THOMAS CHAMBERS examined: I live in Heathcock-court, Strand. I have
seen a man of the name of Adams in company with a man named Edwards,
about a week before the Cato-street business took place, in my room.
They came together. They made a proposition to assassinate his
Majesty’s ministers. Adams and Edwards asked me to go with them. I
refused. Adams said, “They were going to kill his Majesty’s ministers,
and that they would have blood and wine for supper.” They came again
on the Monday night before the Cato-street business took place. They
brought with them a large bag.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney: I am a bootmaker; I might have seen
Ings. I am not certain. I cannot say how long I have known him. I
don’t suppose I have been in his company above twice or three times.
The first time was at a place where they sold the Black Dwarf and the
Medusa, kept by a man of the name of Watling. I cannot state where else
I have seen him. I know a house called the Scotch Arms, in Round-court,
in the Strand. I have been there three times, but did not see him.
Those times were before Christmas. There was no chair there. There was
no person sitting in a chair. There was no chairman. It was in no other
room but the tap-room.
I have been at the Black Dog, in Gray’s-Inn-lane, once; there was no
chair there; there might be about seven persons there; it was on a
Sunday night; I cannot say whether before or after Christmas; I was
invited there by a man of the name of Bryant, who was going to the
Cape of Good Hope. They were all strangers to me except one, and that
was Mr. Thistlewood; I know Brunt very well, he was not there; I don’t
think I know Palin; I will not swear I did not see him; I was at all
the meetings in Smithfield; I cannot state who carried the black flag;
I carried no flag at the last meeting; I before carried two flags--one
had inscribed on it “The Manchester Massacre;” I never saw such a flag
as “Let us die like freemen, and not be sold like slaves.” I carried
the flag inscribed “Trial by Jury,” at Mr. Hunt’s entry into London. I
know Davidson. I have not much knowledge of Tidd. I know Wilson. I know
Harrison very well. I have not much knowledge of Strange nor Cooper.
I have known Mr. Hunt ever since his triumphal entry into London. I was
shocked at the proposition of going to murder his Majesty’s ministers,
at least so much that I did not go. Though Bow-street was so near, I
did not go there to give information of the plot.
MARY BARKER spoke to Edwards’s bringing grenades to Tidd’s, her
father’s. There was one very large ball brought away by Adams.
This was the whole of the evidence for the prisoner.
Ings here requested, and was permitted to withdraw for about a minute.
He returned with an orange in his hand, which he sucked with great
composure.
Mr. ADOLPHUS then rose to address the Jury.
“Gentlemen of the Jury,--I call for serious attention and kind
indulgence, if for no other reason, for this consideration, that, if
your verdict should be against the unfortunate man at the bar, these
are the last favourable words that he shall hear uttered. My Lord will
state the law and the evidence to you fairly; but, beyond that, he
will say nothing for the prisoner. I feel the languor that necessarily
arises from the attempt to tread over ground already trodden, and
trodden in vain. But I advance to the task with a clear mind, and
faculties unfettered, because I can lay my hand upon my heart, and say,
that no opinion I formerly offered is now changed.
“The Solicitor-General, in his fervid opening, and my Lord, have told
you, that the former case is to be kept entirely out of view. I say
so; but I know how difficult it is to prevent the judgment from being
influenced by the memory. I cannot help here contrasting the joy and
alacrity of the Solicitor-General with my own feelings. He told you,
that he had to lay before you, not what he hoped to prove, but what he
had already proved. I have no such encouragement. It is for me a new
case; for Adams has, in this case, brought forward evidence which he
thought proper to keep in his own breast on the former trial.
“Much fervid declamation has been addressed to you by the
Solicitor-General upon the consequences of success in the alleged
plot. But you are to dismiss from your minds this speculative danger.
The Solicitor-General has also stated propositions of law upon the
subject of accomplices with great eloquence, but with less accuracy
than might have been expected from his station and character. He asked,
‘Has the accomplice any interest in giving a deeper dye,--in making a
stronger point,--in carrying conviction?’ I answer, ‘Yes, yes, yes!’
His impunity is conditional. He comes before you in chains, and in
custody.--I refer to your own breasts, whether a man that can himself
be yet prosecuted, has no interest in giving not true but acceptable
evidence. The accomplice has the advantage too of having all who could
contradict him tied up by the prosecution, and he therefore swears
boldly.
