“The indictment was very long, and contained many things which, in the language of the law, were called overt acts. They were not, however, because a great body of evidence had been given to them, to jump at the conclusion, that the substantive treason alleged had been committed. The sorts of treason charged were four in number: the first was founded upon the late statute of the 36th of the King, for conspiring to depose his majesty from his imperial style and dignity. It was now nearly 400 years since that statute, to which Englishmen had been wont to look with veneration as a protection for the dearest rights of man—he meant the statute of Edw. III.—had been passed. There, among other treasons set forth, was the conspiring to take away, or the compassing and imagining, or intending to compass or imagine the King’s death—but there had subsequent treasons started up. There was now another Act of Parliament in existence, which embraced not merely the compassing and imagining the King’s death; but the conspiring to depose him from his imperial style and dignity. It was also treason to conspire to levy war against his majesty. This was the question then which they had to try.
“First, had the prisoners at the bar conspired or imagined the death of the King; secondly, had they conspired to depose his Majesty from his imperial style and dignity; thirdly, had they conspired to levy war against the King; and lastly, had they actually levied war against the King? He apprehended that they must be satisfied that one or other of these charges was proved, before they could find a verdict ofguilty.
“Before he came to these topics, they would look to the probability of the evidence which had been laid before them. The great mass which had been adduced certainly led them to conclude that a conspiracy of some kind had existed; but it did not follow that the substantive treason charged in the indictment had therefore been committed. It did not follow, as a matter of course, that the removal of the administration of the King must be succeeded by the deposition of the Monarch himself. Let them go by steps. There was continually in Parliament one party endeavouring to remove another; that was to say, endeavouring to remove the existing administration. He would admit, probably with the best intentions.
“Would it be contended, that this removal of an administration was necessarily connected with the deposition of the Monarch, and that every man who attempted to effect such a purpose would be involved in the crime of high treason?
“Again, other men might think it necessary that an administration should be removed by violence; and this too with the most virtuous intentions. He desired not to be misunderstood, as meaning under that plea to justify assassination. Nothing was further from his feelings; but all he meant to argue was, that they must not take it as a necessary consequence that the death or destruction of a whole administrationinvolved the death or deposition of the King. If they (the Jury) were of opinion that it did not involve such a consequence, the evidence on this occasion did not support the substantive treason laid in the two first divisions of the indictment.
“There were two other treasons, however; one was the conspiracy to levy war against his Majesty; and the other, the actual levying of war. Now he called upon them to look to the evidence, and see whether they could draw from that a fair inference, that there was a conspiracy to levy war, and that what had been done amounted to an actual levying of war. In the detail given by the first witness, Adams, who in fact proved the whole case—he thought there was much more for ridicule, than for serious consideration. In his opinion, the testimony of this man was utterly incredible, independent of the fact of his being an accomplice.
“The Attorney-General had told them that an accomplice was a necessary witness; but though necessary, he was not of necessity to be believed. The more atrocious the guilt in which he had steeped himself, the less worthy he was of credit; and where a most atrocious and wicked witness came to tell them a tale, not only improbable, but most ridiculous in itself, would they not at once dismiss him from their notice?
“It often happened, that those who were the most ingenious in devising and promoting mischief, were the first to become informers; and that this was the case in the present instance, he should be enabled to prove. They would, however, consider the evidence which had been given by Adams to support the fact of there having been a conspiracy to levy war against the King. They would lay out of their consideration for a moment all that had been said of the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers; and they would consider the evidence as it had been given by himto support that conspiracy. They had here everything to raise their passions.
“They had all the materials and preparations for war before them (the arms on the table); but what was the result of all the discussions which took place at all the meetings of the conspirators from the 4th of February, in which the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers had been repeatedly debated?
“In the cross-examination of Adams, it appeared that one of the conspirators, Palin, had, with some degree of sense, when all those things were talked of, asked where the men were to come from to effect this mighty revolution? In one moment his Majesty’s Ministers were to be assassinated!—a detachment was to go and take possession of two pieces of cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane!—another detachment was to make a descent upon the Artillery-Ground!—a third party were to seize the Mansion-house, as a seat for the Provisional Government! and yet to effect all this, what was the actual strength of the conspirators in its most exaggerated state? Why, forsooth, forty men, two old sabres, six shillings, and a reputed pound-note!! Where an infamous witness told them such a story could they believe it?—was it credible? Would they take away the life of a man under such circumstances? If it were possible for them to do so, he could only say that they would be more insensible than the deluded men themselves.
“Then as to the other point, the actual levying of war; what a levying of war was, he hardly knew how to define. Lord Hale had said, that this was a question of fact, which a Jury alone was capable of deciding.—That learned Judge had also talked of “marching with unfurled banners, and being furnished with military officers”—but where were the unfurled banners here, or where the military officers?—The only militaryman they had heard of was one disbanded soldier, and the purpose to which he was to be applied was the destruction of his Majesty’s Ministers—an act which, he contended, even if effected, did not amount to a levying of war.—If they were told the contrary, he was sure they would treat such an intimation as absurd and ridiculous. Where was this great conspiracy concocted? In a two-pair back room! Where was the battle fought? In a stable! Where were the traitors incorporated? In a hay-loft! How were they armed? With a few rusty swords, halberts, and old pistols!
“He would put it to the plain common sense and understanding of the Jury, whether they would pronounce persons so assembled and so armed, guilty of levying war against the King? It was rather a levying war against the constables, at the very name of whom they trembled. Then, if there was no levying of war, was there a conspiracy to levy war? The only evidence they had of such a conspiracy came out of the mouth of those three witnesses who were so far contaminated, that it was beyond all doubt they had themselves been deeply implicated in the projected assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers.”
“The question, then, for their consideration resolved itself into this point: they would consider, even supposing that the assassination of the Ministers was intended, whether this of necessity implied that his Majesty was also to be deposed. If they did not think that the one must of course follow the other, then their verdict must be “Not Guilty.” He implored them to do their duty strictly according to law, to consider what the law of the country was, to step neither to the right nor to the left, but to come to a fair and impartial and unprejudiced conclusion. He implored them to do so, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the country; forif once jurymen suffered their feelings of indignation towards one offence to lead them to admit the existence of another of a different character, not proved, there would be an end of the due distinctions of justice. If this man had been guilty of another offence, there was another indictment against him, on which he must take his trial if he were acquitted of this: and if he were convicted under that, he would suffer the penalty of the law. But, upon this occasion, he called upon them not to find him guilty of High Treason, because they thought him worthy of death for having incurred the guilt of assassination.
“In conclusion, the learned gentleman said, he would proceed to call a witness to prove that Adams, who had been called for the Crown, together with an accomplice of the name of Edwards, who had not been called, were the persons who had conveyed the arms and ammunition to the house of Tidd on the very morning they had been found there by the Bow-street officers.”
