Towards the close of the year 1802 the feeble Peace of Amiens was
evidently on the eve of ending, and Europe was in feverish excitement.
The first Consul, Napoleon Bonaparte, fast approached the zenith of his
power: already had the “gloom of his glory” arisen “and o’ershadowed the
earth with his fame.” Unlike his illustrious nephew, Napoleon III., he
could not understand England, nor England him, and so the war between
them was about to be revived more deadly and determined than before.
England feared not (when did England ever fear?), but the British people
were everywhere in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, natural upon the
momentous preparations for the renewed struggle. Continual alarms of
internal treachery magnified into giant cases of treason, and
exaggerated demonstrations of loyalty were the order of the day. This
political condition must be fully understood to make us now-a-days
comprehend the extraordinary sensation caused by the following criminal
attempt of a half-crazy officer and a parcel of pauper miscreants, truly
one of the most miserable affairs that perhaps ever occupied a Royal
Commission sitting on a trial for high treason. The chief conspirator,
Despard, who had been a thorough gentleman and a soldier, and who had
Nelson himself to give him a character, must, from what he supposed was
the neglect, but what was no more probably than the procrastination of
Government, have lost his wits and have become a dangerous lunatic, more
fit for a madhouse than the gallows.
One can hardly refrain from a smile on reading the following
amplification of Lord Ellenborough, when passing sentence upon such poor
and incapable conspirators:—“The object,” said his lordship, “of the
conspiracy, in which you have borne your several very active and
criminal parts, has been to overthrow and demolish the fundamental laws
and established government of your country; to seize upon and destroy
the sacred person of our revered and justly beloved sovereign; to murder
and destroy the various members of his royal house; to extinguish and
annihilate the other branches of the legislature of this realm.” Yet the
learned and able judge did no more than speak the sentiments and
suspicions of the period. It was, indeed, the then excitement of the
public, and nowise any intrinsic importance, that has made this crime of
Despard historical. I here give it somewhat fully because the interest
really lies in details revealing the minuteness of the capabilities of
the prisoners, and the magnitude of the proceedings against them.
The ancient and honourable family of Despard is to this day of high
standing and respectability in Ireland. The first of the Despards who
settled there was a commissioner sent by Queen Elizabeth for
partitioning the Irish lands. This Commissioner Despard and his father
had fled from France in 1572 to escape the massacre of St. Bartholomew.
Their descendant, William Despard, Esq., of Cranagh, in the Queen’s
County, was M.P. for Bantry. His third son, William Despard, Esq., of
Killaghy, in the County of Tipperary, M.P. for Thomastown, married
Frances, daughter and coheir of Daniel Green, Esq., of Killaghy Castle,
County Tipperary, and was father (with other issue) of an eldest son,
William, his successor, and a second son, Francis Green. The eldest son
became William Despard, Esq., of Coubrane and Cartoun, Queen’s County,
and Killaghy Castle, County Tipperary, and married, May, 1732, Jane,
daughter of the Rev. Mr. Walsh, Rector of Blessington and had (with
another who died young) six sons, viz.:—1. William, who married and left
a family; 2. Philip, Captain 7th Fusiliers, who married and left a
family; 3. Green, Captain R.N., who died unmarried; 4. John, a
Lieut.-General in the Army, who married Harriet Anne, daughter of Thomas
Hesketh, Esq., and granddaughter of Sir Robert Hesketh, Bart., and had
an only child, Harriet Dorothea, wife of the late Vice-Admiral Henry
Francis Greville, C.B., kinsman of the Earl of Warwick: she left, with
other issue, a son, the present Major-General H. L. F. Greville, R.A.;
5. Andrew, a colonel in the army, who died in 1840, aged 90; and 6.
Edward Marcus, the unfortunate subject of this trial. Edward Marcus
Despard was born in 1750, and as the above genealogical account shows,
was the youngest of six brothers, all of whom, except the eldest, had
served their country either in the army or navy. In 1766, he entered the
army as an ensign, in the 5th regiment; in the same regiment he served
as a lieutenant, and passing into the 79th he was successively
lieutenant, quartermaster, captain-lieutenant, and captain. From his
superior officers he received many marks of approbation, particularly
from General Calcraft, of the 50th, General Meadows, and the Duke of
Northumberland. He had been for twenty years detached from any
particular corps, and entrusted with important offices. In 1779 he was
appointed chief engineer to the St. Juan expedition, and conducted
himself so as to obtain distinction and official praise. He also
received the thanks of the Council and Assembly of Jamaica for the
construction of public works there, and was in consequence appointed by
the Governor of Jamaica to be Commander-in-Chief of the Island of Rattan
and its dependencies, and of the troops there, and to rank as
lieutenant-colonel and field engineer; and he commanded as such on the
Spanish main, in Rattan, and on the Musquito shore, and the Bay of
Honduras. After this, at Cape Graciosa Dios, he put himself at the head
of the inhabitants, who voluntarily solicited him to take the command,
and took from the Spaniards Black River, the principal settlement of the
coast. For this he received the thanks of the Governor, Council, and
Assembly of Jamaica, and of the King himself. In 1783 he was promoted to
the rank of colonel. In 1784 he was appointed first commissioner for
settling and receiving the territory ceded to Britain, by the sixth
article of the definitive treaty of peace with Spain, in 1783. He so
well discharged his duty as a colonel that he was appointed
superintendent of his Majesty’s affairs on the coast of Honduras, which
office he held much to the advantage of the Crown of England, for he got
from that of Spain some very important privileges. The clashing
interests, however, of the inhabitants of the coast produced much
discontent, and the colonel was, by a party of them, accused wrongly, as
it turned out, to his Majesty’s ministers, of various misdemeanours. He
therefore came home, and demanded that his conduct should be
investigated; but after two years’ constant attendance on all the
departments of Government, he was at last told by the ministers that
there was no charge against him worthy of investigation, and that his
Majesty had thought proper to abolish the office of Superintendent at
Honduras, otherwise he should have been reinstated in it; but he was
then, and on every occasion, assured that his services should not be
forgotten, but in due time meet their reward. Well it would have been
for the colonel if he had rested satisfied with this intimation and
waited quietly for the promised employment; but official delay, the
circumlocution of a busy time, and the apparent spurns of his merit,
which he took too impatiently, seem to have somewhat turned his brains.
