TRIAL OF JAMES INGS.
SESSIONS-HOUSE, OLD BAILEY.
First Day, Friday, April 21, 1820.
At eight o’clock in the morning the jurymen, who had been summoned, arrived at the Sessions-house, and, at nine, Lord Chief Justice Dallas, Chief Baron Richards, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Sergeant, took their seats.
The prisoner, James Ings, was then put to the bar; he seemed to labour under strong feelings of agitation and had none of that firmness of aspect which he displayed on the former days: he was dressed in a suit of black.
Mr. Shelton, the clerk of the arraigns, proceeded to call over the list of the jurymen, commencing at the name with which he had terminated, when the jury in Thistlewood’s case was impanelled.
After a considerable number of challenges, both on the part of the crown and of the prisoner, the following jury was finally impanelled and sworn:
Charles Palmer,
William Moore,
Thomas Beecham,
John Beck,
Benjamin Rogers,
James Carey,
George Smith,
James Eade,
Benjamin Blythe,
William Percy,
John Young,
William Edgecombe.
Mr. Shelton then proceeded to read the indictment against the prisoner, which was the same already described in the case of Arthur Thistlewood.
Mr. Bolland, at a few minutes after ten, opened the indictment in the usual way to the Jury.
The Solicitor-General rose at ten o’clock to address the Jury for the prosecution. “It was hardly necessary for him, he said, to entreat their serious and patient attention to the statement he had to make to them in the performance of his duty: they owed it to themselves, to their country, and, above all, to the prisoner at the bar. In justice to him, there was one fact now known, and to which he might without impropriety allude. One of the parties in this conspiracy had been already convicted. That circumstance they were bound not to let operate to the prejudice of this prisoner; towards his part of the offence they were bound to look, not through the medium of any thing that had already passed in that Court, but solely through that which would this day be laid before them in evidence; to that alone they were to direct their attention, and by that must they form their opinion of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. On the law of the case it would be unnecessary for him to make a single observation, for upon it not a single objection, not a single doubt, had been stated since this commission had sat. The charge against the prisoner, divested of all technicalities, was simply this, that he had conspired with others, by force and violence, to overthrow the laws and constitution of the country. This was to be effected by an extensive plan of assassination, and by other means which he should hereafter mention.
“In behalf of the prosecution, he would plainly and simply narrate the facts as he knew they would be proved in evidence. He would narrate them without the smallest exaggeration or distortion of facts. The best gift and pride of the people was the pure and impartial administration of the laws of this country, and he would state the facts as they would soon hear them in evidence, and leave them to decide upon their applicability to the prisoner.”
The Solicitor-General then detailed the evidence he had to adduce against the prisoner; it was exactly as it is subsequently given by the witnesses, and corresponded entirely with that given already on the trial of Thistlewood. When the learned gentleman came to that part of the evidence which described the conflagration that was to have been made on the night of the intended assassination, and the proclamations which were to have been posted up on the night of the intended assassination, calling on the friends of liberty to meet, for their tyrants, meaning the members of his Majesty’s government, were murdered, and in which they were called upon to rally round the provisional government which was then sitting; he observed, “what would not have been the situation of this great metropolis if this dreadful project had been carried into effect?
“The people would have seen pieces of artillery moving in different directions; they would have seen a general conflagration; they would have heard of a provisional government, and that too rendered perhaps more terrible by the ignorance of the people who were to compose it. It was impossible to judge what would have been the result of such a notification. He was, indeed, willing to believe, that the people of this country were too sound to be effectively invited to rally round men whose projects were introduced to them by the horrible and atrocious crimes of assassination and murder. He trusted that hitherto, at least the natural indignation of Englishmen would revolt at any propositions coming from such a source, and to be sustained by such diabolical means.”
After detailing very minutely the evidence he meant to give against the prisoners (as it is hereafter detailed), he informed the Jury they must hear it from one or more accomplices; on the extent of whose credibility he made similar observations to those made by the Attorney-General in his opening speech on Thistlewood’s trial, and dwelt on the comparative impunity with which dark and secret conspiracies would escape, if the evidence of an accomplice were not admissible.
