“When the destruction of worth and wisdom, of learning and talent, is thus contemplated, the most hardened and flinty heart that ever dwelt in a human bosom recoils with horror, and melts with compassion.
“If then, I have used a light expression, impute it, gentlemen, to inadvertence of language, and not to hardness of heart, because the absurdity of the witness made the observations I offered unavoidable.
“Let us now see how far this witness is supported by other witnesses. Mary Rogers proves his statement as to the lodgings; Joseph Hall confirms him to a similar extent. Lord Harrowby and his servant confirms him so far, as to prove the intention of giving his cabinet dinner on Wednesday night. Of this there is no doubt. Hyden is proved to have spoken to his Lordship in the Park. Three witnesses are called, which was not necessary, to prove that the room in Cato-street had been taken; but the parade of confirmation in this matter is meant to cast an air of credibility over other parts of the evidence. I now advert to collateral confirmations. The sharpening of Ings’s sword, the acquaintance of Harrison with the state of the barracks, the redeeming of a blunderbuss from pawn for murder, not treason, have been all proved.
“It is true, Hyden and Dwyer are not accomplices, they are to be believed, if their testimony is credible. Hyden long ago, before his late Majesty’s death, states to Wilson, with whom alone he was acquainted, that grenades were to be thrown under the table, and that those who should escape were to be killed with the sword. But he mentions no ulterior object deserving of the name of treason. Whatever the object might be, Hyden goes first to Lord Castlereagh, who was the object of their peculiar spleen; then not finding him, to Lord Harrowby. But what the natureof their plan was you may judge from this that, Wilson would not, for the accomplishment of it, lose a shilling or half-a-crown to be gained by going with cream to a nobleman. He knew that no such thing as a revolution was to be done. This, gentlemen, is not the way that kings are destroyed, and governments overthrown.
“I do not say that the question should not enter into your consideration, but I say that you cannot find a verdict for the Attorney General, if you do not believe Adams; and I have laboured very much in vain, if you have not dismissed his evidence from your minds. Monument has not in the slightest degree confirmed Adams as to the proceedings previously to those in Cato-street; and he has no memory of having ever seen so remarkable a man as Adams at Cato-street. Monument knew nothing of the murder of Ministers, and the expectation of plunder as the consequence of its effects on others.
“You have next the very extraordinary and very irregular evidence of Dwyer. He, according to his own account, is a very modest bricklayer, and has for thirty years served one master. His conscience told him, and he told Thistlewood, “It is a very hard thing for me to inveigle the minds of men.” A man who had such notions of right and wrong, ought to have told him that it was very wrong to murder. He gave information to Colonel James within an hour of the time the communication was made to him on the 23d of February. Colonel James advised him to go to the Secretary of State. He tells that Thistlewood was in five or six revolutions. I don’t know Thistlewood’s history or revolutions. [Here the learned Council read large extracts of Dwyer’s evidence.] Here is evident intention of riot, but nothing of a revolution; and it is remarkable that there is not a tittle of mention of a Provisional Government.
“The whole fabric of treason falls to the groundlike the card-house of a baby. Adams sees not what is done in Cato-street. Monument sees not Adams, and is not seen by Adams. Dwyer sees neither Adams nor Monument on any occasion. Monument, like Wilson, is so cold in the cause, that, when he has a pair of shoes to mend, he pays no attention to the plot. This is not evidence on which you can believe the existence of treason.
“As a plot, it is beneath the attention of Government.
“That plan of assassination which has filled the nation with horror, was such, that nothing can be too effectual to guard against it, and the utmost vigilance of the magistrates ought to be exercised to prevent a mischief so nefarious from finding shelter in society. But I will say, in the words of a great writer, that ‘the chirpings of the grasshoppers disturb not the stately ox, who grazes unconscious of their noise.’ So is it unworthy of the Government of this country to prosecute as traitors some dozen of ragged beggars, impatient of extreme poverty.
“I shall point out to you in what points Adams is materially contradicted. Here you will remember that one contradiction is of more importance than ten thousand confirmations. Confirmations to any extent, only prove that the witness spoke truth to that extent; one contradiction proves the unprincipled contempt of an oath, and the wilful fabrication of falsehood.
“The learned gentleman again adverted to the meetings which were held in the house where Brunt lodged, and asked, ‘was it not strange that the landlady, Mrs. Rogers, should have known nothing of those frequent meetings, where so many persons attended, and where such noises were made as had been described. Would not the Jury think it a very singular circumstance that the landlady should have been ignorant of all this passing in her own house?’ Let the Jury now lookto the account given by Adams of what passed in Cato-street. He stated that there was only one candle lighted. The officers, however, proved that there were eight, and that they were all put out on the firing of the pistol. He was equally incorrect in describing what was said. It was not as he swore, ‘there is a pretty nest of you.’ No; for the evidence of the officers themselves went only to the words,—‘We are officers, lay down your arms.’ He (Adams) knew when in prison, that something was said by the officers, and he made that account which he thought the least likely to be contradicted.
“What would the Jury infer from those contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence; but, that he was a man who respected neither God nor his Gospel, and who swore to that which he knew to be untrue. Would they, under such circumstances, attach any weight to his evidence? But he (Mr. Adolphus) would come to another part of his evidence, where he was not only contradicted with the account given by others, but where he was inconsistent with himself.
“It would be recollected, that he swore to Strange being present at the meetings on two occasions; yet, when Strange was put to the bar he could not recognise him—not point him out whom he swore to as having been present at two meetings held in the open day. Was this the man upon whose evidence the Jury could return a verdict, which would affect the life of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar.
“He now begged the attention of the jury to another part of the case. They had heard of the name of Edwards in this case; this man, who lived at 166, Fleet-street, who afterwards lived at Ranelagh-place, why was not this man called? He was not an accomplice in any criminal degree, as must be inferred from theconduct of Government in letting him go quite at large. Why was not this man called? They would then have the spy to support the testimony of the informer. He could tell the Jury why; because it was remembered what had been the effect of calling a witness of a similar description on a former occasion. The witness then produced underwent a long and able cross-examination from the Counsel employed for the prisoners, and the result was, that he and his testimony were put out of Court together, and had no other effect on the minds of the Jury, than to convince them that the whole was a fabrication.
“If Edwards had been called, he would have told the Jury how this case had been got up; for he was well acquainted with the whole machinery of it. It would be recollected, that it was he who made the fusee for the hand-grenades; what would the Jury infer from his non-appearance, but that the whole of this case, as far as related to the charge of high treason, was a fabrication destitute of any foundation whatever.
“He would now come to a part of the statement made by the Attorney-General in his address to the Jury. He had said, that he supposed a part of the defence would be, that the Jury should discredit the whole of this story, from its great improbability. He (Mr. Adolphus) had never any such intention, nor did he think, that the youngest advocate at the bar would have attempted such a line of defence.
