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.