_First Day, Monday, April 24, 1820._
At nine o’clock in the morning, the Lord Chief Baron Richards, Mr.
Baron Garrow, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Serjeant, took
their seats.
The prisoner, Brunt, was then put to the bar. He was decently dressed
in coloured clothes, and had with him several papers, some of which
were closely written upon. He looked rather paler than before, but
preserved his accustomed composure.
Mr. Shelton proceeded to call over the names of the Jurymen in
attendance. The first name called, and to which there was no challenge
on the part of the prisoner or the Court, was Mr. Alexander Barclay.
Mr. Barclay stated, that, as he had been on the Jury by which
Thistlewood had been tried, he hoped he might be excused on the present
occasion.
Mr. Curwood said, that it was because he was on the former Jury he
wished him to be on the present, as he would be enabled to see the
difference of evidence.
The Solicitor-General said he had no objection.
Mr. Barclay was then sworn; and he was foreman of this as well as the
former Jury.
Mr. Curwood exhausted his right of challenging peremptorily before
the Crown, on whose behalf the last four challenges were made in
succession. As the Jurors were sworn, they were very attentively
noticed by the prisoner. After the challenges had been gone through,
the following Jury was impanelled:
* Alexander Barclay, of Teddington, grocer, (foreman).
* Thomas Goodchild, Esq., North-End, Hendon.
* Thomas Suffield Aldersey, Lisson-grove, North, Esq.
* James Herbert, Isleworth, carpenter.
* John Shooter, North-End, Hendon, gent.
James Wilmot, Western-road, Isleworth, market-gardener.
* John Edward Shepherd, Eden-Grove, Holloway, gent.
* John Fowler, St. John-square, iron-plate-worker.
* William Gibbs Roberts, Ropemakers’-fields, Limehouse, cooper.
John Dickenson, Colt-street, Limehouse, builder.
John Smith, John-street, Oxford-street, undertaker.
John Woodward, Upper-street, Islington.
Those gentlemen to whose names a * is prefixed served on the first
Jury.
Mr. Bolland immediately proceeded to open the indictment against Brunt.
The Attorney-General then stated the case to the Jury, going over all
the facts already detailed in the former trials, and commenting upon
them with great clearness and ingenuity. As soon as he had concluded
his address, the other prisoners (untried) were brought into Court.
ROBERT ADAMS (the first witness against Thistlewood and Ings) was put
into the box, and examined by the Solicitor-General. He detailed the
same story, in substance, which he gave on the former trials; adding
some things which he had then omitted, and varying a little his account
of others. In the course of his evidence he came to that part where he
described Brunt to have said, that, if any officers came in there, he
(uttering an oath) would murder them, and they might be easily disposed
of afterwards, so as to prevent their murder being discovered.
_Brunt_, (rising hastily from his seat at the bar)--My Lords, can the
witness look me in the face, and look at those gentlemen (pointing to
the Jury), and say that I said this?
_Adams_, (turning towards the prisoner, and laying his hand upon his
breast)--I can, with a clear and safe conscience.
_Brunt._--Then you are a bigger villain than I even took you to be.
The Court here interfered to prevent any further conversation between
the parties.
Adams then continued his evidence.--When he came to that part where
he mentioned the hand-grenades, he added--“I think it necessary here
to state, as Mr. Brunt thinks proper to deny what I have said, that
he was the very man that took the hand-grenades to Tidd’s house;
for I followed him all the way, and I saw, with my own eyes, Tidd’s
daughter put them in a box under the window.” [The witness uttered this
with considerable emphasis and action.] In relating the arrangements
which had been made for the murder of Ministers, and the subsequent
proceedings which were intended, he added--“I think it right to state
one circumstance, which escaped my memory before. Ings proposed, that
after the heads of Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth were taken off,
they should be placed on a pole, and carried through the streets.
Thistlewood improved the plan, and said that they should be carried
on a pike behind the cannon in the streets, to excite terror. On this
Bradburn observed, that, after they had used Lord Castlereagh’s head,
they would enclose it in a box, and send it to Ireland.--Another
circumstance which he also omitted before was, that, by an arrangement
between Thistlewood and Cooke, it was agreed, that, if Cooke
succeeded in taking the Mansion-house, he was to send an orderly to
St. Sepulchre’s Church, where he was to be met by another orderly,
despatched by Thistlewood from the west-end of the town; and they were
to convey to the parties an account of the progress which each had made
in their stations.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--On my former examination I repented
when I got home, and before that. When I perceived the error of my
ways, I acknowledged it. Till I received that infernal publication,
Paine’s _Age of Reason_, which Tidd gave me, I was very particular.