“But even without this testimony, they had the unimpeachable evidence of Hyden, and also a number of facts which spoke for themselves; and he would here ask, could any assignable cause be given for the meeting in Cato-street—the ammunition—the arms—but that given by the evidence which they would hear? He then observed, that it was not because the plot was contemptible and ill-formed, and left so much to hazard, that therefore its existence was to be disbelieved, the history of all plots was of the same description; they were generally characteristic of a total want of foresight and prudence, but though wild, though extravagant, yet if the project had existence, and they were satisfied of the prisoner being a party to it, then they must be prepared, if the evidence carried conviction to their minds, to bring in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, without any reference to the consequences of that verdict.”
The learned Solicitor’s speech occupied an hour and ten minutes in the delivery.
The following prisoners were then put to the bar with Ings, to be identified: Davidson, Brunt, Tidd, Harrison, Bradburne, Strange, Gilchrist, and Wilson.
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
The witnesses to support the case thus described were then called; but much of their testimony was similar to that given in the trial of Thistlewood. We, therefore, confine ourselves as much as possible to the new facts which came out, and which applied immediately to the conduct of the prisoner.
Robert Adams was first called, and examined by the Attorney-General. His testimony was almost in all respects similar to that on the former trial. He added, that he heard that the pike-staves which he saw in the room in Fox-court were quite green; he understood they had been brought from over the water; Ings said he had brought them. The same evening Ings drew a pistol from his pocket. There was a conversation about the illness of the present King; Thistlewood said he would rather the new King lived a little while longer, but it was not their intention he should ever wear the crown.
On this occasion Ings said, that the day the Prince Regent last went to Parliament, he himself went to the Park with a pistol in his pocket, with the sole intention to shoot him; and as a test of his sincerity, he said, “there’s the pistol I took with me,” alluding to the pistol he had previously produced. He regretted he had not done it, and if he had, he should not have cared a farthing for his own life. Witness saw Ings at all the subsequent meetings.
On the meeting held about the time of the King’s funeral, when the plan for a rising was talked of, during the absence of the horse and foot guards, it was Ings and Brunt that said, nothing short of the assassination of the King’s ministers would satisfy them. Ings said, with his blood all of a boil, “that he must have them, (the ministers,) if possible, before the parliament was dissolved.”
On the meeting held on Saturday the 20th of February, at which Tidd took the chair, with a pike in his hand, and at which Thistlewood proposed the murder of the ministers in detail, Ings was present, and said, “whoever has the lot to murder Lord Castlereagh, I am the man to turn out to murder that thief!”
On the Tuesday, at the meeting at Brunt’s, witness saw Ings pull three daggers from out of his pocket: he was asked what was the purpose of pulling out these daggers? When he seized one, and making a sort of a rush, and a motion with his arm, said, with an exclamation, to “run into their —— bodies.” After Edwards had communicated the paragraph in The New Times, respecting the cabinet dinner on the Wednesday, and after Brunt declared his belief in a God, from his prayers being answered in bringing the ministers together, Ings exclaimed with exultation, that “he should have a better opportunity of cutting off Lord Castlereagh’s head.”
“It was subsequently arranged, that Ings should head the party to go into the room in which the ministers were assembled. He was to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s and Lord Sidmouth’s heads, and to bring them away. He was also to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s hand, which he was to cure (pickle), as it would be thought a great deal of at a future day.” He was to be armed with a pair of pistols and a butcher’s knife.
The same afternoon, Ings was employed in making fire-balls to set fire to the different buildings; Edwards was making fusees to the grenades. On Wednesday evening, February the 23d, the proclamation, written by Thistlewood, was signed “James Ings, Secretary.”
Witness then described Ings’s preparation for action, his brandishing his knife, and his sanguinary declarations that he would cut off the heads of his Majesty’s ministers, and bring away the heads of Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth in his bags. The handle of his knife, he said, he had bound round with wax-end, “in order to prevent his hand from slipping while he was at work.”
The witness then proceeded to detail the well-known occurrences in Cato-street, and the part which Ings took therein. He swore he would rather die or hang himself than not do the job that night.
In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus, witness said, I was born at Ipswich; I am now a Christian; there was a time when I was not a Christian; I was then a man in the same form as now. I was what they termed a Deist. I believed in God. I renounced Christianity and believed only in God. I re-commenced Christian after the 23d of February. I renounced my faith as a Christian last August. I never pronounced my disbelief in God—nor ever denied Christ, till I read that cursed work of Paine’s! I never was an Atheist, but always believed in a God. I have no pension.
