS FROM THE FRENCH: 1783. D'Obfonville's Philofophical Ef- 1786. Sacred Dramas. TRANSLATIONS FROM THE GERMAN. vater. POEMS. 1777. Elegy on the Death of Foote. 1783. HumanHappinefs; or, The Sceptic. †The Editor recollects having feen him in the chara&er of Figaro, on the first appearance of The Folies of a Day, Fffz SOME ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL OF MR. THOMAS PAINE FOR A LIBEL, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1792, AT GUILDHALL, LONDON. THIS trial lafted fix hours, and it is impoffible for us to do justice to the admirable fpeeches of Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Erskine but by giving them at full length, which would occupy too much room in our Magazine, and therefore we must content Ourselves with the general outlines of them. Mr. Percival opened the pleadings on this information, which (tated, "That Thomas Paine, being a wicked, feditious, and ill-difpofed perfon, and being greatly difaffected to our Sovereign Lord the King, and to the happy Government and Conftitution of this kingdom, as established at the Revolution, published a falfe and fcandalous libel of and concerning the faid Government and Constitution, &c. which libel fhall be afterwards ftated." To this the defendant had pleaded, Not Guilty. Mr. Attorney General laid before the Jury what appeared to him a plain, clear, and indifputable cafe. Had it not been that bertain circumstances had rendered it of more expectation than ordinary, he should have literally contented himself with reading the different libellous paffages from the Second Part of the publication called the Rights of Man, and left them to the judgment of the Jury, without faying one word upon them; but the accumulated mischief which had arifen from this libel, had rendered it Receffary that he should fay a few words. In the first place, a report had been propagated, that the present prosecution did not accord with his private fentiments. He wished to refute that report, and declared, if it had been true, that he should no longer have been worthy to hold his prefent fituation, but to be expelled from the fervice of his Sovereign, and of the public. He certainly thought it his indifpenfable duty to bring this ENORMOUS OFFENDER before a Jury of his country. He obferved, the publication in queftion was not the first of the kind which this defendant had fent forth into the world. He bad published what is called the First Part of the Rights of Man, which, though it was extremely reprehenfible, he had overlooked on this principle, that he did not wish to prevent any kind of fpeculative difcuftion from coming under the public eye. But another was ushered into the world ftill more reprehenfible, which had been fpread over every part of the kingdom with incredible industry, and thrust into the hands of all defcriptions of perfons in this country. Even children's fweetmeats were wrapped up with parts of it. The most inconceiv able induftry had been exerted to obtrude this book on the minds of the public, who were not converfant with such subjects, and of which they could form no proper judgment. He had therefore thought it his duty to put a charge on the record against the author of this Work. He should state what he conceived the intention of this writer to be, and they would afterwards confider whether they were not fatisfied that it deferved that defcription which his duty obliged him to give it. In the first place, he imputed to it a delibe, rate intention to vilify and difgrace, and thereby to bring into abhorrence and contempt, the whole Constitution of the Government of this country as explained at the Revolution -that fyftem of Government under which we had the happiness to live at this day. By thefe means the fubjects of this country might be impofed on to their own deftruc. tion, and be diffident of that which was their falvation, and upon which every thing that was dear to them depended. He imputed to this book a deliberate defign to bring calamity on this country, by destroying that love which we had hitherto had for our Conftitution. He imputed to the Defendant, that he had reprefented the regal part of the Government of this country, bounded and limited as it was, as OPPRESSIVE and AB0MINABLE tyranny; and he farther imputed to the Defendant, that he had reprefented the Legislature of this kingdom as a direct ufurpation. With refpect to the laws, they, without one fingle exception, were founded on this ufurpation, or, to use his own words, there was little or no law in this country. Thus it was held out to a community confifting of ten or twelve millions of people, that there was no law that bound them except thofe obligations which arofe from morality and religion. According to this defendant, we had no law to defend our lives, our property, or our reputations; but were reduced back to a ftate of nature, where the weak are a prey to the ftrong, and where there is no fecurity to property, nor to any thing that is dear to man. This, therefore, was the fweeping imputation on all our laws, that they were null and void. He imputed to the defendant artifice, in order to create disgust to our Constitution, by