THIRD DAY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1820.

The Court opened again at nine o’clock this morning, and a few minutes

after Mr. ADOLPHUS rose 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 of counsel 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 had

scarcely 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 would have 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 our juries, 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 a subject’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 not intend 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 of which, 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 of these 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 the testimony 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. The argument 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

the reliance 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 such evidence, 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 a

doubt 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 given

for 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 appeared to 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

some conversation as to his excellence as a swordsman, Thistlewood is

represented as saying, ‘No man worth 10_l._ 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 the

respectable 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 that this would be a favourable opportunity to _kick

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 the water, 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 tiring the 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 of communication 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

in _The 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

never speaks 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 the

plan 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

1_l._ 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

6_s._ was the largest sum seen with them: there was 1_s._ on another

occasion; there was 7_d._ for a newspaper, 7_s._ 7_d._ was the treasury

then. Whether this and the prospect of sharing in the produce of a

1_l._ 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 been praying 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 possessed by 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, and it 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 by cross-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.

“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 nature of 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 ground like 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 look to 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 the conduct 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

he rushed 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 that

others 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 in _The 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 conduct

shew 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 the points 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.”

The _Lord Chief Justice_ now addressed the prisoner, and said, if you

wish to offer any thing for 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.

The _Lord 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.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now 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 the one 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 were to 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 found taking 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 time of 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 of HIGH

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 taking

possession 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 the transactions 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 in _The

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 satisfy their 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 late Majesty, 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 the Jury 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.