“To deny the existence of a plan, however wild and visionary, on the ground that it was improbable, would be to go in the face of the most authentic historic authority. He would take as an example one of the most familiar cases on record. The Earl of Essex, it was known, in a moment of moody displeasure with Queen Elizabeth, did not contrive a regular plan for displacing her from the throne, but in the instant herushed forth into the streets, at the head of some few of his followers, and endeavoured to stir up the citizens to rebellion; imagining that the people might be induced to second his scheme, and effect in a moment that which he had madly fancied.
“This was a most wild and visionary plan; but, if we were reject it on the ground of its improbability, we should be blotting a page from our history, the truth of which was never before doubted. No, it was not his intention to deny the existence of the present plan, on the ground of its improbability, but he wished the Jury to disbelieve the witness, on the ground of the improbability of the plot as he had described it. When, in the course of yesterday, they saw the pikes, and swords, and pistols and guns, and hand-grenades, which were taken from the prisoners, or at their houses, no doubt they might have felt some alarm.
“They might have participated in the feelings of some persons who were near him at that moment; one of whom said, he should not like to have one of those instruments presented to his breast. No doubt; nobody would like it: but let the Jury seriously consider, how those instruments were to be applied. If they took the twelve hundred rounds of ball-cartridge which were said to have been taken, and divided them by twenty-four, they would find that they had just ammunition enough only for fifty men; but where were those fifty men—or if they were in existence, where were the arms to use this ammunition with? They had only seen a few guns and pistols, and putting them together, there was not sufficient for a party to commit more than an ordinary highway robbery with. Could it be supposed that it was ever intended to upset a government, and dethrone a sovereign, by such means? Was there, taking the evidence of those who appeared before them, recollecting thatothers who might have been called were kept out of the way; was there, he would ask, sufficient to shew that the object of the prisoners was to upset the government and constitution of this country? He thought he could shew, that their object was quite of another description.
“Let the Jury look at the situation in which the prisoner at the bar stood. They had, as was stated by the Attorney General, often before heard of him. He had, not very long before the present transaction, been released from Horsemonger-lane prison, where he had been confined in consequence of a letter sent to my Lord Sidmouth. He came forth from that prison with rancorous feelings against that noble lord, and probably against others of his Majesty’s ministers; would not such a man be a fit subject to work upon, in proposing an attack upon the lives of those ministers? Must not the Jury suppose that the other prisoners would have heated feelings, after the transaction which took place at Manchester? He would not offer any comments upon that transaction, further than to say, that all which was said and written upon it, was not without an effect; and, on the minds of the prisoners, would it be strange, that an artful and cunning man might work such an effect as to excite them to the murder of his Majesty’s ministers, which would not of itself amount to high treason? With their feelings worked up, some of them with strong personal enmity against some of those ministers, they had determined upon making an attack upon several of them at their houses.
“They were in this state, when forth came the never-to-be-forgotten announcement inThe New Times, placed there by the hand that was to betray them, that a Cabinet dinner was to take place on the Wednesday following at Lord Harrowby’s. Did not the whole of their conductshew that it was against the ministers themselves that the attack was intended, and not against the government, or with a view of effecting a revolution? and was there not proof, that this personal feeling was excited by some of the recent transactions at Manchester to which he had alluded? What was the speech which Ings was to have made on the arrival of the party at Lord Harrowby’s house, where the ministers were expected to be assembled? ‘My lords, you see we have got men as good as the Manchester yeomanry;’ and then, turning to his associates, ‘Citizens, advance, and do your duty!’
“During the whole of these proceedings, nothing was heard of any intended attack upon Carlton-House, or upon any of the branches of the illustrious family of Brunswick. There was no such thing. The whole which their preparations and intentions embraced, were—first, the murder of his Majesty’s ministers, and then robbery. This was the object of setting fire to some houses, that plunder might be obtained in the confusion which might be thereby created.
“These, to be sure, were heinous crimes, but they did not amount to the charge of high treason against the prisoners. The setting fire to buildings, with the intention of robbing in the confusion which the fire would create, was not, unfortunately, a novel case. He was old enough to remember, and perhaps some of the jury might also recollect the circumstance of the setting fire to the premises of a timber-merchant, in order to rob a pawn-broker’s shop, which was close by it. Indeed, the manner in which some of the prisoners had spoken of the shopkeepers of London, shewed that their object was plunder, and it appeared that bags were made for the purpose of holding such plunder.
“He had now gone through the whole of thepoints on which it was his intention to trouble the Jury. He had done so, perhaps, imperfectly, but he would not apologize for the time which he had delayed them. He had not, on this occasion, all the preparation which was desirable. On the contrary, he had but a very short notice of the duty which he was to perform; and, he remembered, on a former occasion, that one of the most learned Counsel at the bar expressed his inadequacy to a similar task, though he stated, that he had occupied a month in preparing for the defence.
“In pleading for the life of the unfortunate man at the bar, and, after him, of the other prisoners, it was not too much for him to ask the Jury to consider well the nature of the evidence which had been given in support of the charge of high treason. He now, however, left the case entirely with the Jury. If they thought, under all the circumstances, that there was evidence sufficient to prove the charge, then he should submit; but if, on the other hand, they were of opinion that the case was not made out, or that it was not proved to their satisfaction, they would, he was confident, acquit the prisoner.
“The learned gentleman again expressed his own inability to give the Jury a perfect direction on this important trial; and concluded by praying that God might direct and enlighten their minds on the awful occasion, so that they might administer impartial justice, always remembering that the highest attribute of justice was mercy; and that, whether the result of their verdict should be, that the prisoner would only have a week to live, or run out his days to that length to which Providence might please to extend them, it would be dictated by justice, tempered with mercy.”
TheLord Chief Justicenow addressed the prisoner, and said, if you wish to offer any thingfor yourself, in addition to what has been said by your Counsel, you are at liberty so to do.
Thistlewood.—I wish, my Lord, to have two witnesses examined to the testimony of Dwyer. There is a man in Court who will prove that Dwyer extorted money from him.
TheLord Chief Justice.—You must not state that; you should have consulted with your Counsel. The time for giving evidence is now past.
Thistlewood.—I will waive it then, my Lord. I have nothing further to offer.
TheSolicitor-Generalnow commenced his reply. He said, “That in rising to address the Jury in support of this prosecution, he felt that he had a most anxious and painful duty to discharge. As the servant of the public on this occasion, it was his duty to perform the service with which that public had intrusted him to the utmost of his ability and power. He was anxious, therefore, that nothing should be omitted on his part for the purpose of presenting this case in a fair and proper view before them. At the same time, he felt anxious that, in the prosecution of what he was about to state, he should not misrepresent a single fact, far less a single argument, against the prisoner, or offer an observation which the justice of the case might not fairly warrant.
