The Lord Chief Justice.—It is probable your request may be attended to; but this is not the proper time for making it. We will hear that presently.
The whole of the eleven prisoners were next arraigned on a third indictment, which was founded on the coroner’s inquisition, by which they were all, together with certain other persons to the jurors unknown, pronounced guilty of the wilful murder of Richard Smithers. In this indictment the name of Wilson was correctly set forth: he, therefore, together with the other prisoners, pleaded Not Guilty.
Arthur Thistlewood was then arraigned separately on an indictment, charging him with shooting at, with intent to kill, or do some grievous bodily harm to, William Westcott, one of the Bow-street patrol engaged in arresting the conspirators in Cato-street. He pleaded Not Guilty, as did
James Ings and Richard Tidd to similar indictments preferred against the latter, for shooting at, with intent to kill, William Legg, serjeant in the Coldstream Guards; and the former for shooting at William Charles Brooks, one of the Bow-street patrol.
To each of these indictments a count was added, alleging the intent to be to obstruct certain officers of the peace in apprehending them while in the pursuit of illegal objects, and conspiring to murder and assassinate certain liege subjects of our Lord the King.
James Wilson was put to the bar to plead to an indictment against him for shooting at John Muddock, one of the soldiers engaged in Cato-street; but, being again described as James William Wilson, he pleaded his misnomer once more, and a plea was ordered to be prepared accordingly.
The whole of the indictments having been gone through,
The Attorney-General addressed the Commissioners, and said, that as he understood it was the wish of the prisoners to separate their challenges, he begged that the prisoners might be apprized that Arthur Thistlewood would be tried alone upon the indictment for high-treason on Monday morning.
The Lord Chief Justice desired that the prisoners might be asked, whether it was their wish to challenge separately?