“We are told, we might call Palin. Most gracious offer! When a great
reward cannot stimulate the police-officers to find him, how should
we find him, and persuade him to put his life in peril? It is more a
taunt than a kindness; more a reproach on our weakness than an essay
on our strength. On the part of the prosecution, a witness has not
been called who was proposed to be called; and a witness that has been
called has been withdrawn, when our witnesses have been on the floor
to contradict him. This has further impoverished my poor, my destitute
clients.”
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to these observations.
Mr. ADOLPHUS proceeded.--“Cook and Harris may be imaginary persons, and
how could we call them? If high treason in this case comes entirely
from the mouth of an accomplice, you cannot receive it. It is the whole
of the charge; and, if in that the accomplice is not confirmed, that
charge is unsupported; for, if you strike out the evidence of Adams,
there is not one word to prove treason.
“Let me ask you to try his testimony, then, by these tests.--1. Is
his account probable, or even possible?--2. Is his manner such as to
entitle him to credit?--3. Is he contradicted by witnesses for the
prosecution?--4. Is he confirmed? or is confirmation withdrawn? Upon
the first question, the learned Counsel argued with great force and
animation, that the witness, Adams, could not stand any one of these
tests, and therefore was not to be believed. If, said he, any thing
is to be gained by success in these prosecutions, it is to strengthen
the Government in the minds of the people; it is to obtain applause
for Ministers who have so vigilantly protected us. But your verdict,
gentlemen, is to decide the fate of that man, and no more. Great
Britain and Europe will judge of the conduct of Ministers; posterity
will decide upon their merits.
“In all questions at issue, in history and in politics, if any thing is
kept back, it ought to operate against the party who keeps it back.
Adams has fathered upon others what he has himself done. Call Ings a
murderer--call him an assassin--call him a felon--call him what you
will--but, for God’s sake, gentlemen, believe him.” After some animated
comment on the evidence of Chambers, the learned Counsel returned to
Adams.
“The meeting in Cato-street affords no evidence of the intention. Adams
alone states it. The very situation of Cato-street, however convenient
for the assassination, disproves the treason; for it is two miles and
a half from Gray’s Inn-lane, and two or three miles more from the
Mansion-house. They never could thus have removed to the greatest
possible distance from the points of action. What, then, are you to
make of two bags to carry two heavy heads? You cannot for a moment
raise this into treason; as well might you believe that an attempt was
to be made to liberate the prisoners in this gaol by throwing cherries
and carraway-seeds. Did they, then, levy war?
“I recollect seeing a man convicted at that bar of the murder of
a Minister of State (Mr. Perceval). I never can forget Sir James
Mansfield, the tears streaming down his aged venerable cheeks. If
strong feelings could make the assassination of a Minister treason,
that would have been treason. Suppose they had seized the cannons,
that would not be a levying of war; for they are not the King’s, but
the property of private individuals. The Mansion-house and the Bank
were not the King’s. The only tittle to support the treason was the
absurdity of a ‘Provisional Government,’ stated by Adams.
“Some of you remember, as I do, the conflagration of houses, and the
blazing of prisons, by a mob misled by an individual. The actors in
that scene were tried, convicted of felonies, but not of treason. Their
infatuated leader was acquitted of high treason. God forbid that I
should say my client stands before you free of guilt. God forbid I
should apologize for his conduct!
“The evidence precludes me from denying that there was an intention to
assassinate Ministers. Poverty rendered the men desperate, and impelled
them to crime. But treason is incredible and impossible. The whole
hinged on Thistlewood. He had but lately got out of prison, having
challenged Lord Sidmouth, who properly prosecuted him, instead of
accepting it. That he should entertain feelings of revenge was natural
and inevitable, considering that his was a bad mind. But this is not
treason.”
The learned Counsel having concluded his very able speech, the prisoner
was addressed as follows, by
_Chief Justice Dallas._--James Ings, do you wish to leave your defence
to the observations of your counsel, or do you wish to say any thing
yourself?
_Ings._--I wish to state the particulars how I became acquainted with
this party, if you will allow me.
_The Chief Justice._--Any thing and every thing you wish to state, of
course the court and jury will hear. Now is the time for you to state
those things; speak loud, and we will attend to what you say. Probably,
before you say any thing, you will consult your counsel.
_Ings._--I have but little to say.
_The Chief Justice._--After having drawn your attention to the
propriety of consulting your counsel, you will now do what you think
best.
_Ings_, addressing himself to the Jury, spoke as follows:
“Gentlemen of the Jury, I am a man of no education and very humble
abilities. If you will hear me with patience, I will not detain you
long. I lived in Portsea. I came to London in the beginning of May,
1819. I came with my wife and family. The reason I left Portsmouth was,
that I was unable to get employ to support my family (here the prisoner
seemed affected by his feelings.) When I came to London I thought I
could get employ, but I was for a considerable time, and could get
nothing to do. Knowing nobody I suppose was the reason. I had a few
pounds with me when I came from Portsea. Finding my money going I did
not know what to do. It did not go by drinking or gambling.