Mr.Adolphusthen proceeded to call the
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
Mary Parkerexamined.—I am the daughter of Richard Tidd; I live with my father; I remember the police officers coming and finding some boxes and things in our lodgings; they came about half-past eight; those things had been in the house when they came, about a quarter of an hour; they were brought that morning; among them were the pike staves; it was no person in my father’s employment who brought them; he had been taken into custody the night before; I know a person of the name of Adams; I have seen him at my father’s; I know a person of the name of Edwards; I have also seen him there; he has been there often; I have seen similar things before the officers came; I believe these to be the samethings; Edwards took part away; I do not know who took the rest; he took them away on Wednesday; my father did not take them away; Edwards did not take away the box; he only took away some things that I have since heard were used; the box was brought a day or two before my father was taken; it never was uncorded; Adams brought a large grenade; I do not know what Edwards was.
The Attorney-general declined asking this witness any question.
Edward Hucklestoneexamined by Mr. Curwood.—I know a man of the name of Dwyer. I have known him for some years. Latterly I have known him intimately. I used the same public-house. I do not think he is to be believed on his oath.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—I saw him with plenty of money, and knowing that he had little or no work, I was surprised. I was in distress. He told me he would put me in the way to make plenty of money, if I would go with him. I agreed; and he proposed that we should charge gentlemen with an unnatural offence. That he was to go up first, and then I was to join him. I left him quite shocked. This was about three months ago. He said he had got ten pounds at a time from a gentleman in St. James’s-street, by only catching him by the collar, and accusing him. I met him the next night at the Rodney’s-head, and he called me a coward. I told him of the danger, and reminded him that his brother had been transported for the same thing. He said he knew better how to general it than his brother. I ought to have communicated it to a magistrate; but I was afraid of falling a “wictim” to the Irishmen who lived in the neighbourhood. I have spoken to him since. I was a shoemaker, but am now articled to a cow-doctor in Newman-mews. I first communicated this to my brother, about aweek ago. I did not mention it before, lest I might be ill-treated, as I had to go so much about among the cows. Some of the Irishmen have gone away from the neighbourhood now, and that induced me to summon up courage to mention it to my brother. I did go with Dwyer to the Park, but I was always struck with the horror of the thing. When I saw the names of the witnesses in this case in the paper, I made the communication to my brother.
(The witness was desired not to go out of Court.)
Mr.Joseph Doaneexamined by Mr. Adolphus.—I am called the Court Reporter; I prepare for the newspapers an account of the movements of the Court, the cabinet dinners,&c.I send the same accounts to six papers, among others toThe New Times, [Looked at the announcement in theNew Times, of the cabinet dinner, on Tuesday the 22d of February.] The intelligence respecting the Court in this paper I sent. The paragraph respecting the cabinet dinner, from the wording, I think I did not send. I think so from the use of the word “grand;” cabinet dinners are always alike, and I do not think I used the word “grand.”
Andrew Mitchell: I am printer ofThe New Times; I produce the original of the paragraph respecting the cabinet dinner, announced inThe New Timeson the 22d of February.
Mr. Doane recalled: That is not my manuscript; I always write from a manifold.
Andrew Mitchell: I did not receive that from Mr. Doane, but from a person of the name of Lavenue, who furnishes things in the same way.
John Whittaker: I searched in eleven newspapers of the 22d of February for the annunciation of a cabinet dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, and in none of those papers was there such an announcement as that inThe New Times.
The Attorney-General: These papers ought to be here.
The Chief Justice Abbot: Strictly speaking, they ought to be here.
The witness:The New Timesalone had the annunciation of the dinner at Lord Harrowby’s on the 22d of February.
Mr. Adolphus: This is all the evidence I intend to offer on the part of the prisoner.
Mr. Gurney: I wish, my Lord, that Dwyer should be again called.—The witness, Dwyer, was then again put in the box, and examined by Mr. Gurney: I do not know a man of the name of Hucklestone.—[The witness Hucklestone was desired to stand up.]—Dwyer: I know that man, but did not know his name was Hucklestone. I have met him in Oxford-road. Not in a public-house. I never proposed to him to charge any person with an unnatural offence. In February last I was at work at the parish mill, and got three shillings. I have a wife and family.
Cross-examined: I did not know Hucklestone by name. I saw him with other chaps at the corner of James-street, near where I live; but I never associated with him. I have seen him in Hyde-park. I never went into a public-house with him. I resorted to the Rodney’s-Head, but never knew him to resort there. I have not repeatedly met him in a public-house. I don’t know that I can swear I never saw him in a public-house. I will swear I have not been with him at the Rodney’s-Head within this three months. I am a bricklayer by trade, and worked fourteen years for one master.
Mr. Adolphus now entreated permission to be allowed till the ensuing day to prepare himself to address the Jury on the part of the prisoner. The state of exhaustion to which he had beenreduced, as well as the shortness of the time which had elapsed since he had received his instructions, and the great importance of the duty which he had to perform, where the life of a fellow-creature was at stake, the more imperiously impelled him to entreat this indulgence, if consistent with the views of the Court.
The Lord Chief Justice felt the propriety of the appeal, and after some conversation relative to the convenience of the Jury, the Court was adjourned till the following morning.
THIRD DAY,Wednesday, April 19, 1820.
The Court opened again at nine o’clock this morning, and a few minutes after Mr.Adolphusrose to address the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commenced by observing, that “he could not request their attention to the feeble and humble efforts which he was going to make in defence of the prisoner at the bar, without returning them his sincere thanks for the kind and gracious manner in which they had conceded to him further time for the preparation of his defence. Under all the circumstances of the case, the situation in which he (Mr. Adolphus) stood was sufficiently distressing; but it would have been still more so if he had been compelled to address them yesterday evening with a mass of evidence totally undigested, with a memory wandering over all, but steadily directed to none of the points which had come out during the trial; and without any of that simplification of the case which he had been able to effect, though imperfectly, in the few hours which, by their kindness, he had been able to steal from sleep.
“The inquiry in which they were then engaged was a most anxious and important inquiry: indeed, so anxious and so important was it that it was only natural to expect that the minds ofcounsel engaged in conducting it would sink under the heavy task imposed upon them. During the course of his professional career many trials similar to the present had taken place: but in none of them did the parties accused labour under such dreadful charges as were now brought against the prisoner at the bar; in none of them had they been so totally deprived of all assistance and support as the unfortunate individual had been on whose fate they now stood impanelled to decide.
“To say that he (Thistlewood) had all the weight of office arrayed against him—to say that the prosecution was conducted with all the talent and all the power of Government, was to say nothing more than that Thistlewood was indicted for high treason. He (Mr. Adolphus) meant not to blame the Government for exerting all its energies in a case like the present; by no means—the Crown had, on all occasions, and particularly on an occasion like this, a right to demand of its best servants their best services: he only meant to contrast the difficulties against which Thistlewood had to contend with those which had surrounded other unfortunate men in his situation.