The paper produced is my hand-writing; I was examined here on Monday, and have since been in Coldbath-fields. I have had no communication with any body. I have had a room in the house of the Governor; I have seen nobody that has told me any part of the proceedings in this Court. During the days when I was here, I was kept in a room by myself. Heard nothing of the progress of the proceedings, except the conviction of Thistlewood. I had known Edwards from the first part of January. From the time I joined Brunt and the others, I never intended to commit murder, nor to give information; I intended to wait for an opportunity to see if any thing enabled me to creep out of it; I was prevented from creeping out, from threats that had been held out; I was not disposed to plunder the shops, although I was in a society that were so disposed.
Before I went into prison, I was asking Brunt what was the plan that was first drawn out? Brunt said that nothing would be communicated till the day of action, and then the men would be called together, receive a treat, and be told what was to be done; after which they would not be lost sight of. Brunt said, if he had any suspicion of any one giving information, he would run him through. This was on the 16th of January. When I was examined on Monday, it did not come to my recollection about Ings telling of shooting the Prince Regent.
Mr. Gurney: We studiously passed over certain points of the evidence for the purpose of shortening it.
The Witness: I can tell many things, if I am asked, that I did not tell on Monday. If any thing fresh comes to my mind as I stand here I’ll tell it. There were things that transpired that I did not state last Monday, and that I have not stated to-day. I had no personal knowledge of Monument. I can be answerable, that there was one candle in the room.
I did not see more than one a-light. If a man spoke the truth, he could not say there were eight candles in the room. If any man said there was, I should say he was a false man. I cannot be answerable for every word which passed.
I always found Mr. Edwards very deep, and very deep in conversation with Brunt and Thistlewood.
There was a shot-hole in my coat from a pistol that was fired from the window, when I was escaping from the stable.
I do not know a man of the name of Chambers. I never called upon a person of that name in company with Edwards. I did call with Edwards upon a woman at Pimlico, to buy a pair of boots. On that day I did not call upon any man of the name of Chambers to solicit him to kill his Majesty’s ministers. I never said I would kill his Majesty’s ministers, and have blood and wine for my supper. I never had any conversation with any body to use Cashman as a watchword.
After the affair at Cato-street I did not take any ammunition away with me from Cato-street. Hall gave me a pistol and live rounds of ball-cartridges. I loaded the pistol, and laid it on the bench; I did not touch it again; and threw the four ball-cartridges away in the room.
I never carried the large hand-grenade. I cannot say that I can charge my memory with a score of words which Edwards ever said; whatever he said was always in a side-winded way amongst themselves.
Eleanor Walker, on being examined by Mr. Gurney, gave similar evidence to that given by her on the former occasion.
Mary Rogers, Joseph Hale (apprentice to Brunt), Thomas Smart (watchman in Grosvenor-square), C. Bissex (also a watchman for the same place), Frederick Gillan, John Hector Morrison (journeyman to Mr. Underwood, the cutler, in Drury-lane), Edward Simpson (corporal-major of the 2d Life-Guards), and James Aldous (pawnbroker), also detailed the same facts to which they before deposed.
Thomas Hyden, the man who gave the information to Lord Harrowby, recapitulated the facts proved on the former trial.
In cross-examination, he said, he had been formerly a gentleman’s servant; that was six years ago. He lived with Colonel Bridges last. He might have lived with him a month or more. He could not certainly say. He had lived in Manchester-mews for five years. He had not been there all the time himself. He was away two or three months.
He was now in the Marshalsea; he was not ashamed of the place. It was for a debt of eighteen pounds, and due to Mr. Powell, a milkman. He went into prison last Saturday, on execution. He had been sued at the beginning of last summer. I was at home at different times in June, July, and August, at Manchester-mews. My family were there till last Saturday. I said on Tuesday last I lived in Manchester-mews. I am living now at this place where I stand. My family goes there now two or three times a day. I have known Davidson three or four months. I do not know Mr. Edwards.
I know a person of the name of Edwards. I know a good many persons two hundred miles in the country. I have been to the Scotch Arms, in some small court somewhere down by the Strand. I was there twice, to the shoemakers’ club, with a friend of the name of Clarke, a master-tailor. It was reported to be a shoemakers’ club. I am not able to say whether politics and the affairs of the State were the topics of discussion.