“He begged leave to join with his learned friend (Mr. Adolphus) in praying the gentlemen of the Jury to dismiss from their minds all prejudices and impressions unfavourable to the prisoner, and to confine their attention solely and undividedly to the evidence which had been laid before them, on the oaths of the witnesses whom they had heard. In saying this, he was aware that it was superfluous and unnecessary. He was addressing an English Jury—a body of men sworn to administer justice to the public on theone hand, and to the prisoner on the other; and he ought to apologize for suggesting a doubt, that, in the discharge of their momentous duty, they would not keep their eyes steadily fixed on the evidence, upon which the fate of the person at the bar must ultimately turn.
“The situation in which the prisoner then stood was an admirable proof of the excellent system of our laws, and of their being built and formed upon the principles of liberty and freedom. They had had it not only proved in evidence, but admitted by the Counsel for the prisoner, that he had projected and harboured in his mind the assassination of the confidential servants of the Crown.
“They were aware of the passions and prejudices which were excited by this discovery in the public mind, and they saw that this prosecution was not commenced, nor was the unfortunate man placed upon his trial, until an opportunity was afforded for those passions and prejudices to subside. Independent of this, he was entitled to the delivery to him of all the particulars of the accusation which he was called upon to answer; and these particulars had been delivered to him at a period so far back as three weeks from the present time. This indulgence was granted to him, in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting Counsel as to any point of law, or any objection which might arise in his favour; and in order also that he might bring forward such testimony as might be necessary to his defence. He had also a list of all the Jurymen, who could by possibility be called to sit on his trial, and these he might reject, without assigning a cause, to the number of thirty-five.
“On this account he was justified in saying, that the Jury whom he was then addressing, whatever might be the result of their deliberations, was a Jury of the prisoner’s own choice. The prisoner, also, had received a list of the witnesses who wereto be called by the Crown. That list was furnished in order that he might have an opportunity of inquiring into the previous character, history, and conduct of every witness who might be called against him, and for the purpose of enabling him to impeach their character, if his inquiry should enable him so to do. Such was the benevolent spirit of the British law; and such the advantages to which a man, placed in the situation of the prisoner, was entitled.
“The charge against the prisoner was, that of having conspired to overturn the Constitution under which that system of Government existed. It was a question whether the substitution of the Government which he might have contemplated, would have been distinguished by a character of so admirable a description. He had no doubt that the Jury would pay that anxious and careful attention to this case which its importance demanded, and that they would not come to a verdict of Guilty, unless they were satisfied that that verdict was justified by the clearest evidence. But, at the same time, he called upon them to perform their duty, fearless of all consequences; to turn neither to the right nor to the left, but to pronounce such a verdict as was consistent with a proper feeling towards their country, and with a due regard to the solemn obligation into which they had entered.
“With respect to the law upon the subject, it was not necessary to trouble them with any observation. In the charge against the prisoner there was nothing of a difficult or questionable description. He was charged with conspiring for the purpose of overturning the Government of the country, and with endeavouring to accomplish that by means of the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers. If the Jury, upon a due and careful examination of the evidence, were satisfied that he had so conspired, and that he had been foundtaking measures to accomplish that object, then, in point of law, he was guilty of the crime imputed to him. It was admitted on all hands that a plot had been formed to assassinate the Ministers of the King, and not to assassinate one, two, or three, of those individuals against whom the prisoner might be supposed to have some personal enmity. The blow had been aimed not against one, but against all.
“The Jury would consider whether such an intention was founded with a view to overturn the Government of the country; or, whether, as had been fancifully surmised by the Counsel for the prisoner, the sole object had been the plunder of private property, and the gratification of private revenge. They would look with jealousy to the testimony which had been adduced before them, and upon that they would conclude whether the steps which had been taken were directed by the desire of promoting revolution, or solely with a view of obtaining plunder in the confusion which would necessarily follow.
“In considering the evidence of an accomplice, they would naturally look to his previous character; they would see whether there was any thing in his former course of life, from whence to conclude that he was a man capable of pursuing a continued and undeviating course of crime; but, above all, they would consider from all the circumstances of the case, what degree of credit ought fairly to be given to his evidence. He knew of no law that applied to accomplices, which did not apply to every other witness who came into a Court of Justice.
“The evidence of every witness ought to be examined with care and jealousy, and in proportion only as his story was consistent with probability was he entitled to belief. Now let them look to the fair test upon which the evidence of Adams was to be tried. His character, up to the timeof his entering into the diabolical schemes of the prisoner, was unimpeached; and, if any thing could be urged on that score, no doubt the prisoner Brunt, with whom he had been intimately acquainted, would not fail to have adduced it. In so much, therefore, he stood upon fair and eligible grounds.
“Then they would ask themselves, what interest he could have in stating that which was not true? The more criminal the plot which he disclosed, the blacker hue he gave to his own reputation; and, added to this, he knew that, from the candour and correctness of his confession could he alone hope for mercy towards himself. Then he must be aware, that if he stated that which was false, his story was capable of contradiction, and therefore altogether fruitless. So that, in every point of view, he was a competent witness. As was before said, however, the Jury still had the power of exercising their own sound discretion, and of placing in him only that degree of confidence which he seemed to deserve, and which the confirmation he had received fairly justified.
“The learned counsel for the prisoner had made use of the gratuitous expression, that this man, Adams, was the only witness to prove the case. Was this the fact? Were there not three other witnesses who all spoke to the same occurrences; he alluded to Monument, Hiden, and Dwyer; the two latter of whom were, in all respects pure and uncontaminated; for what had been said of Dwyer was absolutely beneath consideration. These men were all unknown to each other—had never seen each other—and yet they all agreed in their story as to the plan for assassinating his Majesty’s Ministers, seizing cannon, providing arms, burning houses, and establishing a provisional government. Independent of these, a variety of other witnesses had been examined,who spoke to points trivial in themselves, but all confirmatory of Adams, and, as it were, completely dovetailing with the most minute parts of his story.
“This was the case with regard to Brunt’s apprentice; to the landlady of the house in which Brunt lived, and her daughter; to the officers by whom Brunt’s house had been searched; and even to Tidd’s own daughter, whose story was precisely consistent with the plan which had been detailed, but which had been so providentially frustrated. In fact, each witness formed a link in the general chain, which was complete in all its parts. But there was a still stronger argument in favour of all that had been stated, and that was, that it had not been contradicted by evidence, although such evidence was capable of being produced. For, if what Adams had disclosed was not true, why were Potter, and Cook, and Palin, to all of whom he spoke as having been present at the various meetings which took place, and who were eligible witnesses for the prisoner, not called.
