Mr. CURWOOD now rose to address the Jury on the part of the prisoner.
He commenced by stating, “That if it were consistent with a sense of
moral and professional duty, he would not have stood there to address
them. It was one of the characteristics of the profession to which he
had the honour to belong, however, and one which perhaps reflected
upon it the greatest credit, that they were not at liberty to refuse
their assistance to persons in the situation of the unfortunate man at
the bar. No man could feel more impressed than himself with the sense
of the great and weighty duty he had to perform. He felt that the
unhappy prisoner had a right to call upon him to do his duty boldly and
fearlessly, and without any consideration for the Government who were
the prosecutors on this occasion; he felt also that he had a duty to
perform to his country, by assisting in the administration of the law,
and not by any power which he possessed, if he did possess such power,
to endeavour to pervert that law. He owed something too, to his own
fair fame, which was all, his only inheritance.
“With these feelings pressing upon him, he might truly say, he was
placed in a trying and critical situation. It was fit on an occasion of
this sort, that they should know something of the man by whom they were
addressed. It could not be denied that the unfortunate transactions,
to which their attention had been so painfully directed, had arisen
out of that state of the country which they must all alike lament and
deplore. It was clear also, that while they had attachments to certain
parties, prejudices would arise which it was out of their power to
control in favour of the sentiments of those parties. With respect to
himself, although like every other Englishman, he had his feelings upon
certain points, yet he never belonged to any particular party, nor
was he in the habit of attending political meetings. With respect to
Government, he never had received any place or appointment from them,
nor was it likely that he should. In the present instance, therefore,
he had no motive to influence him in doing his duty, or at least in
endeavouring to do it fairly and honestly.
“It was due to his Learned Friends and to himself to state, that in
consequence of the lateness of the moment in which they were called
upon to undertake this arduous task, not having received their
instructions till a late hour on Thursday, that the difficulties with
which they had to cope were of no ordinary kind; and these difficulties
became the more formidable, when it was recollected that they had
arrayed against them the most distinguished talents which it was in
the power of the Crown to procure--talents not a little aided by the
advantage of study, and of a mature consideration of all the facts
of the case which they were called upon to discuss. No doubt, in the
notice which they (the Jury) had given to the Attorney-General, when he
opened this case, they had not failed to observe, and he had observed
it with unfeigned surprise, that he had not stated to them precisely
what were the points which they were called upon to try. He had indeed
stated that it was a prosecution for high treason, but he had only
defined what was the quality of the treason which he meant to impute.
“Unfortunately, there was mixed up with this transaction a great deal
for which the prisoner might hereafter be answerable, and which was
calculated to make a deep impression on the minds of the Jury; but
whatever was their opinion upon the moral guilt of the prisoner, if,
upon a review of the evidence, they should not be of opinion that he
had committed the precise offence charged in the indictment, it was
their duty to pronounce a verdict of Not Guilty. It therefore devolved
upon him to state precisely what they had to try; it was not merely a
question of high treason, but a question of a particular species of
high treason.
“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 of _guilty_.
“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
administration involved 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 him to 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 military man 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; for if 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.”