“Against the great legal talent which had been employed against them by the Crown, there had come forward advocates of high character, and not inferior ability—advocates who voluntarily embarked themselves in the cause of their clients—gave up their whole time and attention to their interests, methodized and simplified the evidence necessary to maintain them, and entered the Court prepared to meet the case brought forward by the Crown on every one of its points and bearings.
“Far different was the case of the unhappy man then standing at their bar.
“On the evening previous to his trial he was scarcely acquainted with the name of the counsel who was to defend him: and that counsel hadscarcely more early information of the grounds on which his defence was to be rested. He (Mr. Adolphus) could assure them that he was only chosen counsel for Thistlewood on Thursday last; that unavoidable business had kept him out of town during the whole of Friday; and that he had appeared before them on the Monday with such information as he could collect in the interim. He deplored this circumstance, but he could not complain of it. His want of ability and preparation was not, however, the only circumstance which rendered Thistlewood’s case more desperate than that of the individuals who had formerly been placed in his situation. Many of them had been allied with, or supported by, men of power, and rank, and influence in the country. Thistlewood, on the contrary, was aided by no party, was supported by no subscription, but was deserted by men of every class and party in the community. He (Mr. Adolphus) had received no assistance, no information, no instructions, from him; all that he knew of the case was derived from the materials which the solicitor, the gratuitous solicitor for the defence (Mr. Harmer), had been able to collect within the last few days.
“Besides these circumstances was another still more extraordinary and unfortunate. At the state trials of 1794, whoever was discharged by a verdict of his countrymen was discharged at once from all further prosecution; and with the inquiry of that Court ended all inquiry into his conduct.
“This man, Thistlewood, however, was so beset, that, even though he obtained at their hands a verdict of acquittal upon this charge, he had to undergo a similar trial upon other indictments: indeed he (Mr. Adolphus) did not hesitate to say that he (Thistlewood) was surrounded by every danger which could possibly environ the life of a single individual. It appeared as if this melancholy choice alone were left him, whether he wouldhave the execution of his sentence end with the severing of his head from his body, or whether he would have his body given up after his execution to the dissecting knife of the surgeon. If his guilt were of such a nature as to demand that penalty to be added to the others inflicted by the law, he had only himself to blame for it: far was it from his (Mr. Adolphus’s) intention to palliate his conduct upon that point: the only reason which he had for even alluding to it was to implore them to place out of their consideration every circumstance which was not connected with the subject of their present investigation, and which had not been brought regularly before them in the course of the trial.
“The Attorney-General had made the same request to them, and it had well become his character and legal knowledge to do so. It was not less his duty as a man and as a Christian, than as a high officer of the Crown, to give them that advice: for, bound as he was to protect the interests of the Crown, he was not less bound not to exercise his power in wantonly running down those subjects, who were living under its fostering care and protection. Made, then, as this request had been made to them by the Attorney-General, he (Mr. Adolphus) could not help repeating it; for he was well aware how difficult it was to dismiss from the mind the impressions of ill-will and dislike which were naturally conceived against any one who was, or ever had been, the subject of general reprobation.
“On occasions like the present a man’s usual convictions stole into his mind, in spite of himself: it therefore became them to be doubly on their guard, and to view the case then under their consideration as if they had never heard the name of Thistlewood before, and as if they had never received any other information than that which had come under their notice in the course of the trial,upon which, and upon which alone, they were sworn to give their verdict. He agreed with the Attorney-General that the present was a case of infinite importance; not, however, to the prisoner at the bar merely, whose life was at a stake, (indeed in that point of view it was of less importance than in any other) but also to the state and to all posterity.
“It was of importance to the state that verdicts should be given upon strict evidence alone, and not upon favourable or unfavourable impressions conceived by the Jury regarding the party on his trial. It was of importance also to posterity; because if, as against a bad man, a certain kind of evidence should now be allowed to procure conviction, it would, in time, be also allowed to procure conviction against a good one; and, in that case nobody could tell whose fame might not be impeached, whose property might not be injured, whose life might not be destroyed, by the same kind of evidence as had been produced on this trial; evidence which ought never to have the credence of any jury, or the sanction of any court.
“It was not, therefore, so much for the value of Thistlewood’s life (though God forbid that he should undervalue the life of any man) as for the value of a precedent in a case of treason, that he was then contending; for if a charge of high treason could be substantiated against any British subject on such evidence as had just been adduced there would be an end to all our well-founded boasts of the excellence of our law regarding high treason. Such an event, however, he, for one, did not anticipate, when he recollected with what care the law of treason had been guarded by the legislature, and with what caution executed by our juries, ever since the period of its first institution. Nor was such caution, vigilance, and correctness, as had been always exhibited by ourjuries, with some few exceptions, and those in bad times, unnecessary or uncalled-for.
“An accusation of high treason was a fearful accusation. In all other criminal cases, from a simple assault up to a murder, the King though not the real, was the ostensible prosecutor: in a case of high treason, however, the King was not merely the ostensible but also the real prosecutor; he was directly arrayed against the prisoner, and therefore it was the imperative duty of the Jury to see that the subject was not oppressed. The present case of high treason was as important as any of those which had ever preceded it; and the Jury ought, therefore, to be peculiarly careful not to allow one tittle of evidence to weigh with them which had not been admitted on former occasions, and, if they had any doubts with regard to its admissibility, ought to lean to the prisoner, and not to the Crown, however interested they might be in its preservation, and the preservation of its authority.
“He had before had occasion to state to them, that the defence of the prisoner at the bar had come to him, in the course of his professional business, as an enforced duty. He had not sought it; he had not refused it; indeed, as an advocate, he could do neither one nor the other. Standing, however, as he did, in that Court, as the advocate, the unfee’d, and therefore, in some respect, the voluntary advocate of the prisoner Thistlewood, he deemed it right (unnecessary and improper as it might be on any other occasion for an advocate to press his own political opinions on the Jury) to state that, during the whole of his life he had never given his assent to any proposition tending to change the constitution, as established at the Revolution, either in church or state. He had been born a subject of his late most gracious Majesty; to him, whilst alive, he had paid asubject’s loyal obedience. He was now a subject of his present most gracious Majesty, and the allegiance which he had paid to the father he willingly transferred, as his due to the son.
“To the questions which had lately agitated the country, he had never lent himself for a single moment; on the contrary, he had always opposed, to the utmost of his power, every design of faction and innovation. Thus much he thought it necessary to state in the peculiar situation in which he stood; but making as he had that declaration of his political principles, he also felt, both as a man and as an Englishman, that he had a strong principle to advance and establish in this defence; and he therefore trusted that, if any persons were present who felt an interest in the fate of the prisoner, they would not think that he would relax, in his efforts on his (Thistlewood’s) behalf, on account of the difference of their political opinions. If any thought that he would relax, he was sorry that they should entertain such an opinion of him: he would, however, use every exertion to make a fair defence for the prisoner: if it were not conducted with ability, it would be not from want of intention, but from want of ability, which would be the prisoner’s misfortune as well as his own.
