The head of treason applicable to the facts of the case under consideration is the third in statute 25 Edward III. c. 2, which concisely declares it to exist "_if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm_." This has been the law of the land for just five centuries, _i. e._ since the year 1351. But in the application of these words, of fearful significance, the object with which arms are taken up must be a GENERAL one--"the _universality of the design_ making it a rebellion against the state, a usurpation of the power of Government, and an insolent invasion of the King's authority"--"under pretence to reform religion and the laws, or to remove evil counsellors, or other grievances, whether real or pretended."[6] Or, to adopt the definition of Mr Kelly, in addressing the jury in this very case, it is necessary to prove "that the prisoner levied war against her Majesty, with intent by force to alter the law, and subvert the constitution of the realm."[7] To appreciate the position of the prisoner, and the difficulties with which his counsel had to struggle, it may here be mentioned, that he admitted the prisoner to be a Chartist, as it was called--that is, a supporter of the following five points of sweeping change in the political institutions of the country,--"Universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, no property qualification, and payment of members of parliament." This was also, during the trial, avowed by the prisoner.[8] Having thus got a clear view of the law, let us briefly indicate the _facts_--the palpable, notorious, leading facts, known to be such by the prisoner's counsel, as soon as they had perused their briefs.