“I determined to get into business, and I went up to Baker’s-row,
where I set up a butcher’s shop. I stopped there three months, from
Midsummer to Michaelmas; the summer being hot was against me; I lost
a considerable deal of money in the course of the summer; I then took
a house in Old Montague-street, which I opened as a coffee-shop; in
fitting up the shop my money was all gone; I did not take money enough
to support my family. I now persuaded my wife to return to Portsea
among her friends, where I thought she would be better than with me in
London.
“After my wife had left me some considerable time, there was a man
who used to come and take a cup of coffee at my shop. I had never
nothing to do with politics; but he began to speak about the Manchester
massacre. I said very little; I always took him to be an officer. He
came frequently before I left the house.
“Some time after I met him in Smithfield. I went there to see if I
could get any employ. He asked me how I did; and I said very well. He
said, he had been often to my house, and asked me to stand treat. I
said it was not in my power, and my reason was, that I had no money;
I added that I should be obliged to sell my things. He asked me what
things I had to sell, and I told him various articles. He agreed to
buy a sofa bedstead.
“I then went to live in Primrose-street. This was in January last. A
few days after, I met him in Fleet-market. He asked me where we could
have something to drink; and respecting the sofa bedstead, he said he
thought he had a friend that would buy it. I took him to my house, but
we could not agree. We came back to Fleet-street; he then told me there
was something going to be done. I asked him what it was, and he said no
good man would want to know what was to be done before it was begun. We
went directly and had some bread and cheese. He took me to the White
Hart, where I saw a few of my fellow-prisoners. I asked who he was. I
understood his name was Williams; but I since know that it was Edwards.
He told me that it was he made Thomas Paine (the statue of Paine) at
Mr. Carlisle’s; and it was the same man that did make it. He afterwards
took me to another room where I got refreshment.
“I did not know the particulars of any thing that was going to be done.
I was a stranger, and went for food. That very day he brought me a
sword to get ground for him, which I took to the cutler’s in my own
name; and do you think, gentlemen, if I knew that any thing was going
on, that I would have left it in my own name? I often went to the man
afterwards, for I had no friends. On the 23d of February, he came to me
at my lodging, in Primrose-street, for my landlord charged me nothing
for my lodging, and says, ‘There’s something a going to be done; do
you come up to the alley opposite Mrs. Carlisle’s; about six o’clock,
I shall meet you there.’ I went from there up to the room. I was there
all day, and I got some bread and cheese.
“At six I went to Fleet-street. He was standing in the alley. I
understand since, from the list of witnesses, that he lives in that
alley. He told me to wait, which I did, for an hour. He then came and
gave me a couple of bags and a belt, and asked me to come to the room
in Fox-court. On my going there he told me that he was going to put
some gin in the bags; and that it was to be got on the sly. That was
the sole reason that I put the bags under my coat, lest the patrol
should see them. I went with him up to St. Giles’s, where he said we
were to get the gin. When we got there, he told me it was not there. We
went up to Oxford-street, where he said a friend lived. He left me and
I waited for him an hour. He then took me up to John-street, I believe
it was, for I never was there before, to the stable. He told me I would
see some friends there; he then left me.
“When I came under the archway, I saw Davidson; Davidson took me into
the stable. I never was up in the loft. I declare positively, before
God, I was not in the stable more than five minutes when the officers
came in: there was only me there. Mr. Ruthven, then, or somebody with
carroty whiskers, and another, went up the ladder into the loft, and a
third man came in, collared me, and said, “You are my prisoner.” Very
well, I says. Soon after he collared me, he began beating me with his
staff till my head swelled most dreadfully. In the mean time I heard a
gun or pistol go off in the loft.
“When he let me go and run out of the stable, I followed him into the
street. On going into the street, an officer went after me, and I ran
all down the street. I met a man who struck me violently on the head
with a stick as I was going towards him. I ran from him, and with that
I was pursued, when I was stopped by a watchman who beat me also. They
took me down to the watch-house. That is all I know about the meeting.
“I am like a bullock drove into Smithfield market to be sold. (Here
the prisoner burst into tears.) I say I am like a bullock drove into
Smithfield to be sold. (This he repeated with great energy.) The
Attorney-General knows the man. He knew all their plans for two months
before I was acquainted with it. (Still crying.) When I was before Lord
Sidmouth, a gentleman said, Lord Sidmouth knew all about this for two
months. (Still in tears.) I consider myself murdered if this man is not
brought forward. (A more violent gush of tears.) I am willing to die
on the scaffold with him. He told of every thing which he did himself.