“The learned Counsel then proceeded to observe, that the line of defence which he found it necessary to pursue was the most difficult which it had ever fallen to the lot of an advocate to make good; and he should here be deficient in respect to the good sense and talent of the jury, if he pretended to assert that the prisoner at the bar was perfectly guiltless. He was afraid that it was but too evident that he (Thistlewood) and those with whom he was connected had meditated assassination, a crime which was little less horrible than the commission of it. He did notintend to palliate Thistlewood’s conduct in doing so—far from it: it was a crime not to be palliated: the very blood recoiled from it—the best feelings of human nature revolted against it, and the indignation and execration of society always followed it. Still he thought it possible that Thistlewood, though he might be guilty of murder and the other crimes imputed to him in the various indictments, might not be guilty of high treason. Unless, therefore, he was fully and clearly proved to be so, it was their duty to acquit him; and in so acquitting him, in spite of all the odium and prejudice which surrounded him, they would be doing honour to themselves, and benefit to their posterity.
“He was not weak enough to say this in any hope that, by flattering them, he should obtain their verdict; he should be sorry to obtain it on such terms; for if they gave a verdict for him against the evidence, they would be doing no honour to themselves, and a great injury to their posterity. He had once thought of stating to them, at some length, the nature of the law of treason, but he had afterwards found reason to change his opinion, it having been suggested to him that the law on that subject would come better to them from the Court. He should therefore proceed, before he entered into a minute examination of the evidence (on the general nature of it he had already made some comments) to state to them the nature of the indictment.
“They had heard the indictment read over to them, and would have perceived, unacquainted as they were with the technicalities of the law, that the same offence was charged against the prisoner, though somewhat varied in terms. There were four charges, or counts, to which he particularly wished to call their attention; there were to each of these ten or eleven overt acts, all ofwhich, it had been said, must be considered as shewing the intention with which the prisoner had acted.
“The prisoner was charged, in the first count, with “compassing, imagining, inventing, devising, and intending to deprive and depose our Lord the King, from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm.” The overt acts stated in the indictment were, conspiring to assassinate several of the Privy-Council; procuring large quantities of arms with intent to assassinate them; as also to subvert and destroy the constitution as by law established; issuing proclamations to the King’s subjects containing solicitations to aid and assist them in making and levying insurrection; and various other acts specified therein. Before, however, they found the prisoner guilty upon this count; they ought to be convinced that the intention to depose the King existed previously, and not subsequently, to the commission of these overt acts. For though they should be perfectly convinced that the prisoner had gone to Lord Harrowby’s house with the intention of killing the King’s ministers, that fact alone did not render him guilty of high treason: it was necessary that a treasonable intention should be first proved to exist.
“To meditate the assassination of a privy-councillor was certainly a crime of great magnitude, and by 3 Hen. VII. cap. 14., had been made a felony; and by a later statute, that of 9th Anne, cap. 16, to assault or attempt to kill one in the execution of his office was made a felony, without benefit of clergy. Thus it was clear that to kill a privy-councillor was not in itself an act of high treason, unless it were coupled with other acts tending to prove a treasonable intention previously existing in the mind of the prisoner. They must, therefore, before they brought in a verdict of guilty against him, be convinced of one ofthese four points: either that he did intend to deprive and depose our Lord the King from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm; or that he did intend to excite rebellion and insurrection within this realm, in order to subvert the government; or that he did intend to levy war against the King, in order, by force and restraint, to compel him to change his measures and councils; or that he did intend, with force and arms, to effect those purposes.
“These were the points which must be established before they could find the prisoner at the bar guilty of high treason; and what was the evidence produced to establish them? He did not hesitate to affirm, that never was evidence so weak tendered to prove charges so heinous. It was contradictory, it was inadmissible, it was incredible, coming from any quarter, but still more incredible, coming, as it did, from men destitute of all character, avowedly engaged in a conspiracy to effect a hideous murder, and therefore men of such a description as ought never to be allowed by their oaths to bring the life of man into danger at all. Before he proceeded any further, it would be requisite to call their attention to the degree of credit which ought to belong to an accomplice. The Attorney-General, in calling an accomplice as witness, had stated that he was to be believed, whenever he was supported by other collateral evidence. On this doctrine he would not comment just at present, but would content himself with observing, that it must be clear to all of them that the whole charge of high treason rested in this case solely on the evidence of an accomplice. For if the testimony of Adams were to be dismissed from their notice, there was not a single syllable said by all the other witnesses who had been produced, (so loosely indeed had they supported thetestimony of Adams) tending to convict Thistlewood of high treason.
“The question then came to this point, whether a charge of high treason ought to be considered as made out, which rested solely on the testimony of an accomplice, and an accomplice, too, like Adams. He maintained that it ought not, for if Adams were believed, no witness could hereafter be rejected as unworthy of credit, and consequently no man’s life or honour could be considered secure.” An accomplice, however, continued the Attorney-General, not indeed in those very words, but in words to that effect, “ought not to be expected to receive support on every point which he mentions in evidence, because if he were to receive such support, there would be no reason to call him at all.”
“It was true that the evidence of an accomplice might be believed under certain circumstances, that is, when he was supported by other more respectable witnesses; but then he must not be supported by only a few witnesses, but by all the witnesses which could be called to confront him. He would even go so far as to say that those who availed themselves of the evidence of an accomplice were bound to produce every witness acquainted with the facts to which he swore, not merely those who could support, but even those who were likely to contradict them. These persons were the solemn gages of his truth, and like witnesses to the signature of deeds, ought to be called forward for the common good of all parties. This was not merely his opinion, but the opinion of many eminent lawyers who had gone before him. Indeed he had read an opinion of one of them in a book, which he could not with propriety mention there; an opinion which was so much in unison with his own, though much more forcibly expressed, that he could not omit the opportunity of reading it to them. Theargument in it was clear and satisfactory, and the law was not more accurately laid down than it was forcibly expressed. The passage to which he alluded was as follows:
“‘An accomplice may be a witness; even unconfirmed, he is a witness competent to be heard.’—A witness of the most infamous character, unless he has been actually convicted of certain specific crimes, and the record is brought into Court, may indeed be heard; but it is for you, gentlemen, to determine what degree of credit you will give to his evidence. Let him be heard; let him be examined; I thank them for calling this witness: I thank them for submitting him to the admirable cross-examination of my learned friend: I thank them for stopping certain subjects of inquiry; all this must satisfy you, that no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. I am sure, that if this were a case not of the immense importance which it is; but if it were a suit instituted to decide the smallest question of civil right, that you would not attend or give the slightest credence to such evidence. But in a case of this nature and of this magnitude, in a criminal case, in a case of treason, in a case of the highest description of crime, and, with respect to its inflictions and penalties, the severest that the law recognizes; in a case of high treason, I say, to build your decision upon evidence of this character, upon such a witness, and such a treacherous foundation, is it possible that my friends on the other side can expect it; is it possible that they can hope, or even wish for it? Can you believe that they could have known the previous conduct and character of this man, when they brought him into Court? It would be an insult to your understandings; it would be an outrage to common sense; a mockery of justice, to suppose that the smallest degree of reliance can be placed upon such evidence.