“The absence of these men afforded an additional reason for giving implicit belief to all which the witnesses for the crown had said. The learned gentleman then proceeded in a luminous and eloquent strain, still farther to illustrate his argument, and with great ingenuity to contend that it was impossible, under all the circumstances of the case, for the Jury to come to any other conclusion than that the several charges of high treason imputed to the prisoner had been established beyond all doubt. If, however, as had been said by his learned friend (Mr. Adolphus) any doubt did exist, to the benefit of that doubt the prisoner was fully entitled.”
Lord Chief-Justice Abbot proceeded to sum up. “This, he said, was an indictment against Arthur Thistlewood, the prisoner then at the bar,and several other persons, who, in the progress of the trial, had appeared at the bar, in order to be identified for the crime ofHigh Treason. That offence had truly been stated as the highest crime known to the law. It was so, because it did not merely produce individual and private evil, as most other crimes did, but, in addition to that, it created great and extensive public mischief.
“A charge so grave and serious required therefore, at the hands of an English Jury (and would, he was sure, from what he had seen, receive) the most mature and patient consideration. The charge, as it stood in the indictment, consisted of several counts. First, conspiring and imagining to depose the King; 2d, conspiring and imagining to put the King to death; 3d, conspiring and imagining to levy war against the King, in order to compel him to change his councils; and 4th, actually levying war against the King.
“Two of these offences, conspiring the deposition of the Monarch, and levying war against him, were declared to be treason, by a statute passed so long ago as the reign of Edward the Third. In the construction of that statute, it had been held, not only in many cases decided in this country, but also in the opinion delivered to us by various learned writers on this law, that all conspiracies and attempts to depose his Majesty, and all conspiracies to levy war against him, were treasonable, and must be considered as overt acts, proving an intention to take away his life; because, as historical experience showed, the death of a sovereign generally followed the loss of his kingly authority.
“But, in order to remove any mistake that persons might fall into on this subject, a statute was passed in the reign of his late Majesty, similar in substance, and nearly so in language,to statutes that had been enacted in former years, but which had expired. By that statute, the conspiring or compassing to depose the King, or to levy war against him, were declared to be substantive treasons. Some of the persons called before them on this occasion were represented, and truly represented, to have been accomplices in this traitorous design. This character did not, however, apply to all the witnesses who had been brought forward.
“Much observation had been made on the degree of credit that ought to be given to persons, who admitted that they had joined in the design. On this point he should only say, that, according to the law of this country, and, he believed, of every other country, accomplices were considered competent witnesses; but the credit that should be given to them was matter of consideration. The evidence of an accomplice was to be weighed, with reference to the probability of the story he told, the confirmation of it, so far as it was capable of confirmation, and the absence of that contradiction which might be adduced, if the story were false.
“There was, however, no rule of law which said, that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be credited; neither was there any rule of law which declared that it must be rejected. To declare the latter would be to open the door, and give the greatest latitude and impunity to crime. For, as had been said by the learned counsel for the prosecution, if such a doctrine were acted on, bad men would feel that they might proceed in their base designs with perfect security, and they would trust each other without reserve; whereas bad men now distrusted each other. They were afraid of detection; and that distrust prevented the commission of many offences which could not be perpetrated without the assistance of several persons.
“Having made these general observations, to direct their attention to the evidence, he would now, some hours having elapsed since the witnesses were heard, read to the Jury such parts of the testimony as were necessary for their consideration in coming to a decision. [Here his Lordship proceeded to recapitulate the evidence, briefly commenting on it as he went on.]
“The first witness was R. Adams, who undoubtedly stood in the situation of an accomplice. But, if the story he told were false, there were several persons mentioned by him, and they could have been brought forward to disprove his statement, and to discharge themselves of the crime imputed to them, if they were innocent, but whom the Crown could not compel to appear. This witness said, that the officers, when they entered the room in Cato-street, cried out, ‘Here’s a pretty nest of you; we have a warrant to take you all;’ and the officers swore they only called out, ‘We are officers—surrender.’ This difference was not material. The two expressions were nearly the same in import; and, in the scene of confusion which undoubtedly occurred on the entrance of the officers, it was very possible that a mistake might arise as to the exact expression used.
“That part of the evidence, in which Adams described his irresolution, gave, his Lordship observed, the exact picture of a man of weak mind, not knowing whether he should go on or recede—balancing whether he should remain true to his associates, or make a discovery—and who, when taken into custody, did come to the resolution to disclose all he knew. If his testimony were true in substance and general effect, it proved not only a determination to assassinate his Majesty’s Ministers, but shewed to them that that was only a part of a more extended and general plan, which embraced the seizure of arms, the takingpossession of the Mansion-house, and the forming of a Provisional Government; a plan formed on some vain expectation, that, if the blow were ever struck, there were a great number of people in the metropolis who would readily join in the scheme, and levy war against his Majesty. Such an expectation was vain then, and he hoped would ever be found so when such treasonable attempts were made.
“This witness mentioned a man, named Edwards. Why he was not examined his Lordship could not say. Perhaps the prosecutors did not wish to call him for very good reasons. How far the Jury would disbelieve Adams on that account, it was for them to say. What he had remarked on the evidence of this witness, he was sorry to say, was considerably against the prisoner. As to the character of Adams, before this transaction, they knew nothing. No person had said any thing about it. Hyden was a witness of a very different description; for he, it appeared, disclosed all he knew, early enough to prevent the mischief that was meditated.
“John Monument, another accomplice, corroborated Adams. He stated that the prisoner said to him, ‘Great events are at hand; the people everywhere are anxious for a change.’ This observation shewed that the assassination of Ministers was not the sole and only object of the parties. The evidence of Thomas Dwyer, as far as it went, confirmed the testimony of those who were examined before him. If his statement were correct, the prisoner told him the general plan and object which he and his associates had in view. These were the four witnesses called to explain the designs of the accused parties. Two of them were accomplices; but, in general, none but accomplices could be acquainted with such foul and illegal designs. The two other witnesses did not stand in the same situation.Communications were made to them, on the subject of the conspiracy, it appeared, with little reserve;—a circumstance of which the Jury were to judge.
“A great many other persons had been called, chiefly for the purpose of confirming the testimony given by these witnesses; for, if they had spoken to truth, without farther evidence to the facts, treason was undoubtedly proved. They proved the intention to levy war, to form a Provisional Government, and, of course, to change the Government as by law established. Eliza Walker proved that the prisoner Brunt had hired a lodging for Ings in the house where he resided; and Joseph Hale, Brunt’s apprentice, deposed to the meetings that were held from time to time in Brunt’s room. He proved that meetings were held there every evening, and that grenades, fire-balls, and pikes, were on the premises.