I never was at any of the meetings in Fox-court. I knew nothing of the affair in Cato-street till told by Wilson; I was to get the cream for a family in Princes-street, Cavendish-square. I have served them about three years, but I do not know their name. My wife brought home the order for the cream. I have been at the house, but I do not know when. It was the first time I saw Wilson; he said to me that I need not be alarmed, for a gentleman’s servant furnished money. He said this more than twice.
Re-examined: My family continued to carry on my business in Manchester-mews till Saturday last, when I was arrested. As far as I know my family have possession of the premises now. I believe the house in Princes-street is No. 6. My wife serves the family sometimes; I have been there; I believe the house to be the front door going from Cavendish-square towards Oxford-street.
Lord Harrowby appeared on the right of the Bench, and spoke to the interruption of cabinet dinners, and the issuing of cards of invitation for the 23d. His Lordship named the company who were to be present. His Lordship then stated the receipt of Hyden’s communication, and the change of arrangements adopted in consequence.
His Lordship, in cross-examination by Mr. Curwood, said, he had not personally known any thing of it before; but he had heard a long time antecedently, that something of this nature was to be attempted.
John Baker corroborated the testimony of Lord Harrowby as to the intended cabinet dinner.
John Monument was next examined, and was again conducted into Court in the charge of two of the yeomen warders of the Court. His evidence in chief was precisely the same as that which he gave on Thistlewood’s trial.
In cross-examination, witness said, that Thistlewood remarked, that every man would have equal honour with myself. I went to Cato-street for fear. I was foolish, for I certainly went there without knowing what I was to do. I thought they were going to the House of Commons. When I was told by Brunt they were going to a cabinet dinner, I fully thought they were going to destroy the ministers, and yet I went. I went to Tidd’s, because I was afraid. I cannot tell why I did not go to a magistrate to tell my fears. My intention was, when I got into the room and found out what they were going about, to run away.
Thomas Monument confirmed the last witness in every particular.
Ruthven repeated his former testimony. In cross-examination, he said, he had no doubt there were four or five lights in the loft, and others in the little room.
James Ellis, William Westcott, Luke Nixon, Joseph Champion, John Wright, and William Charles Brooks, police officers, likewise repeated their former testimony.
Capt. Fitzclarence.—The first thing he saw was a police officer, who cried out, “Soldiers, soldiers; stable door, stable door!” He was met by two men at the door, one having a pistol, another a sword. He followed one of them into the stable, and took him.
Serjeant William Legg, of the 2d regiment of Coldstream Guards, was at Cato-street; saw the pistol levelled at Captain Fitzclarence, and seized it, when it went off. It was Tidd who levelled it. He took him into custody. He saw above on the loft, Cooper, Gilchrist, and Monument.
Hercules Taunton gave evidence of the seizures made at Brunt’s and Tidd’s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus.—A reward had been offered for the apprehension of Palin. He was not apprehended, nor Potter, nor Cook.
Daniel Bishop was called, but not being in attendance, his examination and the production of the various articles seized was postponed till to-morrow morning, and the Court adjourned at eight o’clock.
The Jury were then, as in the former case of Thistlewood’s trial, placed in a room by themselves, and not permitted to have conversation with any person whatever.
Ings in the course of the day revived in spirits, as he became interested in the evidence; but he frequently reverted to a state of gloomy sullenness.
The other prisoners were anxious to keep the witnesses out of Court, when not under examination, and repeatedly called on those who accidentally made their appearance to withdraw.
Second Day.—Saturday, April 22.
At a quarter before nine the Jury were conducted to the box by the sheriff’s officers.
Shortly after this the guns, pistols, swords, pikes, grenades, ammunition, and other materials of war, seized in Cato-street, were brought into court, and placed on the table.
At nine the same learned Judges who presided the day before, took their seats.
Ings and the other prisoners were then put to the bar.
Evidence for the Crown continued.
Daniel Bishop was now put in the box, and described the circumstances attending the apprehension of Thistlewood, which were detailed in his former evidence.
In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus: Witness said he had apprehended the prisoner from private information, not received from an officer; he did not know a man of the name of Edwards.