The colonel got irritated by continual disappointments, and began to
vent his indignation in a public and unguarded manner.[20] He
consequently was looked on in the light of a suspicious character, and
was arrested and held for some time, in harsh confinement, in
Coldbath-fields gaol, under the Act the 38 George III., c. 36 (continued
by subsequent acts), which empowered “His Majesty to secure and detain
such persons as his Majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his
person and Government.” Imprisonment increased rather than amended the
rancour and restlessness of Despard’s temper, and on his liberation he
was little better than a lunatic: he had become a wild revolutionist,
and, what was a strong sign of his mental aberration, an infidel. He
daily grew more and more malignant against Government. Thus inflamed, he
endeavoured to inflame others, and at length brought upon himself, and
those poor ignorant wretches who were seduced by his arguments, disgrace
and death. A madder or more miserable conspiracy than his never was
hatched. It was revealed to the public in the following manner:—On the
16th of November, 1802, in consequence of a search warrant, a numerous
body of the police-officers went to the Oakley Arms, Oakley-street,
Lambeth, where they apprehended Colonel Despard, and near forty
labouring men and soldiers, many of them Irish. Next morning they were
all brought up before the magistrates in the Union Hall. The result of
the examination was, that Colonel Despard was committed to the county
gaol, and afterwards to Newgate; twelve of his low associates (six of
whom were soldiers) were sent to Tothill-fields Bridewell, and twenty to
the New Prison, Clerkenwell. Ten other persons who had been found in a
different room, and who appeared to have no concern with the colonel’s
party, were instantly discharged.
The colonel during all the preliminary examinations was invariably
silent.
The Privy Council, the more effectually to try the prisoners, issued a
special commission.
On the 21st of January, 1803, the special commission was opened at the
Sessions House at Newington. The judges present were:—The Right Hon. Sir
Edward Law, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s
Bench; the Hon. Sir Alexander Thomson, one of the Barons of the Court of
Exchequer; the Hon. Sir Simon Le Blanc, one of the Justices of the Court
of King’s Bench; and the Hon. Sir Alan Chambre, one of the Justices of
the Court of Common Pleas.
On the same day the Grand Jury met, among whom were Lord Leslie,
foreman, Viscount Cranley, Lord William Russell, Sir Mark Parsons, and
four other baronets. The names of Sir Mark Parsons and Lord William
Russell awake in themselves criminal recollections, for Sir Mark’s
father was hanged for felony in 1760, and Lord William was murdered by
Courvoisier in 1840. This Grand Jury returned a true bill against Edward
Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John Francis, Thomas
Phillips, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, John Doyle, James Sedgwick
Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, Samuel Smith, and John
Macnamara, for high treason.
The court then adjourned to the 5th of February following, when it again
met at the same place, the Sessions House, Newington; and, on the same
judges taking their seats, Edward Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas
Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall,
John Doyle, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham,
Samuel Smith, and John Macnamara were set to the bar, and, being
arraigned, severally pleaded “Not guilty.” Despard had already had
assigned to him for counsel Serjeant Best and Mr. Gurney. On the request
of the other prisoners, Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Howell were assigned their
counsel.
The prisoners’ counsel having signified that they should separate in
their challenges of the jury, the Attorney-General stated that he should
proceed first on the trial of Colonel Despard. The court then adjourned
to the following Monday, the 7th February, when it met again, and the
trial of Despard began before the same judges.
The counsel for the Crown were:—The Attorney-General, the Hon. Spencer
Percival, afterwards First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the
Exchequer; the Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Manners Sutton, afterwards
Lord Manners and Lord Chancellor of Ireland; Serjeant Shepherd,
afterwards Sir Samuel Shepherd, Attorney-General, and Lord Chief Baron
of the Exchequer of Scotland; Mr. Plumer, afterwards Sir Thomas Plumer,
Solicitor General, and successively Vice-Chancellor of England and
Master of the Rolls; Mr. Garrow, afterwards Sir William Garrow,
Attorney-General, and a Baron of the Exchequer; the Common Serjeant; Mr.
Wood, afterwards Sir George Wood, a Baron of the Exchequer; Mr.
Fielding, afterwards a police-magistrate; Mr. Abbott, afterwards Sir
Charles Abbott, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, and
Baron Tenterden. The solicitor for the Crown was Joseph White, Esq.,
Solicitor for the Affairs of his Majesty’s Treasury. The counsel for
Colonel Despard were Serjeant Best, afterwards Sir William Draper Best,
Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and Baron Wynford; and
Mr. Gurney, afterwards Sir John Gurney, a Baron of the Exchequer. The
solicitor for Despard’s defence was Mr. Palmer, of Barnard’s Inn.
The indictment was opened by Mr. Abbott.
The Attorney-General, in addressing the jury, began by enforcing the
necessity of a patient attention to his statement and a due
consideration of the evidence. “No one,” he said, “would deny that, if
there has been a plot to overturn the Constitution and destroy our
Sovereign, the base conspirator should suffer his merited punishment,
but the nature of the charge should not operate to his disadvantage; the
grand principle of our law ought rather to be confirmed, ‘that every man
should be considered innocent till he is found guilty.’” The
Attorney-General then adverted to the nature of the crime of treason,
and expressed his expectation that, if the charge were substantiated,
the jury would pronounce the prisoner guilty without the least
hesitation; and, after many remarks to show that there was not the least
ground for suspecting the prosecution to have been brought forward from
any party motive or prejudice on the side of Government, he concluded
his preliminary remarks with observing, that from the clearness of the
evidence, the trial could not be long. He then proceeded to state the
counts in the indictment, which were three in number, and charged the
acts to have been done with the intention of compassing the death of the
king, imprisoning his person, and dethroning him. To prove the criminal
intention, an overt act is necessary, and in this indictment eight overt
acts were stated, which were divided into two classes: the four first
charged the seduction of his Majesty’s troops, for the purpose of
assassinating and imprisoning him; and the remainder, plans for the
accomplishing of these purposes. After fully stating the law respecting
treason and conspiracy, the Attorney-General read over the names of the
persons included in the indictment, and observed that ten of them,
besides the prisoner, were apprehended at the Oakley Arms on the 16th
November. It appeared that, in the last spring, a detachment of Guards
returned from Chatham, and shortly afterwards a conspiracy was formed
for overturning the Government; a society was established for the
extension of liberty, of which two men, named Francis and Wood, were
very active members; they frequently attempted to seduce soldiers into
the association, and sometimes with success. Francis administered
unlawful oaths to those that yielded, and among others were two named
Blaine and Windsor, giving them two or three copies of the oath that
they might be enabled to make proselytes in their turn. Windsor soon
after becoming dissatisfied gave information to a Mr. Bownas, and showed
him a copy of the oath. This gentleman invited him to continue a member
of the association, that he might learn whether there were any persons
of consequence engaged in it. The prisoner at the bar tendered this
oath; it was found in the possession of Broughton, Smith, and others. It
was printed on the cards in these words:—“Constitution! the independence
of Great Britain and Ireland! an equalisation of civil, political, and
religious rights! an ample provision for the families of the heroes who
shall fall in the contest! a liberal reward for distinguished merit!
