Sedition Claims in 1734 Burghers Memorials Debate
A lengthy parliamentarian style defense disputes sedition claims tied to the 1734 Burgher actions. It rebuts charged leaders and argues the memorials misstate seduction, urging evaluation of Trembley’s plan, and asserts no real conspiracy existed while defending magistrates and the state.
MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE
Frere
Cannan
Mio
Jaboug
Genslemer
Beton
Calijons
Zurich
Beta
Tinene Jone Trimbley
Sieur John Trembley
Sieur Decarro
Burghery
Bank of
Recbeeti¢n
Ibaai Sosellenn -Gies
Repub
Pall
Also Mentioned on This Page
Geneva
Lurich
Bern
Moslustrious
Eiéutenault
Artit
Amnafly
Port News
Cain of Bucks
Webb
Thomas, Webb
Butley
Somerset
Fountain Tavern
Strand
George Maifey
Flanders
Duke of Marlborough
Four Guards
Bow-street
Covent-Garden
Holland
Peyton
Southwark Bridewell
Surrey
Guildford
Daniel Johnson
Vanaitha
Clare
Oxaiar
Hackley
Stansly Abbey
Coventry
Edward Lord Leigh
Baron Leigh
Stonely
Wawick
Sirhomas Leigh
Oxford
Edward Lord Leigh Maried
Mary
Thomas Holbeech
Fulomghy
County of Warwick
Eig
Elzabeth
Bernard Paulet
Gites Panter
William Marquess
Winchester
Hark
Thomas
Leigh
Edward
Charles Reigh
Ely
Bedford
Tewksbury
Gloucestershire
Bromley
William Bromley
Lisbon
Oporto
Bamburgh
Linney
Linnen
Jamaica
Calgissoon Gunées
Ireland
Spain
Bruges
Dunkirk
Iran