Ruthven was next called, and said there were now placed on the table the arms and ammunition taken in Cato-street; he then proceeded to select each article separately, and to exhibit it to the Jury; the pikes and grenades were minutely inspected. A pike blade was placed in one of the handles in order to show the manner in which it was to be used. When thus presented it had a most terrific appearance. The knife stated to have been found on the person of Ings was next produced, and exhibited to the Jury. While they were examining it, Ings exclaimed, “It was not found upon me, my Lord.”
Hector Morrison, servant to Mr. Underwood the cutler, identified the two swords which he ground for Ings. They were made extremely sharp from heel to point. The prisoner directed that they should be made as sharp as a needle at the point, and that they should be made to cut both at the back and front; this was done. The swords seemed since to have been rubbed on a stone to make them keener.
Samuel Taunton selected the articles found in Tidd’s lodgings, as well as those found in the back room of the house in which Brunt resided.
Serjeant Hanson, of the Royal Artillery, described the formation of the fire-balls and hand-grenades, and opened one of the latter, as in Thistlewood’s case, for the information of the Jury. He also looked at the flannel bags found in Tidd’s lodgings. They were what are termed flannel cartridges for a 6-pounder. They were the same as those used by the Royal Artillery, only that those produced were formed of flannel, whereas those used by the artillery were composed of serge.
It was now announced that the other prisoners might retire, and they were re-conducted to their apartments.
Serjeant Hanson, examination by one of the Jury, said, that the grenades found in Cato-street were not made exactly in the same manner as those made for the use of the artillery, although they were calculated to produce similar destructive consequences. The cart-nails would be propelled with irresistible force by the explosion of the tin carcase, and would scatter death around. There was rather more powder in the case than was sufficient to burst a nine inch shell.
The Attorney-General: That is the case on the part of the Crown.
THE DEFENCE.
Mr. Curwood then rose to address the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commenced by lamenting the effect which the conviction of the last prisoner must have upon their minds, however good their intentions, and however anxious they might be to decide this case free from all preconceived impressions. This circumstance, undoubtedly weighed heavily upon his (Mr. C.’s) feelings, knowing that the construction of the human mind was such, as rendered it almost impossible to get rid of opinions once entertained. The disadvantage under which he laboured, in this respect, was the more distressing, because although the general features of this case bore a strong resemblance to the last, yet it wanted a most material circumstance of confirmation, which was produced on a former occasion.
Sir Robert Dallas interposed, and objected to any allusion to what had passed on the former trial. The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, had most humanely abstained from any reference to the former case, and had entreated the jury to dismiss from their minds the fact that another prisoner had been convicted. The Court was bound to treat this as a case depending upon its own merits, and his Lordship was persuaded that the Jury would forget that such a person as Thistlewood existed, and dismiss from their minds all knowledge of the former case, if they happened to have heard any part of it.
Mr. Curwood resumed, and said “he should bow with respectful deference to the correction of his Lordship. His learned friend the Solicitor-General had told the Jury that, in stating the case for the prosecution, he was only anxious to acquit himself as a faithful servant of the public, by fully and fairly laying before the Jury the whole of its circumstances; and that as far as his own personal feelings were concerned, he was regardless of the result. No man would withhold from his learned friend the fullest credit for the sincerity of that statement. Though his (Mr. Curwood’s) task was much more irksome than that of his learned friend, yet he hoped he should have credit for the same feelings; that he was most anxious, not only to do his duty towards the unfortunate man at the bar, but towards his country and his own character. He was sure that the Jury were also animated by the same feelings, and that whatever might be their private sentiments, they would form their judgment upon the evidence alone, and, if upon an impartial consideration of that evidence, they found it did not bear out the facts charged in the indictment, would gladly deliver him, by their verdict of Not Guilty.
“The Solicitor-General had also told them, that the law of the case was extremely clear. No doubt it was; but it was necessary to point out the precise question for their consideration, before they ventured to apply the facts of the case to that law; because the question here was not guilt, or innocence in the abstract, for although there was strong suspicion against the prisoner of moral guilt, yet the question they had to try was, whether he was guilty not only of high treason, but of that high treason which was specifically charged in this indictment. In order, therefore, to enable them to discharge their duty fully and fairly towards the prisoner, they must not only take into their consideration the precise question they had to try, but also apply the evidence produced, in order to see whether the specific charge of high treason was made out.