“Thomas Sharp, a watchman, deposed, that he saw four suspicious persons, on the 22d of February, watching about Lord Harrowby’s house. Morrison, a cutler, proved that Ings brought him two swords to sharpen, and a sword found at Cato-street appeared to be one of them. Alderson, a pawnbroker, deposed, that, on the 23d of February, Davidson took a blunderbuss out of pawn. Thomas Monument, the brother of John confirmed his testimony in several points. This was the evidence confirmatory of the testimony of the first four witnesses. Many of the facts stated by Adams were spoken to by them; but the treasonable purpose could not be well proved, except by accomplices. Information on that point could scarcely be expected from a pure source. Hyden was a witness of that description; but Dwyer, to a certain degree, was not.
“The prosecutors then called persons to prove what occurred at the stable in Cato-street; and Captain Fitzclarence, and several Bow-street officers, gave a detailed account of thetransactions there. It did not appear to him necessary that he should go, in detail, through the testimony of these witnesses. It was not necessary to inquire by what particular hand a gun or a pistol was fired; but it was material to observe, that, when the officers did come, many at least of the persons present made a most desperate resistance. A knife, said to belong to Ings, was found on the premises; and two bags and a case-knife were found on his person. The bags were important; because it was sworn that he stated the purpose for which he brought them. It was argued by the Counsel for the defendant, that they were meant for the reception of plunder, and not for the horrible purpose that had been stated; but this did not invalidate the testimony of Adams, because Ings might not have wished to declare that he meant to put plate in the bags; and, if so he might have said, what he was sworn to have uttered, as a reason for carrying them. This closed the evidence for the Crown.
“On the part of the prisoners, Mary Baker was called, who, the Jury would recollect, was not cross-examined. This arose from a commendable delicacy, on account of the near relationship in which she stood to one of the prisoners. The Jury would say, whether her evidence went at all to shake the case. Indeed, it appeared from her statement, that she had seen at Tidd’s lodgings instruments similar to those produced in Court. A man named Hucklestone was then called, to prove that Dwyer was not to be believed on his oath; and he stated, that he thought he was not worthy of belief, because Dwyer had informed him that he procured money by base accusations. This however, was entirely contradicted by Dwyer; and it was for the Jury to say which of the two witnesses was entitled to their credit.
“The Jury would also consider the character and bearing of the evidence of Doane and Mitchell,with respect to the paragraph inThe New Times, announcing a cabinet dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, which, according to Whittaker, was not on the same day in any other newspaper in London. It was, however, a matter of no consequence how it found its way into the paper, since it was proved that cabinet dinner was intended to be given on the 23d of February. This was the whole of the evidence on each side. No witness was called to impeach the veracity of Adams, Hyden, and Monument. And if they gave credit to any one of those persons, (even to Hyden, who supported what the others told them, and whose account, though more concise than theirs, was the same in effect), they must find a verdict against the prisoner.
“Besides the testimony of the witnesses, they had seen on the table a considerable quantity of arms, which were proved to have been found in Cato-street, and at the lodgings of one of the prisoners. It was almost conceded, that a conspiracy was entered into for the purpose of assassinating his Majesty’s Ministers at Lord Harrowby’s house. Indeed there could be little doubt of it.
“If then it were admitted that this most wicked scheme was entertained, it was for them to consider whether it could reasonably be supposed that that was all which was intended? They were to consider, what was the probability that those persons, unconnected in any respect with each other, except so far as this plan brought them together—and certainly quite unconnected with the persons who conducted the affairs of his Majesty’s Government—did not view that assassination as part of a scheme, having for its object a general and tumultuous rising of the people, to levy war against the King; or whether they conspired to effect that assassination alone?
“Whether they adopted this plan to satisfytheir thirst for blood, or to accomplish that ulterior scheme to which the witnesses had spoken? In deciding this question, it was fit that the Jury should attend to the great quantity, as well as the nature of the instruments produced. They certainly were far more in number than could have been wanted, or used in the abominable attempt that was to be made at Lord Harrowby’s. Some of them could not have been used there at all. The hand-grenades might have been thrown, but the fire-balls could not have been used for the purpose which they meant to effect at that house. When those dangerous articles were found, some at one place and some at another, it was for the Jury to take the circumstance into their serious consideration.
“If, on a view of the whole case, they, as just and conscientious men, felt satisfied that a conspiracy to levy war was made out in proof before them, if their minds were freed from all doubt on the subject, they would, he was convinced, discharge the painful duty that devolved on them with proper firmness. But if, after a due examination of all the circumstances, and after attending to the observations of the very eloquent counsel, who had addressed them on the part of the prisoner, first and last, their minds were not satisfied that the case was proved, they would discharge the more pleasant duty of acquitting the prisoner. The case was now in their hands; and he doubted not but their verdict would be consonant with the principles of justice.”
The Jury then retired; but, in a few minutes returned into court, and requested his lordship to read to them the Act of the 36th of Geo. III.
Lord Chief-Justice Abbot said, he meant to hand it to them; but he would, in the first place, state, that, by the terms of the statute, it was to continue in force during the life of his lateMajesty, and till the end of the next session of Parliament: therefore the Act had not expired when the alleged conspiracy was discovered. But, if it ever had expired, it would have been of no consequence, since, by a late Act of Parliament, the statute of the 36th of Geo. III. was made perpetual. His lordship then read the Act, and particularly pointed out the clause which made it treason—“to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose the King from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm; or to levy war against him within this realm, in order to compel him to change his councils.” His lordship observed, that it seemed to be admitted by the Counsel on both sides, that if the project stated on the part of the prosecution were proved, it fell within the meaning of this Act; for, if a Provisional Government were formed, the royal style must of necessity cease. To levy war did not require soldiers drawn up in military array. It was sufficient if a number of people met to do some public act, in which they had no private interest, but which affected the country at large. Devising to force the King to change his measures was always considered a levying of war, under the old statute of Edward III.
The Jury again retired, and, in about a quarter of an hour, returned with a verdict of—GUILTY, ON THE THIRD and FOURTH COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT. That is to say, on those counts which charged the prisoner with conspiring to levy war, and with the actual levying of war against the King.
The verdict, which was in some measure anticipated, was received by the Court in perfect silence; and the wretched man was taken from the bar, surrounded by several officers.
Throughout the trial he had maintained the greatest composure, but during the absence of theJury he seemed poignantly to feel the melancholy situation in which he was placed. The candid avowal, however, of his Counsel, as to his ultimate fate upon the indictments for murder, had left him no hope of escape of an ignominious death.
When taken back to the cell, he seemed to be absorbed in the melancholy contemplation of his approaching fate, which he of course felt was irrevocably sealed. He scarcely uttered a single word to those by whom he was accompanied, but threw himself into a chair, and appeared to be entirely abstracted from all about him. He partook of some refreshment, but was unable to recover his spirits.
