_First Day, Friday, April 21, 1820._
At eight o’clock in the morning the jurymen, who had been summoned,
arrived at the Sessions-house, and, at nine, Lord Chief Justice Dallas,
Chief Baron Richards, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Sergeant,
took their seats.
The prisoner, James Ings, was then put to the bar; he seemed to labour
under strong feelings of agitation and had none of that firmness of
aspect which he displayed on the former days: he was dressed in a suit
of black.
Mr. Shelton, the clerk of the arraigns, proceeded to call over the list
of the jurymen, commencing at the name with which he had terminated,
when the jury in Thistlewood’s case was impanelled.
After a considerable number of challenges, both on the part of the
crown and of the prisoner, the following jury was finally impanelled
and sworn:
Charles Palmer,
William Moore,
Thomas Beecham,
John Beck,
Benjamin Rogers,
James Carey,
George Smith,
James Eade,
Benjamin Blythe,
William Percy,
John Young,
William Edgecombe.
Mr. Shelton then proceeded to read the indictment against the prisoner,
which was the same already described in the case of Arthur Thistlewood.
Mr. Bolland, at a few minutes after ten, opened the indictment in the
usual way to the Jury.
The Solicitor-General rose at ten o’clock to address the Jury for the
prosecution. “It was hardly necessary for him, he said, to entreat
their serious and patient attention to the statement he had to make
to them in the performance of his duty: they owed it to themselves,
to their country, and, above all, to the prisoner at the bar. In
justice to him, there was one fact now known, and to which he might
without impropriety allude. One of the parties in this conspiracy had
been already convicted. That circumstance they were bound not to let
operate to the prejudice of this prisoner; towards his part of the
offence they were bound to look, not through the medium of any thing
that had already passed in that Court, but solely through that which
would this day be laid before them in evidence; to that alone they were
to direct their attention, and by that must they form their opinion
of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. On the law of the case it
would be unnecessary for him to make a single observation, for upon it
not a single objection, not a single doubt, had been stated since this
commission had sat. The charge against the prisoner, divested of all
technicalities, was simply this, that he had conspired with others,
by force and violence, to overthrow the laws and constitution of the
country. This was to be effected by an extensive plan of assassination,
and by other means which he should hereafter mention.
“In behalf of the prosecution, he would plainly and simply narrate the
facts as he knew they would be proved in evidence. He would narrate
them without the smallest exaggeration or distortion of facts. The best
gift and pride of the people was the pure and impartial administration
of the laws of this country, and he would state the facts as they
would soon hear them in evidence, and leave them to decide upon their
applicability to the prisoner.”
The Solicitor-General then detailed the evidence he had to adduce
against the prisoner; it was exactly as it is subsequently given by
the witnesses, and corresponded entirely with that given already on
the trial of Thistlewood. When the learned gentleman came to that
part of the evidence which described the conflagration that was to
have been made on the night of the intended assassination, and the
proclamations which were to have been posted up on the night of the
intended assassination, calling on the friends of liberty to meet,
for their tyrants, meaning the members of his Majesty’s government,
were murdered, and in which they were called upon to rally round the
provisional government which was then sitting; he observed, “what would
not have been the situation of this great metropolis if this dreadful
project had been carried into effect?
“The people would have seen pieces of artillery moving in different
directions; they would have seen a general conflagration; they would
have heard of a provisional government, and that too rendered perhaps
more terrible by the ignorance of the people who were to compose it.
It was impossible to judge what would have been the result of such
a notification. He was, indeed, willing to believe, that the people
of this country were too sound to be effectively invited to rally
round men whose projects were introduced to them by the horrible and
atrocious crimes of assassination and murder. He trusted that hitherto,
at least the natural indignation of Englishmen would revolt at any
propositions coming from such a source, and to be sustained by such
diabolical means.”
After detailing very minutely the evidence he meant to give against
the prisoners (as it is hereafter detailed), he informed the Jury
they must hear it from one or more accomplices; on the extent of
whose credibility he made similar observations to those made by
the Attorney-General in his opening speech on Thistlewood’s trial,
and dwelt on the comparative impunity with which dark and secret
conspiracies would escape, if the evidence of an accomplice were not
admissible.
“But even without this testimony, they had the unimpeachable evidence
of Hyden, and also a number of facts which spoke for themselves; and he
would here ask, could any assignable cause be given for the meeting in
Cato-street--the ammunition--the arms--but that given by the evidence
which they would hear? He then observed, that it was not because the
plot was contemptible and ill-formed, and left so much to hazard, that
therefore its existence was to be disbelieved, the history of all
plots was of the same description; they were generally characteristic
of a total want of foresight and prudence, but though wild, though
extravagant, yet if the project had existence, and they were satisfied
of the prisoner being a party to it, then they must be prepared, if the
evidence carried conviction to their minds, to bring in a verdict of
guilty against the prisoner, without any reference to the consequences
of that verdict.”
The learned Solicitor’s speech occupied an hour and ten minutes in the
delivery.
The following prisoners were then put to the bar with Ings, to be
identified: Davidson, Brunt, Tidd, Harrison, Bradburne, Strange,
Gilchrist, and Wilson.