“But it is said that he is confirmed; and because he is confirmed in some facts, you are therefore to believe him in the rest. This is a position which lawyers are in the habit of stating in a very unqualified manner; but it is not a position which can be maintained to this extent, according to any principle of common sense. There is no man who tells a long and complicated story, like that which you have heard, who may, and must not of necessity, be confirmed in many parts of it. The witness was upwards of eight hours in giving his evidence, and of course stated many facts, which no man denies, which have been in all the newspapers for weeks and for months past; and because he is confirmed in certain particulars, you are therefore required to believe the whole of his story to be true. Is this a proposition to be insisted upon? Can it for a moment be maintained to this extent, and in this broad and unqualified way? But, gentlemen, every profession and science has its phrases; the necessary qualifications are by degrees lost sight of, and the worst errors are thus introduced.
“Let us then look at the mischief of this doctrine, and see the evils and injustice that have arisen out of it. The notorious Titus Oates, the witness for the Crown in the trials founded upon the Popish Plot, in the reign of Charles the Second, that most infamous and perjured wretch, who was afterwards convicted of perjury for his evidence upon those trials, and suffered the punishment of the law for his crime, was confirmed in his testimony in many most important particulars. Unfortunately, the juries, misled in those times of heat and party animosity, were prevailed upon to believe him, and many unhappy persons suffered in consequence of the extreme punishment of the law; and murders were committed, under the forms of justice, in consequence of thereliance placed upon the frail and fallacious testimony of a man of that description. You perceive, then, gentlemen, the danger of this doctrine; and that it is not because a man is confirmed in certain circumstances that you can safely believe him, as to other facts where that confirmation is wanting.
“What is the character of falsehood? Who has lived in the world, and has at all examined the operations of the human heart and mind, who does not know that this is the usual and proper character of falsehood—that it does not wholly invent, falsehood engrafts itself upon truth, and by that artifice misleads and deceives, truth is exaggerated, things that exist are discoloured or distorted—these are the usual operations of falsehood; this is a part of its nature, its address and dexterity. It arises, therefore, out of the very nature of perjury, that it must be confirmed to a certain extent; and it is because there is confirmation in certain particulars, to which particulars I shall, by-and-by, take the liberty of drawing your attention, that you are gravely required to believe the whole of the miserable fictions with which you have been insulted in the evidence of this abandoned wretch.
“But let us look with a little more accuracy to the shades and distinctions upon this material point. I beg you to follow me; for it is most important, according to my apprehension of the question. A man may be seduced into the commission of an offence, who had previously maintained a good character; he may repent of his crime, and give information, and then come into court as a witness. If the story which he tells is found to be probable; if he is not only uncontradicted in any facts, but is confirmed in essential particulars; if there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the situation in which he stands, a jury, may, possibly, upon suchevidence, be justified in finding a verdict of guilty. I repeat it, that if the previous character of the man were good; that if the story he tells is probable; if it is not proved to be false in any part of it; if he is confirmed in essential particulars, and there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the persons with whom he is connected, and by whom he is surrounded, then the Jury may give credit to his evidence.
“He could not help observing, that, if he had desired the best friend whom he had in the world to enlarge his mind by the infusion of good sound legal opinions, or to compose for him a dissertation on this express subject, that friend could not have given him any sentences so adequate to the expression of the sentiments which he wished to convey to the Jury, as were the sentences which he had just read to them. He could have wished to have given them the book which contained these sentences to keep in the box with them, but the practice of the Court prevented him from doing so; he would, however, ask them to retain them, if they could, in their minds, as a shield of protection for the prisoner, against a man, who ought not to be believed on any one point, but who had interwoven with his falsehoods many truths, which he had acquired either from common report in common conversation, or which had been impressed on his recollection by the injunction of those under whom he acted.
“The next step which he had to take, would be to comment on the evidence, but before he entered into an examination of it, he should beg leave to describe the nature of the defence which he was going to make. He thought it, therefore, his duty, to say at once, that no doubt could be entertained of Thistlewood having been at a meeting in Cato-street, and that he, with the other members of that meeting, had determined to murder all the Cabinet Ministers. To entertain adoubt of the existence of the meeting, or the sanguinary designs which those who attended it entertained, would be full as absurd as to doubt the existence of light now that the sun was casting its full radiance upon the Court. Whilst that meeting was in deep deliberation, it was interrupted by the arrival of a party of police officers. In the affray which ensued, Smithers met his death, or, he ought rather to speak out plainly, was murdered.
“Making, however, these concessions, and admitting the facts to be as bad as bad could be against the prisoner at the bar, believing even, as he did believe, that Thistlewood was guilty of the murder of Smithers, still he maintained that his guilt did not amount to high treason. He would admit, that from motives of a personal nature, Thistlewood wished to kill one of his Majesty’s ministers; and that, in order to effect that purpose, he had no objection to kill them all. The Jury ought, however, to recollect that, whilst influenced by this wish, he had always been accompanied by two spies: how far they had advised these plots was not clear, but one thing was clear, that, upon such evidence as theirs, they were called upon to convict Thistlewood of high treason. That he had been guilty of murder he (Mr. Adolphus) was not now going to dispute; but it was too bad that the crimes of murder and treason should now be blended together, and that he should be represented as meditating a crime which he never had for one moment in his heart.
“He had already stated to them, that if Adams’s evidence did not convict Thistlewood, none else did, for the evidence of the other witnesses was little or nothing. If, therefore, he shewed them, as he hoped and trusted he should shew them, that the witness Adams was totally unworthy of belief, then a verdict of acquittal must be givenfor the prisoner at the bar. In order to convince them how totally undeserving he (Adams) was of credit, he (Mr. Adolphus) should beg leave to direct their attention to three points. He should ask them how far Adams had been confirmed in that part of his evidence which related to the treason; then how far he had been contradicted by his own evidence, or that of others; and, lastly, how far he might have been confirmed by others, if the Counsel for the Crown had thought proper to call them.
“What then was the testimony which Mr. Robert Adams had given to them? He (Mr. Adolphus) would tell them. The man had commenced his evidence by informing them, that he had been a soldier some years in the Blues. That any subject of the King should entertain such schemes as had been entertained by these alleged conspirators, was certainly deplorable; but that a man in the situation of Adams, a soldier, sworn to defend his Majesty to the best of his ability from all harm and danger, should have voluntarily entered into them, and should never have felt any of what he (Adams) had termed compunctious visitings as to the guilt in which he was going to involve himself, until four days after the execution of that guilt had been rendered impossible, was a circumstance so atrocious as to deprive him of all claim to credibility and respect.