ftating pure and fimple Monarchy and Aristocracy repeatedly, without having chofen to fay one fingle fyllable of them as combined with Democracy. Farther, he took no notice of unbalanced Democracy, which was accompanied with Democratical Tyranny. Instead of reasoning, he dictated. And And to whom was all this addreffed? To the ignorant, to the credulous, and to defperate perfons, who were always pleased with hearing that there was neither Law nor Government. The ignorant and credulous in all countries were an easy prey to the crafty, who were ever ready to deceive them. The Jury would alfo confider the phrafe, act, and manner of this author. He dealt in thort fentences, and in fcoffing and contemptuous expreffions. Our Constitution had not existed for 700 years, as defcribed by this defendant, but almost from eternity. The origin of it could not be traced. Julius Cæfar had described it as it exifted when he appeared among our rude ancestors. It had proceeded from step to ftep till it was confummated at the Revolution, when it shone forth in all its fplendor. The Attorney General then read fix or feven paragraphs from the pamphlet to the Jury, upon which he animadverted with great ability; he dwelt a confiderable time upon the paragraph in which Mr. Paine calls the Bill of Rights "a bill of wrongs and infults." He also read a letter fent to himself (the Attorney General) upon the fubject of the prefent profecution. This letter is dated from Paris, and in it Mr. Paine avowed himself the author of the RIGHTS of MAN. In the concluding part of this letter, were feveral treasonable reflections upon the KING of ENGLAND and his ROYAL SONS. Mr. Attorney General dwelt upon this part of the letter with great emotion and indignation, which infpired very perfon in Court with the feelings of loyalty and affection to their Sovereign. The Attorney General concluded his excellent fpeech with a number of ingenious and important obfervations on the libellous matter which he had felected from the Second Part of the Rights of Man. Mr. Attorney General having finished his important obfervations on these paffages, obferved, that he thought it unnecessary to trouble the Gentlemen of the Jury further in this stage of the business. According as they should or should not be of opinion that this book had a dangerous tendency, would be their verdict. He had done his duty by bringing an offender of this fort before the Gentlemen of the Jury, and thereby putting the Public under the fhield of their protecείσαι. Several witneffes were examined, who proved the hand-writing of the defendant, and, that he was the author of the pamphlet in question. hours and twenty minutes long, in favour of the defendant. After a number of most ingenious obfervations on the letter written by his client to the Attorney General, he remarked, that his name had been attacked, and bis character torn to pieces for maintaining the freedom and integrity of the English Bar, without which the most valuable part of this Conftitution would be loft. He was entitled by the Law of England to plead the cause of the defendant, and he only fought a verdict for his client from that Law. The question to be decided was, not whether the Conftitution of our fathers under which we lived, was or was not preferable to the Conftitution of America, France, or any other human Constitution; in the nature of things, that could not be the question. Suppose he addreffed himself to Gentlemen who were not friendly to our Conftitution, and who thought that we fhould be happier under a Republic; he fhould have no difficulty to tell fuch Gentlemen, that they could not on that ground find their verdict for the defendant. He should inform them, that they had no authority but what was conferred upon them by the Law of England. The Gentlemer, of the Jury are therefore to enquire, whether the defendant, in publifhing this book, had been guilty of an offence against the Law of England. The learned Counsel faid, he well knew he was addreffing himfelf to Gentlemen who were in love with the principles of our Conftitution; and he gave them the benefit of knowing that which was not neceffary then to state, because he had done it in another place-that he profeffed himself to be, and always had been, a man who loved and admired the genuine principles of the Euglish Conftitution; and therefore, what came from him came from no fufpected quarter; and he meant to defend his client on the principle of the Liberty of the Prefs." The true queftion for the decifion of the Jury was, When the defendant wrote his book, Did he or did he not believe he was doing that which would be beneficial to the English nation at large No matter whether the abufes which he ftated exifted or "not. No matter whether the English Conttitution was fuperior to the Constitutions of America, France, or any other country on the face of the globe: yet if Mr. Paine helieved that it was not, and under the in The evidence being finished on the part fluence of that belief publifhed his "Rights of the profecution, Mr. Erskine delivered a fpeech of three of Man," for what be conceived would tend to the benefit of the English nation, he conceived |