These are the objects for which we contend, and to obtain these objects
we swear to be united.”
The form of the oath was:—“In the awful presence of Almighty God, I, A.
B., do voluntarily declare that I will endeavour to the utmost of my
power to obtain the objects of this union—namely, to recover those
rights which the Supreme Being in His infinite bounty has given to all
men; that neither hopes nor fears, rewards nor punishments, shall induce
me to give any information, directly or indirectly, concerning the
business, or of any members of this or of any similar society, so help
me God!”
The Attorney-General then commented on different passages contained in
this oath, and endeavoured to show that it could only bear a treasonable
interpretation. Proceeding in his statement, he observed that, about the
middle of summer, the conspirators began to think it might be dangerous
for them always to meet at the same place. To avoid suspicion, they
therefore went to various public-houses in Windmill-street,
Oxford-street, St. Giles’s, Hatton Garden, Whitechapel, in the Borough,
about the Tower, and to the Oakley Arms in Lambeth. To these meetings
they invited soldiers, and treated them; toasts were given to answer the
objects of the association, such as “the Cause of Liberty,” “Extension
of Rights,” “the Model of France,” &c. They now increased greatly in
audacity, and were betrayed by their confidence into the greatest
extravagances; some of them proposed a day for attacking the Tower, and
the great blow was to have been struck on the 16th November, the day on
which the king first intended to go to Parliament.
“I shall hasten,” continued the Attorney-General, “in the statement of
my evidence, to the later scenes of this conspiracy; because, during the
early part of it, excepting in the instances of endeavouring to
administer these unlawful oaths, the evidence will not bring Despard
very forward in the conspiracy. But when it appeared to approach a
little more to its maturity, the colonel appears a more conspicuous
character. The events of the last week previous to his arrest will
furnish me, I think, with no less than four opportunities of showing him
connected with these conspirators, in most treasonable communication
upon the design. On the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday on which they were
arrested, on the 9th November, he was at the same Oakley Arms, in
company with some of the same traitors in whose company he was found on
the 16th. Broughton is a name I particularly recollect, who, I think,
was the person that invited the witness whom I shall call to prove his
having been there, and represented that the time was now approaching
when it was intended that a great stroke should be struck. You may
recollect that his Majesty had intended to meet his Parliament, the last
sessions, a week sooner than he actually did. It was intended that he
should have met Parliament on the 16th instead of the 23rd; and on the
16th it was the intention of these conspirators, supposing his Majesty
had on that day gone down to the House, to have carried into effect this
plan of destroying him. On the night of the 9th of November, I shall
show the prisoner to have been present amongst these conspirators. I
shall prove him likewise to have been present at a meeting that will be
very particularly deserving of your attention on the Friday. The same
Broughton will be proved to have prevailed upon two persons, whom I
shall call to you as witnesses—Windsor was one of them, and Emblin
another—to go on the Friday to the Flying Horse, at Newington, Broughton
telling them that if they went, they would meet a nice man there, and
find that things were in a fine train. They accordingly went, and the
nice man whom they found, and to whom they were there introduced, was
Colonel Despard, the prisoner at the bar....
“That meeting lasted about two hours; and the plan of carrying this
treason into execution was the main subject of conversation. The mode in
which the Tower was watched and guarded was one topic of conversation,
with a view to see what facilities or difficulties might attend an
attack upon that place. The principal thing, however, which will require
your consideration, was the plan of intercepting the king in his way
down to the Parliament House; this was discussed. The difficulties
attending it—the mode in which these difficulties were to be met with
and got rid of—were parts of the conversation supported by different
persons. I think it was Broughton who suggested that one good way would
be to shoot the horses of the coach, and then the coach would
necessarily stop; upon which it was observed by one of them that the
Life Guards who were surrounding the coach would cut down any man who
attempted to approach it; and on this occasion the prisoner at the bar
made use of expressions which will be particularly spoken to, and will
be particularly worthy of your attention. Upon its being stated that the
Life Guards would resist any attempt that should be made upon the coach,
and cut down any man who should approach it, and on its being asked who
would be found to do it, he said that if no one else would do it, he
would do it himself, accompanying it with an expression strongly
demonstrative of the turn and frame of his mind at the moment, and of
the desperate extent to which he meant to carry his treason;
accompanying his expression by no less remarkable words than these: “I
have well weighed the matter, and my heart is callous.” Gentlemen, this
cannot be equivocal; callous, indeed, must be the heart which meditated
the plan that I charge against him; and the expression could hardly be
used with reference to any other.”
The Attorney-General then observed, that Government was well aware of
the proceedings of these people, but would not interfere while danger
was at a distance; however, when the schemes were nearly completed,
about thirty prisoners were arrested at the Oakley Arms, and a
sufficient body of evidence collected to prove them guilty. The
conspirators consisted of the lowest order of the people, as journeymen,
day-labourers, and common soldiers, with the exception, however, of the
prisoner at the bar. Several were discharged; and Windsor, the evidence,
came after the arrest, and offered to deliver himself up and communicate
all information in his power: on his testimony several others were taken
into custody. These were the principal points in the speech of the
Attorney-General; but he continued for some time to expatiate on the
probable system of defence for the prisoners, which he conceived would
be principally an attack on the credibility of the witnesses: he
contended that an accomplice is competent; observed that there could not
be a doubt of the guilt of some of the prisoners; and that the papers
were sufficient to prove the conspiracy, independent of oral testimony.
He concluded thus:—
“I trust you will have no extraordinary feeling that should lead you to
think that you are to endeavour to extricate the prisoner by any strain
of ingenuity or of conscience in this case, which would not be properly
applicable to another. Undoubtedly the nature of the charge is such as
requires, as I stated, your most anxious attention. It is one of the
blackest and most mischievous that can come before you; but when it is
brought home to the prisoner, the effect of these considerations is at
an end. That he will even then, and to the last, be entitled to the
fullest possible measure of justice at your hands, is that which
unquestionably is true. His title to justice he can never forfeit; it
cannot be forfeited in a court constituted as this is; administering
English law by an English jury, under the direction of English judges;
but that there shall be any feeling of humanity, which should be
restlessly anxious to extend itself in his favour beyond those bounds
within which both public and private duty confine it, is that which the
prisoner has no title to expect, is that against which the public have a
right to protest and to reclaim. I fear I have troubled you too long; I
shall now proceed to call the witnesses, and if I do lay before you the
evidence as I have opened it, confirmed as I have stated that it will be
confirmed, I apprehend your duty to convict the prisoner, however
painful the discharge of that duty may be to your feelings, will be
indispensable.”