“This loyal soldier, however, proceeded to inform them, that he had become acquainted with Brunt about three years ago, when the British army was at Cambray, at which time Brunt was attending it in the capacity of a shoemaker. After the dispersion of the army he lost sight of him for some time, but afterwards met him again in the month of January last, when Brunt introduced him to Thistlewood. Then occurred one of the most extraordinary circumstances which he (Mr. Adolphus) had ever heard of, though it appearedto be nothing else than the fashion throughout the whole of this case. At his very first meeting with this Mr. Adams, Thistlewood let him into the whole secret of his traitorous designs. But could any one believe that Thistlewood himself was so reckless of life, as to use language to a stranger equivalent to this?—‘My fate is so hard, my circumstances are so desperate, that I care not a straw what becomes of me. I put myself, and all my designs, into your hands, without any regard to the consequences; and yet those designs are so horrible and so sanguinary, that if you have the slightest portion of loyal feeling about you, you must denounce me to Government, you must hand me over to justice, you must embrace the opportunity which I have given you of condemning me, without any scruple, out of my own mouth.’ Was it possible that any man in his senses could be thus blind and foolish? Could the most credulous man alive be persuaded to attach credit to so incredible a story? He thought not; and he therefore trusted, that on such evidence, they would never find the prisoner guilty of high treason.
“But though the prisoner, and those with whom he was connected, had not meditated so great a crime as treason, the evidence inclined him to believe, that after the perpetration of the bloody deeds which they meditated, they had intended, under shelter of the confusion which such atrocities would have created, to have commenced a general plunder and devastation of the metropolis. Such an intention, though it enhanced their guilt, did not make it amount to high treason; and, indeed, any person who carefully perused the evidence, would observe that it tallied well throughout with a design to plunder, but very ill indeed with a design to depose the King and to alter the form of Government. For what was it that Mr. Adams next said? Why, after someconversation as to his excellence as a swordsman, Thistlewood is represented as saying, ‘No man worth 10l.was worth any thing for the good of his country. The tradesmen and shopkeepers of London were a set of aristocrats together, and all worked under the same system of government. He should like to see the day when all the shops should be shut up and well plundered.’ Why, the whole intent of their conspiracy was disclosed in this sentence. Here was nothing about depriving the King of his style and dignity; but there was a good deal about plundering the city. Their arms, too, were fitted for this purpose, but not for overturning the Government, as must have been evident to all, from the miserable display of their armory which had been so ostentatiously made on the preceding evening. Therefore, unless they could suppose, that to murder the man whom they hated, and to plunder the shops during the trepidation ensuing on such murder, amounted to a deposing of the King, they must acquit Thistlewood of high treason.
“At another meeting, this formidable band of traitors declared that they were so poor, that they could not wait longer than the ensuing Wednesday for the effecting of their intended revolution. He left it to the jury to say, whether such a declaration savoured more of plunder or of high treason. But, in his opinion, a scheme of plunder was the only thing which could be thus easily arranged; not a revolution in the state, which must depend upon many fortuitous events and circumstances. After this, their conversation became sportive; they gave certain facetious nick-names to certain distinguished noblemen; how justly it was not their business then to decide. This occurred on the 13th of January, just one month and ten days before the transaction in Cato-street. What occurred next, according to the testimony of therespectable Mr. Adams? Why, that three days afterwards he was himself arrested for a small debt, and carried to Whitecross-street prison, which residence he did not leave until the 30th of January. Was this man, who could not even preserve his liberty, more likely to be found engaged in a design to destroy the state, or in a design to commit pillage and plunder, to enrich himself? He had nothing to lose, he had every thing to gain; and if the worst came to the worst, he had only to save himself, and hang the rest of his companions, by turning King’s evidence against them.
“After Adams had got out of prison, he returned to his old friends, and had several conversations with them, at all of which Edwards was present. He wished to call their attention to this curious fact, that Edwards, who could have proved all the conversations which had taken place—Edwards, whose name was placed on the back of the indictment as a witness to be summoned on behalf of the Crown, had never once been put into the box. Shortly afterwards they took a room to themselves, and had meetings in it twice or thrice every day. Adams attended them all, became acquainted with all their projects, made himself an active partner to all their intended atrocities; and yet, though a soldier of the King’s, never disclosed a syllable of them to any of the constituted authorities until he was apprehended. What next? Why, between the 3d and the 16th of February, another conversation occurred; and then this plot is described as assuming, for the first time, a treasonable shape, ‘One evening,’ says this respectable witness, ‘I went in and saw Harrison, Thistlewood and Brunt: Harrison said, that he had been speaking to one of the horse-guards, who had told him that the whole of their regiment would be down at Windsor on the King’s funeral. He said thatthis would be a favourable opportunity tokick up a row, and to see what could be done.’ Kick up a row! That very phrase explained the whole matter—all the troops would not, indeed, be out of town, but all the officers of police would, and therefore it was a favourable opportunity to kick up a row, and to commit depredation. ‘Thistlewood’ continued Mr. Adams, ‘said that it was a good plan; and, added, that if they could get the two pieces of cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane, and the six pieces in the Artillery-ground, they would so help themselves as to have possession of London before morning. He also said, that when the news should reach Windsor, the soldiers would be so tired from being up all night, as to be incapable of doing any thing when they returned to London.’ In possession of London! Why this fellow, with his military education, ought to have known that he could not take military possession of any single respectable street in the metropolis with ten times the number of men said to be engaged in this wild attempt to overthrow a mighty empire. For were their numbers unknown? No—their whole battalia was well known to consist of not more than twenty-five men; and yet, with this mighty force, and with eight pieces of artillery, they were to be able to keep possession of London, because the poor dear soldiers would be tired to death by being kept up on duty a whole night at Windsor. Were such idle dreams and dotages to be credited in a court of justice? or were they to be dismissed from their recollection with that scorn and contempt which was so eminently their due?
“Adams then represented Thistlewood continuing as follows:—‘By persevering after they had got the cannon, and by using some activity, they might go to Hyde-park and prevent any person or messenger from going to Windsor, and giving the alarm. Another party should then cross thewater, and take the telegraph, to prevent any communication being made at Woolwich of what was going forward at London.’ The man who devised such a plan, might, indeed, be considered as mad—but at least there was method in his madness. Roads were to be commanded in this, important diversions operated in that direction, telegraphs to be seized in one town, and soldiers paralyzed in another. All this, too, was to be done by twenty-five men and eight pieces of artillery, who were to be gifted, in addition to all their other qualifications, with the most wonderful ubiquity.
“That a wicked man, or that even a madman, might devise such a project, he could easily believe; but that any man should propose it as a feasible project to any body of men, was more than he could ever be induced to credit. For no story of oriental romance was so extravagant—no exploit of any hero of school divinity was so inconsistent with reason and probability, as was the design which Adams had shown to have been recommended by Thistlewood to his associates. And yet these men were to form a provisional government, and the forming of this provisional government was to constitute a chief point of their guilt! They form a provisional government for this mighty empire! In what way? by what means? out of what materials? Out of those illiterate and beggarly individuals, he supposed, who could not agree on the drawing up, on cartridge-paper, of three lines, to be exposed on the great day of the revolution on the blazing buildings of London, for the good of the people.