In the course of the evening he asked for a glass of wine, which Mr. Brown instantly sent to him.
It appeared that up to the last moment, Thistlewood confidently anticipated an acquittal, as indeed did many persons of respectability who were in Court. The speech of Mr. Adolphus had a powerful effect upon his auditors; but the reply of the Solicitor-General at once dissipated the momentary impression which he had made.
It was observed that a number of persons were collected in the neighbourhood of the Sessions-house, who were known to have been constant attendants at the Smithfield, Spa-fields, and Finsbury Meetings. Some of these intimated an intention to give three cheers if the verdict was such as they expected; but upon the real verdict being announced, they departed with strong manifestations of disappointment.
At the termination of Thistlewood’s trial, the Court was adjourned till the following Friday, the 21st of April.
SESSIONS-HOUSE, OLD BAILEY.
First Day, Friday, April 21, 1820.
At eight o’clock in the morning the jurymen, who had been summoned, arrived at the Sessions-house, and, at nine, Lord Chief Justice Dallas, Chief Baron Richards, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Sergeant, took their seats.
The prisoner, James Ings, was then put to the bar; he seemed to labour under strong feelings of agitation and had none of that firmness of aspect which he displayed on the former days: he was dressed in a suit of black.
Mr. Shelton, the clerk of the arraigns, proceeded to call over the list of the jurymen, commencing at the name with which he had terminated, when the jury in Thistlewood’s case was impanelled.
After a considerable number of challenges, both on the part of the crown and of the prisoner, the following jury was finally impanelled and sworn:
Charles Palmer,William Moore,Thomas Beecham,John Beck,Benjamin Rogers,James Carey,George Smith,James Eade,Benjamin Blythe,William Percy,John Young,William Edgecombe.
Charles Palmer,William Moore,Thomas Beecham,John Beck,Benjamin Rogers,James Carey,George Smith,James Eade,Benjamin Blythe,William Percy,John Young,William Edgecombe.
Mr. Shelton then proceeded to read the indictment against the prisoner, which was the same already described in the case of Arthur Thistlewood.
Mr. Bolland, at a few minutes after ten, opened the indictment in the usual way to the Jury.
The Solicitor-General rose at ten o’clock to address the Jury for the prosecution. “It was hardly necessary for him, he said, to entreat their serious and patient attention to the statement he had to make to them in the performance of his duty: they owed it to themselves, to their country, and, above all, to the prisoner at the bar. In justice to him, there was one fact now known, and to which he might without impropriety allude. One of the parties in this conspiracy had been already convicted. That circumstance they were bound not to let operate to the prejudice of this prisoner; towards his part of the offence they were bound to look, not through the medium of any thing that had already passed in that Court, but solely through that which would this day be laid before them in evidence; to that alone they were to direct their attention, and by that must they form their opinion of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. On the law of the case it would be unnecessary for him to make a single observation, for upon it not a single objection, not a single doubt, had been stated since this commission had sat. The charge against the prisoner, divested of all technicalities, was simply this, that he had conspired with others, by force and violence, to overthrow the laws and constitution of the country. This was to be effected by an extensive plan of assassination, and by other means which he should hereafter mention.
“In behalf of the prosecution, he would plainly and simply narrate the facts as he knew they would be proved in evidence. He would narrate them without the smallest exaggeration or distortion of facts. The best gift and pride of the people was the pure and impartial administration of the laws of this country, and he would state the facts as they would soon hear them in evidence, and leave them to decide upon their applicability to the prisoner.”
The Solicitor-General then detailed the evidence he had to adduce against the prisoner; it was exactly as it is subsequently given by the witnesses, and corresponded entirely with that given already on the trial of Thistlewood. When the learned gentleman came to that part of the evidence which described the conflagration that was to have been made on the night of the intended assassination, and the proclamations which were to have been posted up on the night of the intended assassination, calling on the friends of liberty to meet, for their tyrants, meaning the members of his Majesty’s government, were murdered, and in which they were called upon to rally round the provisional government which was then sitting; he observed, “what would not have been the situation of this great metropolis if this dreadful project had been carried into effect?
“The people would have seen pieces of artillery moving in different directions; they would have seen a general conflagration; they would have heard of a provisional government, and that too rendered perhaps more terrible by the ignorance of the people who were to compose it. It was impossible to judge what would have been the result of such a notification. He was, indeed, willing to believe, that the people of this country were too sound to be effectively invited to rally round men whose projects were introduced tothem by the horrible and atrocious crimes of assassination and murder. He trusted that hitherto, at least the natural indignation of Englishmen would revolt at any propositions coming from such a source, and to be sustained by such diabolical means.”
After detailing very minutely the evidence he meant to give against the prisoners (as it is hereafter detailed), he informed the Jury they must hear it from one or more accomplices; on the extent of whose credibility he made similar observations to those made by the Attorney-General in his opening speech on Thistlewood’s trial, and dwelt on the comparative impunity with which dark and secret conspiracies would escape, if the evidence of an accomplice were not admissible.
“But even without this testimony, they had the unimpeachable evidence of Hyden, and also a number of facts which spoke for themselves; and he would here ask, could any assignable cause be given for the meeting in Cato-street—the ammunition—the arms—but that given by the evidence which they would hear? He then observed, that it was not because the plot was contemptible and ill-formed, and left so much to hazard, that therefore its existence was to be disbelieved, the history of all plots was of the same description; they were generally characteristic of a total want of foresight and prudence, but though wild, though extravagant, yet if the project had existence, and they were satisfied of the prisoner being a party to it, then they must be prepared, if the evidence carried conviction to their minds, to bring in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, without any reference to the consequences of that verdict.”
The learned Solicitor’s speech occupied an hour and ten minutes in the delivery.
The following prisoners were then put to the barwith Ings, to be identified: Davidson, Brunt, Tidd, Harrison, Bradburne, Strange, Gilchrist, and Wilson.
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
The witnesses to support the case thus described were then called; but much of their testimony was similar to that given in the trial of Thistlewood. We, therefore, confine ourselves as much as possible to the new facts which came out, and which applied immediately to the conduct of the prisoner.
Robert Adamswas first called, and examined by the Attorney-General. His testimony was almost in all respects similar to that on the former trial. He added, that he heard that the pike-staves which he saw in the room in Fox-court were quite green; he understood they had been brought from over the water; Ings said he had brought them. The same evening Ings drew a pistol from his pocket. There was a conversation about the illness of the present King; Thistlewood said he would rather the new King lived a little while longer, but it was not their intention he should ever wear the crown.
On this occasion Ings said, that the day the Prince Regent last went to Parliament, he himself went to the Park with a pistol in his pocket, with the sole intention to shoot him; and as a test of his sincerity, he said, “there’s the pistol I took with me,” alluding to the pistol he had previously produced. He regretted he had not done it, and if he had, he should not have cared a farthing for his own life. Witness saw Ings at all the subsequent meetings.