Counsel then proceeded to call the witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr. J. Stafford, clerk to the magistrates of Union Hall, stated the
arrest of the prisoners. Colonel Despard at first refused to be
searched, but afterwards submitted, though nothing was found on him.
There were three papers on the floor, which proved to be the oath, &c.,
already mentioned. Several police-officers proved the presence of
Colonel Despard at the Oakley Arms.
Thomas Windsor, the principal evidence, said he was a private in the
Guards, and that on his return from Chatham in March, he received some
papers from John Francis which were similar to those already mentioned.
Francis told him the object of the party was to overturn the present
tyrannical system of government. The manner of taking the oath was by
reading it secretly and then kissing the card. One object of the members
was to raise subscriptions for delegates to go into the country, and to
pay for affidavits. The society was divided into companies of ten men,
commanded by another who bore the title of colonel. Francis and a person
named Macnamara called themselves colonels. Encouragements were given to
get a number of recruits, for which purpose cards were to be distributed
through the country; afterwards, the witness was introduced by Broughton
to Colonel Despard, at Newington, when in the course of conversation the
colonel said that a regular organization in the country was necessary,
and he believed that it was general. The people were everywhere ripe,
and were anxious for the moment of the attack; “and,” added he, “I
believe this to be the moment, particularly in Leeds, Sheffield,
Birmingham, and every great town throughout the kingdom. I have walked
twenty miles a day, and wherever I have been the people are ripe.”
Colonel Despard then said that the attack was to be made on the day when
the king would go to Parliament. He then repeated the words used by the
colonel respecting the callousness of his heart, and stated that, after
the destruction of the king, it was proposed the mail coaches should be
stopped as a signal to the people in the country that the revolt had
taken place in London. The colonel was cautious as to the admission of
new members. At another meeting the colonel, accompanied by Heron, a
discharged soldier, and another person, observed, “We have been deceived
as to the number of arms in the Bank: there are only six hundred stand
there, and they have taken the hammers to render them useless, as they
must have been apprised of our intention.” They then returned to a
public-house, when the colonel said privately to the witness, “Windsor,
the king must be put to death the day he goes to the House, and then the
people will be at liberty.” He said he would himself make the attack
upon his majesty if he could get no assistance on that (meaning the
Middlesex) side of the water. The prisoner Wood said, that when the king
was going to the House, he would post himself as sentry over the great
gun in the park; that he would load it and fire at his majesty’s coach
as he passed through the park. Wood might in the course of his duty be
sometimes placed as a sentry over that gun.
Mr. Bownas proved the copy of the “constitution” and oath given to him
by Windsor.
Thomas Blaise, a private in the second battalion of Guards, deposed that
Wood had told him of the union of several gentlemen who had determined
to form an independent constitution at the risk of their lives and
fortunes: he said the executive government had appointed Francis to be
colonel of the first regiment of National Guards. Macnamara called upon
Francis to point out three colonels and one artillery officer, and
charged him to do it with the utmost impartiality. Francis then pointed
out him (the witness) as a proper man for a colonel. The commissions
were to be distributed previous to the attack, when one of the persons,
named Pendril, observed, that if it had not been for four or five
cowards it would have taken place before that day, adding that he
himself could bring a thousand men into the field, and if any man showed
symptoms of cowardice he would blow his brains out; if anybody dared to
betray the secret, that man, he said, should have a dagger in his heart.
The witness then deposed to meeting with Colonel Despard at the Oakley
Arms, on which occasion he heard much conversation about the best method
of attacking the king: some said the Parliament house must also be
attacked, and after that they must file away for the Tower. This
witness, on his cross-examination, admitted that he had been three times
tried by a court-martial for desertion, and accused of theft.
William Francis, a private in the 1st Guards, deposed nearly to the same
effect as the preceding witness, as to the nature of the oath which was
read to him, because he could not read himself; he said, at one time
there was an assemblage of people near the Tower, but they were
immediately dispersed by orders from Colonel Despard, but he admitted
that the oath was administered to him by the colonel himself; at one
meeting the soldiers drew their bayonets, and said they were ready to
die in the cause. On his cross-examination, he denied that he had ever
been flogged, or had deserted.
John Connell, who had been arrested at the Oakley Arms and admitted
evidence, denied that his name was John, and insisted that it was
Patrick; he afterwards admitted that he was advised by the prisoner to
play this trick on the counsel. He was dismissed.
Several other soldiers in the Guards gave evidence as to the meeting of
societies for overturning the Government, under the name of “Free and
Easy,” which met at different public-houses.
John Emblin, a watchmaker and a witness, who appeared to be of a
superior understanding, deposed that he attended at the Oakley Arms on
the suggestion of Lander, but disapproved of the plans. He also agreed
in stating the plan of attack already mentioned, which was explained to
him by Broughton, Graham, and others. Colonel Despard informed him that
a very considerable force would come forward, particularly in all the
great towns: and said that he had been engaged in this business for two
years, and added, “I have travelled twenty miles to-day; everywhere I
have been, the people are ripe and anxious for the moment of attack.”
This witness deposed to the plan of shooting the horses, as well as to
the remarkable expression of the colonel before mentioned; also to the
conversation about seizing the Bank, when it was agreed that the Bank
should be seized and the Tower taken. Various subordinate plans were
also detailed by the witness; amongst others, Broughton told him, with
an oath, that he was resolved to load the great gun in the park with
four balls or chain-shots, and fire it at the king’s coach as he
returned from the House.
Here the evidence for the Crown was closed.
Serjeant Best then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and
endeavoured to show that, from the nature and spirit of our
constitution, a person in his situation is entitled to peculiar favour.