I don’t value my life if I can’t get a living for my family. (In still
greater grief.) My life is of no use to me if I want bread for my wife
and family. I have a wife and four children. I never was in the habit
of drinking, nor nothing of the sort. I cannot describe my feelings to
you about my wife and family. (In tears.)
“I hope, before you give your verdict, that you will see this man
brought forward, or else I consider myself a murdered man. I knew
nothing of their plots; he was the instigation of it all. I never
attended none of their radical meetings. I hope you will weigh well
this in your minds before you return your verdict. That man Adams, who
has got out of the halter himself by accusing others falsely, would
hang his God. I would sooner die, if I had 500 lives, than be the means
of hanging other men.”
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS.--Is there any thing more you wish to say?
INGS.--Nothing more. I have only one thing to prove my character. A
gentleman put it down from my childhood. (He here handed a paper, which
his Lordship declined to take.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to address the Jury about three o’clock. It
had been more than insinuated that these prosecutions were intended
to extend the law of treason, and that their verdict would enlarge the
powers of the Crown. But it was not so; by the due administration of
justice alone were they to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner.
“The 36th of the late King was not calculated to introduce uncertainty
and speculation. If the prisoners had the intention, and acted upon the
intention, of levying war, it was treason, however inadequate their
means. No man could doubt the truth of the story which Adams related.
The learned gentleman then commented on the evidence at great length,
insisting that the case was satisfactorily proved.”
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS proceeded to address the Jury. This most
painful inquiry having, in point of proof, been terminated, it became
his duty to recapitulate the whole of the evidence, and to make such
observations on the case as the different points seemed to him to
require.
“With respect to the indictment, it contained a number of different
counts and charges, which were founded on two specific statutes. The
first, an ancient statute, passed in the reign of Edward III.; and the
second, a more recent act, passed in the reign of the late King. But,
to make the case as clear as possible, they might dismiss most of the
counts from their minds, and look to the charge as composed of two
heads; one, conspiring to depose the King, and the other conspiring to
levy war to compel him to change his measures. He should now proceed to
recite the evidence as he had taken it. [The learned Judge here read
the evidence of the whole of the witnesses, pointing out those facts
which were most worthy the consideration of the Jury.] The learned
Judge then, in allusion to the testimony of Adams, observed, that,
if the doctrines held that day could be adopted, no such thing as an
accomplice could be admitted in a court of justice. His evidence would
be at once got rid of, by stating that he was guilty himself.
“They were, however, informed, that though it was often necessary to
receive the evidence of an accomplice, yet in the practical application
of that evidence, they were to view it with a suspicious eye. They were
not to receive it, except it was confirmed. On this point he had heard
the law grossly mis-stated.
“The testimony of an accomplice ought to be confirmed in some
particulars, but not in all; for if they possessed the means of proving
all he stated, there would be no necessity to call him to give evidence.
“It was for the Jury to say whether the prisoners had not a
revolutionary object in view. If they were assembled merely for the
purpose of assassination, of course the charge of treason was not made
out, but if they thought otherwise, undoubtedly it was. It might be
said that it was impossible men could entertain such an extravagant
project; if he had been told that there were twenty-five men on the
face of the earth, and still less, of the country to which he had the
honour to belong, who intended to commit the foul and dreadful act of
butchery and blood which had been described, he should have said, till
they were detected, that it was utterly impossible--that such a thing
never had happened and never could. But looking to the evidence, it was
clear and undoubted that such an occurrence had happened.
“The prisoner had called witnesses before them, and he had implored the
Jury, ere they disposed of his fate, to consider his case maturely. In
that request he went hand in hand. If they were of opinion that those
persons assembled only to destroy fourteen individuals, and that the
materials found were merely collected for that purpose, they would then
give the benefit of that doubt to the prisoner. But, on the other
hand, if, in the discharge of their duty, acting in the name of that
Being who had been more than once appealed to in the course of this
inquiry, they believed that the offence was proved, they would then, he
was sure, fearlessly and intrepidly return with a verdict in conformity
with their sentiments.”
The Jury retired at twenty-five minutes after eight o’clock, and, at a
quarter before nine, returned a verdict of--GUILTY, ON THE FIRST AND
THIRD COUNTS--that is, of conspiring to depose the King, and to levy
war to compel him to change his measures.
The prisoner was then taken from the bar, and the Court adjourned.