“The history of the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edw. III., was well known. It was passed in order to define what treason really was, and that the ignorance, and even cruelty, which had previously prevailed upon the subject, by the erection of certain acts into crimes against the state, might be exploded. That statute contained a few short and distinct propositions, which in fact comprehended the whole law of treason. In the language of Lord Coke it was called the blessed Statute, from the admirable regard manifested in it for the liberty and safety of the subject. It declared first, that whoever should compass or imagine the death of the King, should be guilty of high treason; and, second, whoever should levy war against the King and this realm, should be guilty of the like offence.
“A number of other enactments of treason had taken place at different times since then, introducing a most horrible system of cruelty and oppression, but at length it was found necessary to return to that blessed statute. It was true, that in the reign of his late Majesty a statute passed for extending the law of treason. He lamented that such a statute should ever have passed, and still more that any occasion for it should ever have existed. Upon both of these statutes the present indictment was founded.
“By the 23d of Edward III. it was made treason to compass or imagine the death of the King; and by the 36th Geo. III. it was made treason to attempt to depose him from his kingly office.
“By the statute of Edward, it was made treason actually to levy war; and by the statute of George, it was made treason to conspire to levy war.
“The four charges, therefore, which they had to try, were these: Did the prisoner at the bar compass, or imagine the death of the King? Did he conspire to depose him from his imperial dignity? Did he actually levy war against his Majesty? And did he conspire to levy war with an intention to compel his Majesty to change the measures of his government by force? These were the precise issues they had to try, and whatever might be their opinion of his guilt, as it respected other charges still pending over him, and for which punishment would reach him if he were guilty, yet unless they were conscientiously satisfied that he had actually committed some one of these four offences, they were bound to pronounce him Not Guilty.
“It had been admitted by the Solicitor General, that if the case in all its parts was not proved by unequivocal testimony, they were bound to acquit the prisoner; and he apologized for the evidence he proposed to offer, by saying, that in all cases of conspiracy it was necessary to have the evidence of some of the conspirators, in order to ascertain the purposes of their dark consultations.
“This was another of the miseries resulting from a departure from the statute of Edward. That admirable statute enacted, that before a man should be found guilty of the treasons there set out, he shall be ‘proveably convict’ of the same.
“Upon the meaning of the words ‘proveably convict,’ the great Lord Coke had written a whole section, shewing that they did not mean probably convict, but convict by the most unequivocal and satisfactory evidence.
“The object of the statute, therefore, in making this wholesome provision was to protect his Majesty’s subjects, whose lives might be at the mercy of the most infamous of mankind. It was necessary, therefore, that the Jury should examine the facts proved with the most scrupulous circumspection, before they made up their minds to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt.
“The Solicitor General had admitted, that the evidence of the conspirators ought not to be believed unless it was confirmed in all its material circumstances. It was to be observed, that the confirmation alluded to, was not meant to apply to collateral facts irrelevant to the matter in issue, but to the whole body and substance of the evidence; and therefore if they found that the material witnesses to establish the conspiracy were not confirmed in the substantial part of their evidence, it was their duty to pronounce a verdict of acquittal.
“The learned counsel admitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish an intention on the part of the prisoners to commit, perhaps, a dreadful riot, to commit murder, and to effect the destruction of houses; but he strenuously urged, that this was not sufficient to make out the crime of high treason, as alleged in the indictment. He adverted to the evidence of Adams, and other witnesses, and contended that it was wholly incredible, and inconsistent in every part.
“But supposing the conspiracy which they had proved, really to have existed, he urged that it was the most ridiculous plot that could ever enter into the mind of the most infatuated man, considering the absolute destitution of means to carry it into effect. The records of fiction and of history did not furnish an instance of such a wild and chimerical scheme.
“After commenting with considerable ingenuity, upon the evidence of the principal witnesses of the Crown, he proceeded to deprecate in strong terms the doctrine of constructive treason; and called upon the Jury, as guardians of their own and the public liberties, to make a stand against the further extension of this abominable doctrine, which had been condemned by Lord Hale, and some of the wisest judges that ever sat to administer justice. Returning again to the description of evidence adduced to support the conspiracy, he insisted that they could give no credence to Adams, who stood confessed the betrayer of his companions, a traitor to his king, a rebel against his country, intending to assassinate and murder his fellow-subjects, an apostate to his religion, and a scoffer of his God.