From the Act the 36 Geo. III., c. 7, on which the indictment was partly
founded, he insisted that it is not by mere words spoken, that an
accused person is to be found guilty, because a speech is subject to
such serious misinterpretation. He laboured to show that words did not
constitute an overt act; yet he admitted that the colonel was at some of
the meetings, and that he might have spoken obnoxious words; but before
he could be convicted, it was necessary to prove that he knew the
meeting was of a treasonable nature. He denied that the printed card or
paper was at all connected with the colonel, and cited the case of Layer
and others (in the sixth vol. of the “State Trials”), to prove that the
Crown did not content themselves with such trivial proofs as here
adduced, and laid much stress on the circumstance of no arms having been
prepared for the attack. His next object was to impeach the credibility
of the witnesses, the concurrent testimony of whom was, in the present
instance, of no more force than one. The great improbability of the
story was his next point of argument, and he ridiculed the idea of
fourteen or fifteen in a common tap-room, with no fire-arms but their
tobacco-pipes, men of the lowest orders of society, who were to seize
the King, the Bank, the Tower, and the members of both Houses of
Parliament; in short, he considered the whole statement of the witnesses
as too absurd to merit attention, and that Colonel Despard, who was a
gentleman and a soldier, could not have embarked in such impracticable
schemes unless he was bereft of reason. He then alluded to the past
services of the colonel, who, in a joint command with Lord Nelson, had
preserved one of our valuable colonies. It was known that the colonel
had been suspected by Government; but though he had long been confined,
there was not at that time sufficient evidence against him to go before
a grand jury. He proceeded to comment on the character of the witnesses,
and concluded thus:—
“I am persuaded, that at this late hour of the night, fatigued as I
necessarily must be in passing through so arduous a service, some
observations must have escaped me, and those which have occurred to me I
have not pressed with that force which the occasion demands at my hands,
but I have one consolation in the assistance of my learned friend, who
will soon follow me, and supply my defects; or even if he should fail in
doing that, we have this further consolation, that everything that can
be urged in favour of the prisoner will be stated by the noble and
learned judge. Any defect of mine he will supply, any inaccuracy he will
correct. I have only to remind you, that you are sitting in a British
court of justice. It is one of the maxims of the country in which we
live—that maxim upon which everything dear and valuable depends—that you
are to administer justice in mercy. You are sitting in a court of
justice, which is a member of the government of a free people; you will
remember that it is one of the principles of freedom, that men are not
to be compelled to an adherence to the government by terror, but to be
attached to its laws by love. I am perfectly persuaded, therefore, that
if you should agree with me presently in saying this case is not made
out, and it is not to be made out by conjecture, you are not to condemn
unless all idea of innocence be completely extinguished by the weight of
the evidence that has been produced upon the cause,—I say, if you should
agree with me in saying you do not see satisfactory grounds for
delivering over this gentleman to that horrid death to which you assign
him if you pronounce him guilty, a verdict of acquittal will have a
greater effect than a verdict of guilty. Gentlemen, I say we are
attached to our constitution and laws by love, and are not bound to
adhere to them by fear; that love must necessarily be increased by such
a circumstance as this, that after so many hours of trial, by so
respectable a jury, men of consideration and consequence in the country,
this gentleman, after the attack which has been made upon him, is
delivered from it by your verdict. I am persuaded that, if there are any
deluded persons in this country who fancy we have not attained that
degree of perfect freedom which is capable of being attained, though I
should hope what has lately passed would operate completely to remove
that delusion, nothing will so completely satisfy them of their mistake
as a verdict pronounced by you of not guilty, to-night. They will know,
that when a subject is attacked by a prosecution not made out by fair
and clear evidence, he is sure of protection in the uprightness and
integrity of the judge, and the mercy of the jury who try the cause.
They will learn that true freedom consists in the just and humane
administration of law, and will observe and cherish the laws they find
to be so administered. I at one time intended to offer evidence in
contradiction of these witnesses, but if I have shown them accomplices,
and that the case is only proved by their evidence, I have shown them
unworthy of contradiction, and the attempt could only serve to increase
the fatigue you have already undergone; but I shall offer most material
evidence: I shall offer evidence of the character of this gentleman. If
courts of justice are intended to correct the morals and confirm the
virtuous inclination of those who attend them—which is one great object
of their institution—they cannot do it more effectually than by paying
attention to the evidence of good character; it is telling a man that
if, by the tenor of his life, he shall acquire a good character, it
shall afford him a shield in a court of justice in the day of trial. The
evidence of character must have effect in another point of view. The
Attorney-General has said every man is to be supposed innocent till
proved guilty. It is much less likely that a man who has maintained a
good character should become on a sudden the vilest of men, _nemo
repente fit turpissimus_, than that one who has appeared less correct
should become criminal. I say, if this gentleman has borne a good
character, which I shall show he has, that the case attempted to be made
out against him is most improbable. One would almost believe that the
stream should set back upon the fountain, than that a man who has
deserved well of his country should concur with such miserable persons
as you have heard to-day, in one of the most miserable conspiracies for
treason that I ever heard of. I have too good an opinion of the loyalty
of the country to give credit to this story. If the case is made out, it
is a most detestable and abominable treason. If the case is made out, no
man but would with satisfaction see the sentence of the law executed;
but remember the maxim of the Attorney-General, that, in proportion as
the crime is enormous, so ought the proof to be clear. Gentlemen, I beg
your pardon for troubling you at such a length at this time of night.”
Serjeant Best, confining his evidence for the prisoner to witnesses for
character, called, as a leading witness, no less a personage than
Vice-Admiral Horatio, Lord Viscount Nelson, K.B., who was examined by
Mr. Gurney as follows:—
How long has your lordship known Colonel Despard?—It is twenty-three
years since I saw him; I became acquainted with him in the year 1779, at
Jamaica. He was, at that time, lieutenant in what were called the
Liverpool Blues. From his abilities as an engineer, I know he was
expected to be appointed——
Lord Ellenborough.—I am sorry to be obliged to interrupt your lordship;
but we cannot hear what I dare say your lordship would give with great
effect, the history of this gentleman’s military life, but you will
state what has been his general character?
To this Lord Nelson answered:—We went on the Spanish Main together; we
slept many nights together in our clothes upon the ground; we have
measured the heights of the enemy’s wall together. In all that period of
time, no man could have shown more zealous attachment to his sovereign
and his country than Colonel Despard did. I formed the highest opinion
of him, at that time, as a man and an officer, seeing him so willing in
the service of his sovereign. Having lost sight of him for the last
twenty-three years, if I had been asked my opinion of him, I should have
said, “If he is alive, he is certainly one of the brightest ornaments of
the British Army.”
Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson was thus cross-examined by Mr.
Attorney-General:—
What your lordship has been stating was in the years 1779 and 1780?—Yes.
Have you had much intercourse with Colonel Despard since that time?—I
have never seen him since the 29th of April, 1780.
Then as to his loyalty for the last twenty-three years of his life your
lordship knows nothing?—Nothing.