“This provisional government, formed from such materials as he had described, was not to begin the exercise of its authority, however, until the soldiers, who were to be tired to death by sitting up all night at Windsor, were fairly disposed of. From his talking thus coolly of tiringthe poor soldiers to death by the labours of one night, it was quite clear that Adams, with all his military education, had either never heard of such a thing as a bivouac, or else that he had conceived all virtue and all valour, as well as all honesty, to have left the army when he quitted it. The provisional government being formed, it was only natural to expect that the business of the drama would crowd more thickly upon the Jury, and therefore they might be excused for asking what came next. Why, the provisional government was to send to the sea-ports to prevent any gentlemen from leaving England without passports: it was to send to Dover, to Brighton, to Margate, to Ramsgate, and other places, orders to that effect; to send to all of them, too, during the night of the King’s funeral—and, above all, was to send these orders to Brighton in particular. Why so? because the mention of Brighton brought the prisoner at the bar into contact with the reigning Sovereign, and laid a foundation for a charge of high treason.
“The King, however, was not at that time at Brighton, but unfortunately confined to his palace in London by so severe an indisposition as to require the issuing of daily bulletins regarding the state of his health. From that indisposition he had now recovered, and he (Mr. Adolphus) prayed to God that he might long be preserved from the recurrence of it. The prisoner at the bar, however, if they were to believe the testimony of Adams, was of opinion, that the present family had inherited the throne long enough, and that it was of no use for the present King to think of ever being crowned.”
The learned Counsel proceeded, “Thus, gentlemen, is the secret detected! Here is the word of the wise and the edict of the powerful! By means like these was the greatest metropolis in the world to be taken, the great roads ofcommunication with the country occupied, and the sea-port towns seized! Yet, by this shameless fabricator of incredible falsehood, and by him alone, is the first count of the indictment supported. It required the greatest human fortitude of face to state it. Well, it was discovered that the first Cabinet dinner was to be given. Cabinet dinners were said to be suspended during the death of the late King, and the illness of the present. On occasion of this first Cabinet dinner the plan was to be executed. Mark, now, how this story breaks itself to pieces!
“On the 16th of February the plot is formed; yet then there was no ministry, and no intention of a Cabinet dinner. This is flagrant, gross, and palpable, too palpable for detection, too flagrant for exaggeration. Several meetings are said to have been held at Fox’s-court. It was found, on the 19th February, that the soldiers had done their duty, and were not to be surprised, therefore something new must be devised. For this purpose comes the ever memorable information inThe New Times. They had nothing in view but plunder; they sought only the surest way to plunder. Poverty was their goad, plunder their aim. Their designs were not directed against any individuals, however exalted, but as means of plunder. But a committee was appointed, and we see them assembled on the 20th. This is eminently worthy of your attention. On Sunday, at eleven o’clock in the morning, when the snow fell so thick that one could scarcely see his way, the committee met. Tidd took the chair at this rehearsal of the provisional government. Tidd sat in the chair with a pike in his hand. Thistlewood took his station on his right; Brunt was on the left; Thistlewood opens:—‘I presume you know what you have met here for; I mean the west-end job.’ This is presumptuous enough, certainly. Brunt speaks next: he neverspeaks without an oath, and he, characteristically, says, ‘D—n my eyes, mention it out.’ Tidd calls to order. So orderly was this meeting! Thistlewood then proposes to assassinate the ministers separately, as they cannot be got together.
“Their arrangements for this are like all the other arrangements; barracks were to be taken, cannons carried away, ministers assassinated, government subverted, the Mansion House occupied, all by fifteen or twenty men. Twenty-five were the greatest number ever spoken to. Twenty-five would find themselves completely lost in the Mansion House; they might as well wander through the Tower of Babel. Palin, who was to be particularly important in his services, was to travel from place to place with satchels of burning materials on his back, and was alone to set fire to several places. Mr. Palin alone was to be seen wandering about, setting fire to houses for amusement, or for the perfection of their plan. Each individual was to have his distinct act of assassination; whoever failed was to be himself assassinated. But who the spare assassin was, to assassinate the rest if they failed, was not told. But this is one of the many fictions which you are called upon to swallow.
“The witness ventured, for the first time, to express here some difficulty, and asked whether, if failure proceeded from unavoidable causes, and not from cowardice, the same consequence must follow. Thistlewood relieved him from this apprehension. But how the court-martial was to be formed to try the case was not discovered. Such, gentlemen, is the delirium of delusion, or the suggestions of frenzy, which you are called upon to believe. Mr. Palin delivers a speech in parliamentary form. ‘Agreeing as I do with the plan proposed, I wish to know where men are to be found.’ Then he asks whether theplan is to be communicated to those he meant to call upon. Thistlewood authorizes him to use his own discretion. Gentlemen, if you find in this testimony some remote pointing to probability, believe it; but can you, for a moment, hesitate respecting this gross and flagrant fiction? Furnival’s Inn was selected for setting fire to. No building is less liable to be burnt. It is a modern building, and there are strong party-walls. Other places, which I shall not name, and where some of us live, would be much fitter. Many places between Furnival’s Inn and Fetter-lane, all timber, would take fire at once. But Furnival’s Inn appeared fittest in fiction.
“The witness had been in prison, and having forgotten that Furnival’s Inn was rebuilt, and inventing what he should say to the Privy-Council, he represented Furnival’s Inn as the place to be burnt, because, in its former state, it would readily take fire. The Privy Council, their clerk, as well as the Attorney General, I believe, gave him no assistance; they only placed him before an impartial jury. You know that if the plan were contemplated and effected, a chandler’s shop at Charing-cross, where the various communications diverge into the town, would create more alarm. But this suited the grossness of fiction, or the fondness of delusion, by which this witness looked for impunity and reward. We now come to the business of the exchequer. Brunt says, “D——n my eyes, though I have not worked for some time, I have a 1l.note, and I shall give it for a treat.” You will not, gentlemen, suppose that I repeat these oaths as feeling pleasure in doing so. It is painful to me, and disgusting to you; but, in my humble judgment, it is not a needless repetition.
“Suppose Brunt’s generous purpose accomplished, it will give a slice of cheese, a piece of bread, and a glass of gin to each. It appears that 6s.was the largest sum seen with them:there was 1s.on another occasion; there was 7d.for a newspaper, 7s.7d.was the treasury then. Whether this and the prospect of sharing in the produce of a 1l.note, could induce fifteen men to subvert the Government, I leave you to judge. Nothing stimulated them, then, but the hope of plunder. When they should have done something to create alarm, they expected to have full liberty of plunder.