“Would a British Jury in this sanctuary of justice sacrifice to torture and death eleven men, merely upon the evidence of such a self-convicted wretch? He had stated to the Jury the danger to which our liberties and lives would be exposed, if a man could be convicted of high treason, on evidence like that which they had heard; but as he preferred supporting himself in all cases by the authority of great men, he would remind them of what the present Solicitor-General had said, without telling them on what occasion the words to which he would allude had been spoken, or how long it was ago.
“A witness was called to discredit the testimony of another. He, on cross-examination, admitted, that he had accompanied a person to the Park, who went there for the purpose of extorting money from individuals, by charging them with certain practices. On this occasion the natural feelings of his learned friend, the Solicitor-General, broke forth, and he inquired, ‘Would any honest man—would any man worthy of belief in a court of justice, accompany a person who went on such an expedition? Would any man, entitled to credit with a jury, agree with another in such a plan to extort money?’ This, in point of fact, had not been done by the witness to whom he alluded; but he, Mr. Curwood, must beg to apply this sort of reasoning to the principal witness for the prosecution, and ask if a man who had acted as Adams had done was entitled to belief in a court of justice.
“Was a man entitled to credit, who, like Adams, was an apostate, a traitor, a rebel, a betrayer of his companions, a murderer, and an assassin—all of which he admitted that he had intended to be?
“Yet such a man had his learned friend put up on the present occasion. But who would believe him, unless, indeed, it were made out, which no lawyer would say it was, that such a man was entitled to credit when he came into a court of justice to seek the lives of men, though not in other cases, where his object was different.
“If this principle were not established, then out of their own mouths was the principal witness for the prosecution condemned. He called upon the Jury to look if he were confirmed, he would not say by good, but even by infamous witnesses. It was nothing that he was corroborated in various insignificant particulars, but he was borne out in nothing that went to prove that the prisoner at the bar had committed high treason; and he therefore begged of them, under these circumstances, to give that verdict which would dismiss Adams with shame, as a man not to be believed in a court of justice on his oath.
“If such a man were corroborated by other infamous witnesses, it would, in fact, be no confirmation; how, then, did the case stand when they found that he was not even confirmed by the testimony of those who were almost as infamous as himself. Having done with Adams, the next witness was Hyden, he described himself to have formerly belonged to a shoe-making club, and to have been introduced to Thistlewood in the month of February. And what was the first proposal made to him? Why, Thistlewood was represented to have said, without any disguise or reserve, “Will you be one to murder his Majesty’s ministers?”
“Good God!—what must that man be whose heart would not revolt with horror from such a proposal? But this person expressed no disgust at the plan with which he was thus made acquainted. Was this man then more worthy of belief, than one who would join with another to extort money?
“Was this, to use the words of the Solicitor-General, a man worthy of belief in a court of justice? The answer that his learned friend would feel disposed to give must be, that he was not. Then what confirmation could his evidence supply to that of Adams? It was not necessary for him to go through all the details of the conversations between this witness and Adams, but he must remark, that of these not one word went to confirm the facts that would amount to the crime of high treason, though they all tended to establish a plot to assassinate his Majesty’s ministers.
“It was true, that something was stated to have been said of seizing the cannon in the Artillery-Ground, and of retreating to the Mansion House. All this proved that a great riot was in contemplation, but it evinced no intention of committing high treason. This witness described himself to have joined in the plan, and to have told the conspirators that he would be with them.
“The next witness was Monument. He had sworn that he was told by Thistlewood he ought to get arms, as all his (Thistlewood’s) friends were armed. At that period it could not be denied, that there was a great ferment in the public mind, in consequence of the transactions which had taken place at Manchester but a short time before.
“Many of the warmest friends to the measures of government were of opinion, that an inquiry into those transactions ought to be instituted; while others, without reserve, termed what had occurred at Manchester ‘a massacre,’ and declared that since they were liable to be so dispersed at public meetings, they would attend them armed, that they might be prepared to defend themselves. Thistlewood had used words to this effect. He (Mr. Curwood) would not deny that to go armed to such meetings, was a desperate resistance of the law; but he would maintain that it did not amount to high treason, and he entreated the Jury never to dismiss from their minds that it was for high treason, and for high treason only, that they were trying the prisoner at the bar, and not for disobedience to the law in other respects; and therefore if the facts proved did not amount to high treason, it would be their duty to return a verdict of Not Guilty.