Two other distinguished witnesses spoke in favour of the character of
the Colonel—viz., Sir Edward Clark, at one time Governor of Jamaica, who
had known the Colonel for many years up to 1790, and Sir Evan Nepean,
Bart., Secretary to the Admiralty, who had been intimate with him from
1784 until almost up to the time of the trial. “I had,” said Sir Evan,
“so high an opinion of him, that I invited him to my house. I considered
him a loyal man.”
Mr. Gurney spoke to evidence in behalf of the prisoner, and endeavoured
to invalidate the testimony of the witnesses; his peroration was
eloquent.
“Before I sit down,” said he, “I must entreat your serious attention to
one observation more. There have been many cases in the history of the
criminal jurisprudence of this country, which should impress caution on
the minds of jurymen: many in cases of other crimes; many in cases of
treason. How many innocent men have died in consequence of the credulity
of jurors? I will refer you only to the supposed Popish plot in the
reign of Charles II., for which as many men as are indicted here
suffered unjustly; the juries by which they were tried being deceived by
the hard swearing of witnesses, not more infamous than those whom you
have heard to-day: and yet those juries were countenanced by the whole
nation, the two Houses of Parliament leading the way. So firm and
general was the belief of that plot, that to dispute or doubt its
existence was deemed a mark of disaffection to the Protestant cause. In
a short time the veil was torn off: the perjury, which had triumphed,
was discovered to be perjury, but it was too late; the dead could not be
recalled from the grave; and the jurors who had sent them there were
left to the bitter reflections of their consciences,—to the unavailing
lamentation of their credulity. But, though these persons died
_unjustly_, I trust they did not die _in vain_. Their innocent blood
speaks aloud to you not to follow the fatal example of your
predecessors; not to lend, as they did, too easy faith to the testimony
of wicked men. May you attend to the warning voice, and pronounce a
verdict of acquittal, of which, I trust, you will never have reason to
repent.”
Colonel Despard declined saying anything in his own behalf.
The Solicitor-General replied on the part of the Crown, after which Lord
Ellenborough summed up, and stated the nature of overt acts; he read,
_verbatim_, the whole of the evidence, commenting, as he proceeded, on
the most striking parts.
The jury withdrew at about twenty minutes after two o’clock on the
Tuesday morning to consider their verdict; they returned into court in
about twenty-five minutes with a verdict finding the prisoner—Guilty.
The foreman added, “My lord, we most earnestly recommend the prisoner to
mercy on account of the high testimonials to his former good character
and eminent services.”
At three o’clock the court adjourned to nine o’clock on Wednesday
morning, when it again met, and the trial of John Wood, Thomas
Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall,
John Doyle, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham,
Samuel Smith, and John Macnamara, commenced and lasted till near eight
o’clock the next morning, when the jury found John Wood, Thomas
Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, James Sedgwick
Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, and John Macnamara, guilty.
After which Edward Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John
Francis, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, James Sedgwick Wratten, William
Lander, Arthur Graham, and John Macnamara, were set to the bar.
Lord Ellenborough then passed sentence of death upon the prisoners in a
rather high-flown speech. After describing in the strongest manner the
enormity of the crime of which they had been convicted, and observing
that such vile purposes, however zealously begun, generally terminated
in schemes of treachery against each other, he then proceeded:—
“With respect to the wicked contrivers of abortive treason now before
me, it only remains for me to acquit myself of my last official duty. As
for you, Colonel Despard, born, as you were, to better hopes, and
educated to nobler ends and purposes; accustomed as you have hitherto
been to a different life and manners, and pursuing with your former
illustrious companions, who have appeared on your trial, the paths of
virtuous and loyal ambition,—it is with the most sensible pain I view
the contrast formed by your present degraded condition, and I will not
now point out how much these considerations enhance the nature of your
crime. I entreat of you, by those hopes of mercy which are closed in
this world, to revive in your mind a purpose to subdue that callous
insensibility of heart, of which, in an ill-fated hour, you have
boasted, and regain that sanative affection of the mind which may
prepare your soul for that salvation which, by the infinite mercy of
God, I beseech of that God you may obtain. As to you (naming the other
convicts), sad victims of his seduction and example, and of your own
wicked purposes; you who fall a melancholy, but, I trust, an
instructive, sacrifice, to deter others from the commission of similar
crimes, may you apply the little time you have to live in the repentant
contemplation of another world. Warned by your example, may the ignorant
and unthinking avoid those crimes which bring you to a shameful and
untimely end! May they learn duly to estimate the humble but secure
blessings of industry—blessings which, in an evil hour, you have cast
from you! The same recommendation offered to the leader of your crimes,
to prepare for the awful and near termination of your existence, I
earnestly impress upon you; and I repeat for you my ardent invocation of
mercy in a future state which the interest of your fellow-creatures will
not suffer to be extended to you here. The only thing now remaining for
me is the painful task of pronouncing against you, and each of you, the
awful sentence which the law denounces against your crime, which is,
that you, and each of you, (here his lordship named the prisoners
severally) be taken to the place from whence you came, and from thence
you are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are
to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; for, while you are
still living, your bodies are to be taken down, your bowels torn out,
and burnt before your faces; your heads are to be then cut off, and your
bodies divided each into four quarters, to be at the king’s disposal;
and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls.”
The whole of this sentence, which, as the punishment of treason,
disgraced our law even to a late period (until altered by the 54 George
III., c. 146), was too disgusting and cruel to be completely carried
out. The warrant which directed the execution of the unfortunate Despard
and his associates remitted the disembowelling and quartering. This
warrant was sent to the keeper of the new (Horsemonger Lane) gaol in the
Borough at six o’clock on Saturday evening, Feb. 19, and included seven
prisoners; three—Newman, Tyndall, and Lander—having been respited. As
soon as the warrant, which ordered the execution for the following
Monday, was received, it was communicated to the unhappy persons by the
keeper of the prison, Mr. Ives, with as much tenderness and humanity as
the awful nature of the case required. Colonel Despard observed that the
time was short; yet he had not had from the first any strong expectation
that the recommendation of the jury would be effectual. The mediation of
Lord Nelson and a petition to the Crown were tried; but Colonel Despard
was convinced, according to report, that they would be unavailing. Soon
after the arrival of the warrant all papers, and everything he
possessed, were immediately taken from the colonel. The colonel’s
devoted wife, a lady of Honduras, whom he had married while in his
command there, was fearfully affected when she first heard his doom was
sealed, but afterwards recovered her fortitude. The colonel and Mrs.
Despard supported themselves with great firmness at parting on the
Saturday; and when she got into the coach that drove her away she waved
her handkerchief out of the window. The other prisoners bore their sad
lot with equal fortitude, but conducted themselves with less solemnity
than the colonel. Their wives and near relatives were allowed to take a
farewell of them on the same day; and the scene was truly distressing.
