“Would it be contended, that this removal of an administration was necessarily connected with the deposition of the Monarch, and that every man who attempted to effect such a purpose would be involved in the crime of high treason?
“Again, other men might think it necessary that an administration should be removed by violence; and this too with the most virtuous intentions. He desired not to be misunderstood, as meaning under that plea to justify assassination. Nothing was further from his feelings; but all he meant to argue was, that they must not take it as a necessary consequence that the death or destruction of a whole administration involved the death or deposition of the King. If they (the Jury) were of opinion that it did not involve such a consequence, the evidence on this occasion did not support the substantive treason laid in the two first divisions of the indictment.
“There were two other treasons, however; one was the conspiracy to levy war against his Majesty; and the other, the actual levying of war. Now he called upon them to look to the evidence, and see whether they could draw from that a fair inference, that there was a conspiracy to levy war, and that what had been done amounted to an actual levying of war. In the detail given by the first witness, Adams, who in fact proved the whole case—he thought there was much more for ridicule, than for serious consideration. In his opinion, the testimony of this man was utterly incredible, independent of the fact of his being an accomplice.
“The Attorney-General had told them that an accomplice was a necessary witness; but though necessary, he was not of necessity to be believed. The more atrocious the guilt in which he had steeped himself, the less worthy he was of credit; and where a most atrocious and wicked witness came to tell them a tale, not only improbable, but most ridiculous in itself, would they not at once dismiss him from their notice?
“It often happened, that those who were the most ingenious in devising and promoting mischief, were the first to become informers; and that this was the case in the present instance, he should be enabled to prove. They would, however, consider the evidence which had been given by Adams to support the fact of there having been a conspiracy to levy war against the King. They would lay out of their consideration for a moment all that had been said of the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers; and they would consider the evidence as it had been given by him to support that conspiracy. They had here everything to raise their passions.
“They had all the materials and preparations for war before them (the arms on the table); but what was the result of all the discussions which took place at all the meetings of the conspirators from the 4th of February, in which the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers had been repeatedly debated?
“In the cross-examination of Adams, it appeared that one of the conspirators, Palin, had, with some degree of sense, when all those things were talked of, asked where the men were to come from to effect this mighty revolution? In one moment his Majesty’s Ministers were to be assassinated!—a detachment was to go and take possession of two pieces of cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane!—another detachment was to make a descent upon the Artillery-Ground!—a third party were to seize the Mansion-house, as a seat for the Provisional Government! and yet to effect all this, what was the actual strength of the conspirators in its most exaggerated state? Why, forsooth, forty men, two old sabres, six shillings, and a reputed pound-note!! Where an infamous witness told them such a story could they believe it?—was it credible? Would they take away the life of a man under such circumstances? If it were possible for them to do so, he could only say that they would be more insensible than the deluded men themselves.
“Then as to the other point, the actual levying of war; what a levying of war was, he hardly knew how to define. Lord Hale had said, that this was a question of fact, which a Jury alone was capable of deciding.—That learned Judge had also talked of “marching with unfurled banners, and being furnished with military officers”—but where were the unfurled banners here, or where the military officers?—The only military man they had heard of was one disbanded soldier, and the purpose to which he was to be applied was the destruction of his Majesty’s Ministers—an act which, he contended, even if effected, did not amount to a levying of war.—If they were told the contrary, he was sure they would treat such an intimation as absurd and ridiculous. Where was this great conspiracy concocted? In a two-pair back room! Where was the battle fought? In a stable! Where were the traitors incorporated? In a hay-loft! How were they armed? With a few rusty swords, halberts, and old pistols!
“He would put it to the plain common sense and understanding of the Jury, whether they would pronounce persons so assembled and so armed, guilty of levying war against the King? It was rather a levying war against the constables, at the very name of whom they trembled. Then, if there was no levying of war, was there a conspiracy to levy war? The only evidence they had of such a conspiracy came out of the mouth of those three witnesses who were so far contaminated, that it was beyond all doubt they had themselves been deeply implicated in the projected assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers.”
“The question, then, for their consideration resolved itself into this point: they would consider, even supposing that the assassination of the Ministers was intended, whether this of necessity implied that his Majesty was also to be deposed. If they did not think that the one must of course follow the other, then their verdict must be “Not Guilty.” He implored them to do their duty strictly according to law, to consider what the law of the country was, to step neither to the right nor to the left, but to come to a fair and impartial and unprejudiced conclusion. He implored them to do so, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the country; for if once jurymen suffered their feelings of indignation towards one offence to lead them to admit the existence of another of a different character, not proved, there would be an end of the due distinctions of justice. If this man had been guilty of another offence, there was another indictment against him, on which he must take his trial if he were acquitted of this: and if he were convicted under that, he would suffer the penalty of the law. But, upon this occasion, he called upon them not to find him guilty of High Treason, because they thought him worthy of death for having incurred the guilt of assassination.