“Thus have I endeavoured, gentlemen, by hours stolen from my rest, to lay before you the real character of their intentions. My Lord will fairly state the law to you; I need not, therefore, anticipate any thing on that subject. At the meeting on the 21st, information is said to have been given that their proceedings were known at Bow-street, and at the Secretary of State’s office. We might have had evidence whether this information could be well founded, but we have none. Next day, the 22d, the cabinet dinner is announced. Who announces it? Mr. Edwards. This corresponds with what is in evidence before you, that the intelligence was fabricated, and put into the paper for this purpose. “Poverty goads on these men; it is fit,” said the prompters, “that we put them on to what will serve our own purposes.”
“The Court reporter himself did not know of the cabinet dinner. He has told you, that the word ‘grand’ could not be applied by him, as one cabinet dinner was not grander than another. You see, then, how it has been fabricated. I will here once more allude to the execrations of Brunt, and from this time dismiss them from your observation.
“The Attorney General animadverted properly on the impiety and obduracy of heart which the language of Brunt indicated. If it was true, his infamy baffles description. It is, that up to that moment he had been an infidel, but he had beenpraying to God, and he now believed, because his prayer was answered. Such are the words uttered by the fiction-making witness’s mouth. ‘I have prayed to God, in whom I did not believe, to put in our power innocent men, who are highly favoured in this world.’ These are the fictions of a gross, rank, ignorant, conspirator; they defy the grasp of human investigation; they almost persuade us to believe them, because they are impossible. We are almost led to say, as one said on another occasion, ‘I believe it, because no man would invent what is so incredible.’ But, on a question of life and death, gentlemen, you will not listen to such fictions; you will not regard such fantastical decoys. Perforated by the witness’s own act, his creation sinks to the bottom of the sea; it can form neither buoy nor vessel—it is sunk and destroyed for ever. But he is an infamous witness who cannot be believed at all. You find himself next in the chair; and when one turns upon him like a bull-dog, and another like a bear, he remains firm.
“It was then resolved to have a watch set upon Lord Harrowby’s house. This was certainly done, and was a part of the plan which was undoubtedly formed to murder his Majesty’s Ministers. But after that should have been done, so barren were they of invention, that they were to fall back on their old plan of carrying away cannons without horses; of occupying posts without men; and of performing great deeds without any means.
“Provisional Government! Unless the pronouncing of these words were to ‘raise spirits from the vasty deep,’ I know not what it could mean. A printing press, one would have thought, was indispensable. But no means of printing a placard had they. Their proclamations were written on a piece of cartridge paper. I beg pardon, let me not understate the means possessedby them; on three pieces of cartridge paper were the magical words written. ‘Your tyrants are destroyed.’ Ministers were the tyrants then. Be it so. This is not high treason. It might have been murder; but it is not high treason. ‘The friends of liberty are invited to come forward.’ If this were told by a witness deserving of faith, it would stagger belief; told by one tainted as this witness is, it can excite no inclination towards faith. On the blazing building, I think I am correct in stating it so, these proclamations were to be stuck up, in order that the friends of liberty, happening to pass by the ruins, might know that a provisional government was sitting, we know not where, or for what purpose.
“Is it possible, gentlemen, to sacrifice human life upon evidence like this? Is it possible to credit evidence that has no point of contact with common sense? The Provisional Government, dropped from the clouds, is sitting: the finger-post is destroyed, with the blazing building to which it was attached; you know not where the Provisional Government is to be found.
“The witness stated, that Ings, the butcher, was arrayed in a belt and two bags. The articles which were exhibited to you last night are removed from the table to-day. The bags were to carry human heads. If there is in the human mind any thing so atrocious as to crown assassination with an exhibition like this, I am truly, truly heart-struck with sorrow for it. I was led to review the French Revolution, to which allusion has been made by the Attorney General, and at that early age every drop of blood in my body was chilled with horror at human heads paraded through the streets, and at the atrocious barbarities inflicted on the royal family. I rejoiced that the country to which I belonged was free from such crimes.
“From the hasty view I took of the bags, andit did not occur to me till I left the Court, but from the hasty view I took, I think they are not large enough to contain a human head. I am told that they are: if so, I only say it has the impression of a hasty view. But, for God’s sake, let us not decide by these ignorant visions. Was not Lord Harrowby’s plate, the salvers and goblets, &c., a more natural object of desire, and not heads, which, if any carried, every hand would instinctively strike him from the face of the earth? The hand of Lord Castlereagh was to be put into pickle, whether in order to be shewn for money, as might appear suitable to the situation of Ings, or to be exhibited as a trophy, does not appear.
“The witness says, when the officers entered the loft in Cato-street, they cried out, ‘Here’s a pretty nest of you,’ &c. I shall afterwards remark upon this, because I think it pregnant with importance as to the witness’s testimony, for I think he was not there at all. With the experience which you have had in courts of justice, some of you may have felt astonished that my learned friend did not proceed further into the cross-examination of this witness. Every art has its own difficulties, and my learned friend never shewed more consummate skill in his art than when he refrained from further cross-examination of this witness.
“When my learned friends, the Solicitor General and Mr. Gurney asked questions of this witness, which were the natural and regular inquiries, you heard him refuse to answer, and add, ‘No, I have something else to say before I come to that.’ When their experience and judgment suggested the proper questions, he would not let his contrived and fabricated tale be mutilated. ‘No,’ says the untractable witness, ‘I have not come to that yet.’ If my learned friend had wasted time in cross-examination, he could only have got repetitions of the same words. Such testimony is not to be overthrown bycross-examination, but by his manner before you, and by the probability of the statements he makes. But this important declaration was got from him by cross-examination.
“When my learned friend asked him, in the words quoted by the Attorney General from a great poet, whether he had given information from ‘compunctious visitings,’ he replied, that conscience alone made him disclose what he knew. He is quiet from the murder of Smithers on Wednesday night till Saturday, when he plumes his wings, and goes to the Privy-Council to disburthen his heart. I have had a good deal of experience of the evidence of such persons; and I have heard one, who was chairman of the quarter-sessions for Middlesex twenty-six years, say, that, from the moment that observation was made by an accomplice, he was not to be believed, because that was incredible. Apply that here. He sees the murderer, and goes away, unconcerned as if nothing had happened. He rests on the stings of his conscience for four days. He must think that you have no hearts yourselves—no consciousness of the operations of human feelings—if he imagines that you can believe what no schoolboy would give credit to.
“Have I used levity upon this subject? for God’s sake, absolve me from the intention! Have I treated lightly the contemplation of assassinating men possessing and deserving the highest veneration? For God’s sake, excuse the observations which the absurdity of the evidence made necessary! I cannot hear, without indignation, that the wisdom which has so long presided in one of the most important of our Courts, was thus to become a corpse; and that the valour which fought at Waterloo (for the Duke of Wellington was to have been at the dinner) was to have fallen by assassins. From these two take the measure of all.