At daylight on Sunday morning, the drop, scaffold, and gallows, on which
they were to be executed were erected oh the top of the gaol. The Bow
Street patrol and many other peace officers were on duty all day and
night, and the military near London were drawn up close to the prison.
Mrs. Despard took final leave of her husband at three in the afternoon,
yet came again at five o’clock, but it was thought advisable to spare
the colonel the pang of a second parting, and she was, therefore, not
admitted into his cell. She evinced some indignation, and expressed a
strong opinion with respect to the cause for which her husband was to
suffer. After she had left the colonel at three o’clock, he walked up
and down his cell for some time, seemingly more agitated than he had
been at the actual moment of taking leave of her. Between six and seven
in the evening he threw himself on the bed, and fell into a short sleep.
At eight he awoke and addressed one of the officers of the prison, who
was with him, in these words:—“Me—they shall receive no information from
me; no, not for all the gifts, the gold, and jewels, in the possession
of the Crown!” He then composed himself, and remained silent. Seven
shells or coffins to receive the bodies, were brought into the prison,
and also two large bags filled with sawdust, and the block on which they
were to be beheaded. At four o’clock the next morning, February 21, the
drum beat at the Horse Guards as a signal for the troops to assemble. In
fact, the military force present on the occasion, like every other
proceeding of Government in this affair, was most imposing. At six
o’clock the Life-guards arrived, and took their station at the end of
the different roads at the Obelisk, in St. George’s Fields; whilst all
the officers from Bow Street, Queen’s Square, Marlborough Street, Hatton
Garden, Worship Street, Whitechapel, Shadwell, and other localities
attended. There were parties of the Life-guards riding up and down the
roads. At half-past six the prison bell rang—the signal for unlocking
the cells. At seven o’clock five of the men—Broughton, Francis, Graham,
Wood, and Wratten—went into the chapel, with the Rev. Mr. Winkworth.
Macnamara, being of another persuasion, and Despard, being in his
craziness an infidel, did not join them. The five attended to the
prayers with great earnestness, but at the same time without seeming to
lose that firmness they had displayed since their trial. Before they
received the sacrament, four of them confessed they had done wrong, but
not to the extent charged against them by the evidence. The fifth,
Graham, said he was innocent of the charges brought against him, but had
attended two meetings at the instigation of Francis. For some time the
clergyman refused to administer the sacrament to Francis, because he
persisted in declaring he had been guilty of no crime. The clergyman
said to him, “You admit you attended the meetings.” He replied, “Yes.”
“You knew they were for the purpose of overturning the constitution of
the country. I by no means wish you to enter into particulars, I only
wish you to acknowledge generally.” Francis answered, “I admit I have
done wrong in attending those meetings.” The clergyman then asked each
of them how they found themselves? Francis, Wood, Broughton, and Wratten
said, “They were never happier in their lives.” Graham remained silent.
The sacrament was administered to them all.
Colonel Despard and Macnamara were then brought down from their cells,
their irons knocked off, and their arms bound with ropes. The sheriff
asked Colonel Despard if he could render him any service. The colonel
thanked him, and replied that he could not. Upon the colonel coming out,
he shook hands very cordially with his solicitor, and returned him many
thanks for his kind attention; then, observing the sledge and apparatus,
he smilingly cried out, “Ha! ha! what nonsensical mummery is this?”
Notice being given that all was ready, the colonel, who stood the first,
retired behind, and mentioned to Francis, who was making way for him, to
go before him. The hurdle, being a body of a small cart, on which two
trusses of clean straw were laid, was drawn by two horses.
When the melancholy procession began, which was at half-past eight
o’clock precisely, Macnamara was the first that came out. Colonel
Despard was the last that appeared. He was dressed in a blue
double-breasted coat, with gilt buttons; cream-coloured waistcoat, with
narrow gold-lace binding; a flannel inside vest, with scarlet top turned
over; grey breeches, long boots, and a brown surtout. He stepped into
the hurdle with much fortitude, having an executioner on the right and
on the left, and on the same seat, with drawn cutlasses. He was thus
conducted to the outer lodge, whence he ascended the staircase leading
to the place of execution.
As soon as the prisoners were placed on the hurdle, St. George’s bell
tolled for some time. They were preceded by the Sheriff, Sir R. Ford,
the Protestant clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Winkworth, and a Catholic
clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Griffith, who attended Macnamara, who was a
Catholic. The coffins, or shells, which had been previously placed in a
room under the scaffold, were then brought up and put on the platform on
which the drop was erected; the bags of sawdust to catch the blood when
the heads were severed from the bodies were laid beside them. The block
was near the scaffold; there were about a hundred spectators on the
platform, among whom were some persons of distinction; the greatest
order was observed. Macnamara was the first on the platform, and when
the cord was placed round his neck he exclaimed, “Lord Jesus, have mercy
upon me! O Lord, look down with pity upon me!” The populace were much
struck by his appearance. Graham came second: he looked pale and
ghastly, but spoke not. Wratten was the third: he ascended the scaffold
with much firmness. Broughton, the fourth, joined in prayer with much
earnestness. Wood was the fifth, and Francis the sixth. They were all
equally composed.
Colonel Despard ascended the scaffold with great firmness, and his
countenance underwent not the slightest change while the dread ceremony
of fastening the rope round his neck and placing the cap on his head was
performing; he even assisted the executioner in adjusting the rope: he
looked at the multitude assembled with perfect calmness. The Protestant
clergyman, who came upon the scaffold after the prisoners were tied up,
spoke to him a few words as he passed; the Colonel bowed and thanked
him. The ceremony of fastening the prisoners being finished, the colonel
advanced as near as he could to the edge of the scaffold, and made the
following speech to the multitude:—
“Fellow Citizens,—I come here, as you see, after having served my
country—faithfully, honourably, and usefully served it for thirty years
and upwards—to suffer death upon a scaffold for a crime of which I
protest I am not guilty. I solemnly declare that I am no more guilty of
it than any of you who may be now hearing me. But though his Majesty’s
ministers know as well as I do that I am not guilty, yet they avail
themselves of a legal pretext to destroy a man because he has been a
friend to truth, to liberty, and justice.”