“The witness, Monument, had confirmed the evidence given of the existence of a plan for the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers, and for creating a riot; but he proved nothing respecting that proclamation which was said to have been prepared by Thistlewood, and which alone went to give the conspiracy the character imputed to it in the present indictment. But the witness, Monument, he contended, had shewn himself during this trial to be the same unfeeling villain he had set out with being; yet, from the aggregate of infamy brought forward on this occasion, there resulted no proof of high treason.
“Palin and Cook, who might be able to give evidence in favour of the defence, he shewed that he had no means of bringing forward, as, if they were to offer that testimony which might acquit the prisoner of high treason, they would bring themselves into peril, as the Attorney-General well knew that if they were to appear in the witness’s box, they would not be suffered to depart with impunity. Eleanor Walker and Mary Rogers had only proved the taking of the room in which the consultations of the conspirators were held. This was not denied. It was admitted that they held consultations, and for a nefarious purpose; but the question for the Jury to try was, whether or not these consultations related to high treason. Hale had also proved the room and the purchasing of some sheets of cartridge paper. This he (Mr. C.) contended, was wanting for their cartridges. Adams said it was for their proclamations, but of this there was no proof, and the fragments of cartridge paper that had been found were not written upon.
“The three next witnesses proved various facts connected with the plan of assassination, but nothing that amounted to high treason; and what was proved to have taken place in Cato-street, though murder and riot appeared to have been in contemplation, he could discover nothing like ‘a levying of war.’ If they had not ‘levied war against the King,’ conspiring to do that which had been done, could not be ‘conspiring to levy war against the King.’
“This was a question which must be left to the understandings of the Jury. They all knew what war was between different states. It was carried on by large bodies of men, formed into companies, under the direction of proper officers, and accompanied by all the materiel of war. A civil war was the same, but that one part of a state in a civil war was opposed to another part of the same state. It would be for them to determine whether enough had been proved to shew that any thing like war had been levied. It had been laid down by Sir Matthew Hale, that any disturbance was not necessarily a ‘levying of war;’ for in that case every riot would be high treason. To constitute a levying of war, there must be something worse than a common riot or outrage; ‘there must be a species belli?’
“Could the Jury find this on the present occasion? The utmost force that had been mentioned consisted of forty men. These forty men were to be marched with unfurled banners through the city, to take two cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane, and six in the Artillery Ground, and they were to possess themselves of the Mansion-house. Was this a levying of war? That the conspirators had been formed into companies was more than he had ever heard, and where was the money that was to carry on the war? In what holes and corners had they hidden themselves that nothing was known of them?
“From the circumstances to which he had called their attention, he would leave the Jury to judge how far the charge of levying war, or conspiring to levy war against the King had been made out. In a former instance, if he recollected right, the same charges were brought forward on a former trial that were now preferred, and in that case there were stronger circumstances—great bodies of persons had assembled, gunsmiths’ shops had been broken open, and arms had been stolen from them; yet in that case the Jury, not denying the existence of any guilt whatever, had rightly determined, as he thought, and as he hoped the present Jury would do, that the party accused was not guilty of high treason.
“He then shewed, that to endeavour to remove the ministers from their situations was not a crime; and he argued, that to attempt removing them by force was not high treason.
“He trusted the Jury would believe that he contemplated the plot to assassinate ministers with all the horror and indignation that such a design was calculated to inspire; but he could not sacrifice his duty to his feelings, and he hoped that they would feel as he did, and feel how necessary it was for the safety of other lives, that those who were concerned in it should not for that offence be convicted of high treason. It was most consoling to him to reflect, that he should be followed by his learned friend, who would address them with much more eloquence than he could command.
“He concluded by calling on them, whatever their feelings might be, to look at all the circumstances of the case, and see if they could find it proved by good, or even by bad witnesses, that there had been a levying of war. If they did find this, he could not expect a verdict; but if they found, as he thought they must, that there had been no levying of war, they must return a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
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.