On the meeting held about the time of the King’s funeral, when the plan for a rising was talked of, during the absence of the horse and foot guards, it was Ings and Brunt that said, nothing short of the assassination of the King’sministers would satisfy them. Ings said, with his blood all of a boil, “that he must have them, (the ministers,) if possible, before the parliament was dissolved.”
On the meeting held on Saturday the 20th of February, at which Tidd took the chair, with a pike in his hand, and at which Thistlewood proposed the murder of the ministers in detail, Ings was present, and said, “whoever has the lot to murder Lord Castlereagh, I am the man to turn out to murder that thief!”
On the Tuesday, at the meeting at Brunt’s, witness saw Ings pull three daggers from out of his pocket: he was asked what was the purpose of pulling out these daggers? When he seized one, and making a sort of a rush, and a motion with his arm, said, with an exclamation, to “run into their —— bodies.” After Edwards had communicated the paragraph inThe New Times, respecting the cabinet dinner on the Wednesday, and after Brunt declared his belief in a God, from his prayers being answered in bringing the ministers together, Ings exclaimed with exultation, that “he should have a better opportunity of cutting off Lord Castlereagh’s head.”
“It was subsequently arranged, that Ings should head the party to go into the room in which the ministers were assembled. He was to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s and Lord Sidmouth’s heads, and to bring them away. He was also to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s hand, which he was to cure (pickle), as it would be thought a great deal of at a future day.” He was to be armed with a pair of pistols and a butcher’s knife.
The same afternoon, Ings was employed in making fire-balls to set fire to the different buildings; Edwards was making fusees to the grenades. On Wednesday evening, February the 23d, the proclamation, written by Thistlewood, was signed “James Ings, Secretary.”
Witness then described Ings’s preparation for action, his brandishing his knife, and his sanguinary declarations that he would cut off the heads of his Majesty’s ministers, and bring away the heads of Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth in his bags. The handle of his knife, he said, he had bound round with wax-end, “in order to prevent his hand from slipping while he was at work.”
The witness then proceeded to detail the well-known occurrences in Cato-street, and the part which Ings took therein. He swore he would rather die or hang himself than not do the job that night.
In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus, witness said, I was born at Ipswich; I am now a Christian; there was a time when I was not a Christian; I was then a man in the same form as now. I was what they termed a Deist. I believed in God. I renounced Christianity and believed only in God. I re-commenced Christian after the 23d of February. I renounced my faith as a Christian last August. I never pronounced my disbelief in God—nor ever denied Christ, till I read that cursed work of Paine’s! I never was an Atheist, but always believed in a God. I have no pension.
The paper produced is my hand-writing; I was examined here on Monday, and have since been in Coldbath-fields. I have had no communication with any body. I have had a room in the house of the Governor; I have seen nobody that has told me any part of the proceedings in this Court. During the days when I was here, I was kept in a room by myself. Heard nothing of the progress of the proceedings, except the conviction of Thistlewood. I had known Edwards from the first part of January. From the time I joined Brunt and the others, I never intended to commit murder, nor to give information; I intended to wait for an opportunity to see if any thing enabled me to creep out of it;I was prevented from creeping out, from threats that had been held out; I was not disposed to plunder the shops, although I was in a society that were so disposed.
Before I went into prison, I was asking Brunt what was the plan that was first drawn out? Brunt said that nothing would be communicated till the day of action, and then the men would be called together, receive a treat, and be told what was to be done; after which they would not be lost sight of. Brunt said, if he had any suspicion of any one giving information, he would run him through. This was on the 16th of January. When I was examined on Monday, it did not come to my recollection about Ings telling of shooting the Prince Regent.
Mr.Gurney: We studiously passed over certain points of the evidence for the purpose of shortening it.
The Witness: I can tell many things, if I am asked, that I did not tell on Monday. If any thing fresh comes to my mind as I stand here I’ll tell it. There were things that transpired that I did not state last Monday, and that I have not stated to-day. I had no personal knowledge of Monument. I can be answerable, that there was one candle in the room.
I did not see more than one a-light. If a man spoke the truth, he could not say there were eight candles in the room. If any man said there was, I should say he was a false man. I cannot be answerable for every word which passed.
I always found Mr. Edwards very deep, and very deep in conversation with Brunt and Thistlewood.
There was a shot-hole in my coat from a pistol that was fired from the window, when I was escaping from the stable.
I do not know a man of the name of Chambers. I never called upon a person of that name incompany with Edwards. I did call with Edwards upon a woman at Pimlico, to buy a pair of boots. On that day I did not call upon any man of the name of Chambers to solicit him to kill his Majesty’s ministers. I never said I would kill his Majesty’s ministers, and have blood and wine for my supper. I never had any conversation with any body to use Cashman as a watchword.
After the affair at Cato-street I did not take any ammunition away with me from Cato-street. Hall gave me a pistol and live rounds of ball-cartridges. I loaded the pistol, and laid it on the bench; I did not touch it again; and threw the four ball-cartridges away in the room.
I never carried the large hand-grenade. I cannot say that I can charge my memory with a score of words which Edwards ever said; whatever he said was always in a side-winded way amongst themselves.
Eleanor Walker, on being examined by Mr. Gurney, gave similar evidence to that given by her on the former occasion.
Mary Rogers, Joseph Hale (apprentice to Brunt), Thomas Smart (watchman in Grosvenor-square), C. Bissex (also a watchman for the same place), Frederick Gillan, John Hector Morrison (journeyman to Mr. Underwood, the cutler, in Drury-lane), Edward Simpson (corporal-major of the 2d Life-Guards), and James Aldous (pawnbroker), also detailed the same facts to which they before deposed.
Thomas Hyden, the man who gave the information to Lord Harrowby, recapitulated the facts proved on the former trial.
In cross-examination, he said, he had been formerly a gentleman’s servant; that was six years ago. He lived with Colonel Bridges last. He might have lived with him a month or more. He could not certainly say. He had lived inManchester-mews for five years. He had not been there all the time himself. He was away two or three months.
He was now in the Marshalsea; he was not ashamed of the place. It was for a debt of eighteen pounds, and due to Mr. Powell, a milkman. He went into prison last Saturday, on execution. He had been sued at the beginning of last summer. I was at home at different times in June, July, and August, at Manchester-mews. My family were there till last Saturday. I said on Tuesday last I lived in Manchester-mews. I am living now at this place where I stand. My family goes there now two or three times a day. I have known Davidson three or four months. I do not know Mr. Edwards.