There was a considerable huzza from part of the populace the nearest to
him, but who, from the height of the scaffold from the ground, could
not, for a certainty, distinctly hear what was said. The colonel
proceeded:
“Because he has been a friend to the poor and distressed. But, citizens,
I hope and trust, notwithstanding my fate, and the fate of those who no
doubt will soon follow me, that the principles of freedom, of humanity,
and of justice, will finally triumph over falsehood, tyranny, and
delusion, and every principle hostile to the interests of the human
race. And now, having said this, I have little more to add——”
The colonel’s voice seemed to falter here; he paused a moment, as if he
had meant to say something more, and had forgotten it. He then concluded
in the following manner:—
“I have little more to add, except to wish you all health, happiness,
and freedom, which I have endeavoured, as far as was in my power, to
procure for you, and for mankind in general.”
The colonel spoke in a firm and audible tone of voice: he left off
sooner than was expected. There was no public expression, either of
approbation or disapprobation, given when he had concluded his address.
As soon as the colonel ceased speaking, the Protestant clergyman prayed
with five of the prisoners, and the Catholic priest with Macnamara.
However, to the very last, Colonel Despard obstinately refused all
clerical assistance, nor would he even join in the Lord’s Prayer. The
executioner pulled the caps over the faces of the unhappy persons, and
descended the scaffold. Most of them exclaimed, “Lord Jesus, receive our
souls!” At seven minutes before nine o’clock the signal was given, the
platform dropped, and they were all launched into eternity. After
hanging about half an hour till they were quite dead, they were cut
down. Colonel Despard was first cut down, his body placed upon the
sawdust, and his head upon a block; after his coat and waistcoat had
been taken off, his head was severed from his body by persons engaged
for the purpose. The executioner then took the head by the hair, and
carrying it to the edge of the parapet on the right hand, and on the
left, held it up at each edge to the view of the populace, and exclaimed
each time, “This is the head of a traitor, Edward Marcus Despard.”
Despard’s remains were then put into the shell that had been prepared
for them. The other prisoners were also cut down, their heads severed
from their bodies, and exhibited to the populace with the exclamation of
“This is the head of another traitor,” adding the name. The bodies were,
like Despard’s, put into their respective shells, and delivered to their
friends for interment.
The execution was over by ten o’clock, and the populace soon after
dispersed quietly. The remains of the six common men were deposited in
one grave in the vault under the Rev. Mr. Harper’s chapel, in the London
Road, St. George’s Fields. The body of Colonel Despard was taken from
Mount-street, Lambeth, on the 1st of March, in a hearse drawn by four
horses, followed by three mourning coaches, with four gentlemen in each,
and was interred in the cemetery belonging to the parish of St. Faith,
on the south side of St. Paul’s Cathedral. A great crowd collected, and
the City Marshal, with a guard, was present, lest there should be any
disturbance; but all went off peaceably.
The _Times_ of Monday, Feb. 28, 1803, thus refers to the burying of
Despard’s remains:—“The interment of Colonel Despard to-morrow will
depend upon the arrival of his son, who has been sent for to France to
be present on the occasion. This young gentleman is of respectable
character, and has been in Paris about three months, with his wife. He
was an ensign in Ireland, and was left a comfortable maintenance by his
grandfather.”
The melancholy state of infidelity exhibited by Colonel Despard on the
scaffold formed a theme for the pulpit. I find, among the reviews in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_, of 1804, the following notice:—“A Sermon on the
depravity of the Human Heart, exemplified, generally, in the conduct of
the Jews, and particularly in that of Lieutenant-Colonel Despard,
previous to his execution; preached at St. George’s, Hanover Square,
Feb. 27, 1803, by the Rev. William Leigh, LL.D., morning preacher at the
aforesaid church, and rector of Little Plumstead, Norfolk.” In this
sermon occur the following passages:—
“The depravity of the human heart, from the creation to the present
moment, is the strongest proof of the freedom of human agency and the
origin of evil. Good and evil are set before man, and his choice is
uninfluenced, and free. ‘But, alas! how vain is the strength of man! How
imperfect are his best resolutions! How prevalent his inclinations to
commit sin! and how sturdy his self-justification after he has committed
it!... It is the miserable pride of modern reformers, to be equally
independent of God and of man; to live without fear, and to die without
compunction. The circumstances which marked the last moments of Colonel
Despard, his refusal of the sacrament, his rejection of all spiritual
consolation, and that of his dying with a lie in his mouth, are such as
must fill every religious mind with lamentation and horror.’”
The trial of Colonel Despard presents coincidences with that of Governor
Wall, that preceded it. Both Wall and Despard were men of family, and
both came from nearly the same part of Ireland; both, by their own
merit, rose to be colonels and governors of colonies, and both were
eventually hanged in London—the one in the spring of 1802, and the other
in the spring of 1803, and formed melancholy but happily very rare
instances of military officers of rank suffering, for disgraceful
offences, the extreme penalty of the law.
Another coincidence may be mentioned. The Hon. Spencer Percival, who was
the Attorney-General at this trial, fell, in a few years afterwards, the
victim of an assassin, Bellingham, who was a kind of lunatic like
Despard, and had a similar real or ideal cause of grievance—viz.,
inattention of the Government to the application or complaint he was
making.
The learned and popular writer whom I have already quoted, Mr. Timbs,
F.S.A., in his “Curiosities of London,” thus points out, near the
now-called Victoria Theatre, the scene of Despard’s conspiracy: “In
Oakley Street, at the Oakley Arms, November 16, 1802, Colonel Edward
Marcus Despard and thirty-two other persons were apprehended on a charge
of high treason; and in February following, the colonel, with nine of
his associates, were tried by a special commission at the Surrey
Sessions House: and being all found guilty, seven, including Despard,
were executed February 21, on the top of Horsemonger Lane Gaol.” Mr.
Timbs further shows the spot to have been part of, or proximate to, the
notorious “Pedlar’s Acre” scene of many a misdeed and crime.
To the honour of the Despard family, it may be mentioned that its
loyalty was no wise diminished by this, to say the least of it, when one
considers the obvious state of his mind and the absurdity of his
treason, very severe measure of justice dealt out to the unhappy
colonel. His relatives continued to act gallantly and devotedly in the
service of their country. Of the sons of his brother, Captain Philip
Despard, one, at the age of thirty-one, Lieut.-Colonel William Despard,
7th Fusiliers, fell at the Pyrenees in the Peninsular War; and another,
Henry Despard, rose by his own merit to be a general in the army and
colonel of the 99th Regiment. Killaghy, the seat of the Despards, in the
County Tipperary, was sold by William Despard (father of the colonel of
the trial) to his brother, Francis Green Despard, Esq., and the property
descended eventually to Francis’s great granddaughter, Catherine
Despard, wife of William Wright, Esq., who assumed by royal licence, in
1838, the surname and arms of Despard.