I was not, however, so good a christian as I might have been. The
principles which Brunt, the prisoner at the bar, endeavoured to instil
into my mind perverted my understanding. Brunt wished to throw down
the pillars of Christianity altogether. I find my conscience satisfied
at the atonement I have made to my Maker. My satisfaction did not
merely arise from getting my neck out of the halter. I never considered
the assassinating of men, in cold blood, to be consistent with the
principles of reason. On the 2d of January, the prisoner told me that
it was intended to murder his Majesty’s Ministers. I was introduced to
Thistlewood on the 12th: during the intermediate period of ten days,
I had an opportunity of considering the plot. I did not discover it,
owing to the insinuations of Brunt. In that time, I attended several
meetings, and was a chairman at one of them. Whenever I hinted any
dislike to the business, the parties were like madmen. I knew Edwards,
and saw him making hand-grenades. I intended to put a stop to the
business if possible; but, at the same time, I wished to save these
people, and to avoid the trouble of the trials here.
Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.--My mind was perverted by Paine’s _Age of
Reason_, and Carlisle’s publication.
Eleanor Walker, Mary Rogers, Joseph Hale, Thomas Sharp, Charles Bisset,
Henry Gillam, Edward Simpson, and J. H. Morrison, gave precisely the
same evidence as they had given on the former trials.
JOHN MONUMENT, the accomplice, was brought into Court in the custody of
two wardens of the Tower. He was examined by the Solicitor-General, and
gave precisely the same evidence as he had done on the two preceding
trials, relative to his connexion with the conspirators.
Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--I have read Paine’s _Age of Reason_.
It rather shook my faith; but it did not destroy it, because it was
accompanied by the Bishop of Llandaff’s _Apology for the Bible_.
THOMAS MONUMENT, examined by the Solicitor-General.--His testimony
to-day was precisely the same with that which he had given on the
former day, and fully corroborated that of his brother. He was not
cross-examined.
John Monument was then re-called, and re-examined by the
Solicitor-General, as to the advice which had been given him by
Thistlewood to say that Edwards had taken him to the meeting. He
repeated his former testimony, and added, that Thistlewood told him
to pass it round to the other prisoners, that it was Edwards who had
betrayed them. Bradburn paid no attention to this advice.
THOMAS HYDEN, examined by Mr. Gurney, repeated his former evidence.
This is the man who gave information of the plot to Lords Harrowby and
Castlereagh, of which he on this occasion gave a detailed account.
Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--I know a man of the name of Bennett, a
bricklayer. I asked him to go with me to the shoemakers’ club. I cannot
swear that I did not ask him to go there, because something was to be
done there for the good of the country. I wrote to Lord Harrowby myself.
Here the learned Counsel asked him to write a word or two. He did so.
Mr. Curwood observed, that he asked the question because he had been
informed that the witness could not write. He had been mis-informed,
and had now done with the witness.
After the examination of this witness had closed, he evinced a
disposition to stay in Court, on which the prisoner, Brunt, observed,
“My Lord, the witness stays in Court.” Wilson then rose, and said, with
great indignation, “My Lord, let that perjured villain be turned out of
Court.” He then took his departure.
The EARL OF HARROWBY was next called, and repeated his former evidence.
JOHN BAKER, the butler to the Earl of Harrowby, corroborated his
Lordship’s evidence.
RICHARD MUNDAY and GEORGE CAYLOCK proved the presence of the prisoner
in Cato-street on the evening on which the plot was discovered.
GEORGE RUTHVEN, JAMES ELLIS, THOMAS WESTCOTT, and others belonging to
the police-office in Bow-street, were then examined as to the seizure
of the gang in Cato-street.
CAPTAIN FITZCLARENCE repeated the evidence which he had given on the
former trial.
Mr. Gurney then stated to the Court, that the case for the prosecution
was closed, except so far as related to the examination of the arms,
ammunition, _&c._, which had been seized either in Cato-street, or on
the premises of the conspirators. It would be more prudent to examine
them by day-light.
The _Lord Chief-Baron_ acquiesced in the proposition, and adjourned the
Court till the next day at nine o’clock.
SECOND DAY.--TUESDAY, _April 25_.
At nine o’clock in the morning the proceedings were resumed. The arms
and ammunition were brought in, and underwent an inspection in presence
of the Jury.