I know a person of the name of Edwards. I know a good many persons two hundred miles in the country. I have been to the Scotch Arms, in some small court somewhere down by the Strand. I was there twice, to the shoemakers’ club, with a friend of the name of Clarke, a master-tailor. It was reported to be a shoemakers’ club. I am not able to say whether politics and the affairs of the State were the topics of discussion.
I never was at any of the meetings in Fox-court. I knew nothing of the affair in Cato-street till told by Wilson; I was to get the cream for a family in Princes-street, Cavendish-square. I have served them about three years, but I do not know their name. My wife brought home the order for the cream. I have been at the house, but I do not know when. It was the first time I saw Wilson; he said to me that I need not be alarmed, for a gentleman’s servant furnished money. He said this more than twice.
Re-examined: My family continued to carry on my business in Manchester-mews till Saturday last, when I was arrested. As far as I know myfamily have possession of the premises now. I believe the house in Princes-street is No. 6. My wife serves the family sometimes; I have been there; I believe the house to be the front door going from Cavendish-square towards Oxford-street.
Lord Harrowbyappeared on the right of the Bench, and spoke to the interruption of cabinet dinners, and the issuing of cards of invitation for the 23d. His Lordship named the company who were to be present. His Lordship then stated the receipt of Hyden’s communication, and the change of arrangements adopted in consequence.
His Lordship, in cross-examination by Mr. Curwood, said, he had not personally known any thing of it before; but he had heard a long time antecedently, that something of this nature was to be attempted.
John Bakercorroborated the testimony of Lord Harrowby as to the intended cabinet dinner.
John Monumentwas next examined, and was again conducted into Court in the charge of two of the yeomen warders of the Court. His evidence in chief was precisely the same as that which he gave on Thistlewood’s trial.
In cross-examination, witness said, that Thistlewood remarked, that every man would have equal honour with myself. I went to Cato-street for fear. I was foolish, for I certainly went there without knowing what I was to do. I thought they were going to the House of Commons. When I was told by Brunt they were going to a cabinet dinner, I fully thought they were going to destroy the ministers, and yet I went. I went to Tidd’s, because I was afraid. I cannot tell why I did not go to a magistrate to tell my fears. My intention was, when I got into the room and found out what they were going about, to run away.
Thomas Monumentconfirmed the last witness in every particular.
Ruthvenrepeated his former testimony. In cross-examination, he said, he had no doubt there were four or five lights in the loft, and others in the little room.
James Ellis, William Westcott, Luke Nixon, Joseph Champion, John Wright, and William Charles Brooks, police officers, likewise repeated their former testimony.
Capt. Fitzclarence.—The first thing he saw was a police officer, who cried out, “Soldiers, soldiers; stable door, stable door!” He was met by two men at the door, one having a pistol, another a sword. He followed one of them into the stable, and took him.
SerjeantWilliam Legg, of the 2d regiment of Coldstream Guards, was at Cato-street; saw the pistol levelled at Captain Fitzclarence, and seized it, when it went off. It was Tidd who levelled it. He took him into custody. He saw above on the loft, Cooper, Gilchrist, and Monument.
Hercules Tauntongave evidence of the seizures made at Brunt’s and Tidd’s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus.—A reward had been offered for the apprehension of Palin. He was not apprehended, nor Potter, nor Cook.
Daniel Bishopwas called, but not being in attendance, his examination and the production of the various articles seized was postponed till to-morrow morning, and the Court adjourned at eight o’clock.
The Jury were then, as in the former case of Thistlewood’s trial, placed in a room by themselves, and not permitted to have conversation with any person whatever.
Ings in the course of the day revived in spirits, as he became interested in the evidence; but he frequently reverted to a state of gloomy sullenness.
The other prisoners were anxious to keep the witnesses out of Court, when not underexamination, and repeatedly called on those who accidentally made their appearance to withdraw.
Second Day.—Saturday,April 22.
At a quarter before nine the Jury were conducted to the box by the sheriff’s officers.
Shortly after this the guns, pistols, swords, pikes, grenades, ammunition, and other materials of war, seized in Cato-street, were brought into court, and placed on the table.
At nine the same learned Judges who presided the day before, took their seats.
Ings and the other prisoners were then put to the bar.
Evidence for the Crown continued.
Daniel Bishopwas now put in the box, and described the circumstances attending the apprehension of Thistlewood, which were detailed in his former evidence.
In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus: Witness said he had apprehended the prisoner from private information, not received from an officer; he did not know a man of the name of Edwards.
Ruthvenwas next called, and said there were now placed on the table the arms and ammunition taken in Cato-street; he then proceeded to select each article separately, and to exhibit it to the Jury; the pikes and grenades were minutely inspected. A pike blade was placed in one of the handles in order to show the manner in which it was to be used. When thus presented it had a most terrific appearance. The knife stated to have been found on the person of Ings was next produced, and exhibited to the Jury. While they were examining it, Ings exclaimed, “It was not found upon me, my Lord.”
Hector Morrison, servant to Mr. Underwood the cutler, identified the two swords which he groundfor Ings. They were made extremely sharp from heel to point. The prisoner directed that they should be made as sharp as a needle at the point, and that they should be made to cut both at the back and front; this was done. The swords seemed since to have been rubbed on a stone to make them keener.
Samuel Tauntonselected the articles found in Tidd’s lodgings, as well as those found in the back room of the house in which Brunt resided.
SerjeantHanson, of the Royal Artillery, described the formation of the fire-balls and hand-grenades, and opened one of the latter, as in Thistlewood’s case, for the information of the Jury. He also looked at the flannel bags found in Tidd’s lodgings. They were what are termed flannel cartridges for a 6-pounder. They were the same as those used by the Royal Artillery, only that those produced were formed of flannel, whereas those used by the artillery were composed of serge.
It was now announced that the other prisoners might retire, and they were re-conducted to their apartments.
SerjeantHanson, examination by one of the Jury, said, that the grenades found in Cato-street were not made exactly in the same manner as those made for the use of the artillery, although they were calculated to produce similar destructive consequences. The cart-nails would be propelled with irresistible force by the explosion of the tin carcase, and would scatter death around. There was rather more powder in the case than was sufficient to burst a nine inch shell.
The Attorney-General: That is the case on the part of the Crown.
THE DEFENCE.
Mr.Curwoodthen rose to address the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commenced bylamenting the effect which the conviction of the last prisoner must have upon their minds, however good their intentions, and however anxious they might be to decide this case free from all preconceived impressions. This circumstance, undoubtedly weighed heavily upon his (Mr. C.’s) feelings, knowing that the construction of the human mind was such, as rendered it almost impossible to get rid of opinions once entertained. The disadvantage under which he laboured, in this respect, was the more distressing, because although the general features of this case bore a strong resemblance to the last, yet it wanted a most material circumstance of confirmation, which was produced on a former occasion.