“Let us then look at the mischief of this doctrine, and see the evils and injustice that have arisen out of it. The notorious Titus Oates, the witness for the Crown in the trials founded upon the Popish Plot, in the reign of Charles the Second, that most infamous and perjured wretch, who was afterwards convicted of perjury for his evidence upon those trials, and suffered the punishment of the law for his crime, was confirmed in his testimony in many most important particulars. Unfortunately, the juries, misled in those times of heat and party animosity, were prevailed upon to believe him, and many unhappy persons suffered in consequence of the extreme punishment of the law; and murders were committed, under the forms of justice, in consequence of the reliance placed upon the frail and fallacious testimony of a man of that description. You perceive, then, gentlemen, the danger of this doctrine; and that it is not because a man is confirmed in certain circumstances that you can safely believe him, as to other facts where that confirmation is wanting.
“What is the character of falsehood? Who has lived in the world, and has at all examined the operations of the human heart and mind, who does not know that this is the usual and proper character of falsehood—that it does not wholly invent, falsehood engrafts itself upon truth, and by that artifice misleads and deceives, truth is exaggerated, things that exist are discoloured or distorted—these are the usual operations of falsehood; this is a part of its nature, its address and dexterity. It arises, therefore, out of the very nature of perjury, that it must be confirmed to a certain extent; and it is because there is confirmation in certain particulars, to which particulars I shall, by-and-by, take the liberty of drawing your attention, that you are gravely required to believe the whole of the miserable fictions with which you have been insulted in the evidence of this abandoned wretch.
“But let us look with a little more accuracy to the shades and distinctions upon this material point. I beg you to follow me; for it is most important, according to my apprehension of the question. A man may be seduced into the commission of an offence, who had previously maintained a good character; he may repent of his crime, and give information, and then come into court as a witness. If the story which he tells is found to be probable; if he is not only uncontradicted in any facts, but is confirmed in essential particulars; if there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the situation in which he stands, a jury, may, possibly, upon such evidence, be justified in finding a verdict of guilty. I repeat it, that if the previous character of the man were good; that if the story he tells is probable; if it is not proved to be false in any part of it; if he is confirmed in essential particulars, and there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the persons with whom he is connected, and by whom he is surrounded, then the Jury may give credit to his evidence.
“He could not help observing, that, if he had desired the best friend whom he had in the world to enlarge his mind by the infusion of good sound legal opinions, or to compose for him a dissertation on this express subject, that friend could not have given him any sentences so adequate to the expression of the sentiments which he wished to convey to the Jury, as were the sentences which he had just read to them. He could have wished to have given them the book which contained these sentences to keep in the box with them, but the practice of the Court prevented him from doing so; he would, however, ask them to retain them, if they could, in their minds, as a shield of protection for the prisoner, against a man, who ought not to be believed on any one point, but who had interwoven with his falsehoods many truths, which he had acquired either from common report in common conversation, or which had been impressed on his recollection by the injunction of those under whom he acted.
“The next step which he had to take, would be to comment on the evidence, but before he entered into an examination of it, he should beg leave to describe the nature of the defence which he was going to make. He thought it, therefore, his duty, to say at once, that no doubt could be entertained of Thistlewood having been at a meeting in Cato-street, and that he, with the other members of that meeting, had determined to murder all the Cabinet Ministers. To entertain a doubt of the existence of the meeting, or the sanguinary designs which those who attended it entertained, would be full as absurd as to doubt the existence of light now that the sun was casting its full radiance upon the Court. Whilst that meeting was in deep deliberation, it was interrupted by the arrival of a party of police officers. In the affray which ensued, Smithers met his death, or, he ought rather to speak out plainly, was murdered.
“Making, however, these concessions, and admitting the facts to be as bad as bad could be against the prisoner at the bar, believing even, as he did believe, that Thistlewood was guilty of the murder of Smithers, still he maintained that his guilt did not amount to high treason. He would admit, that from motives of a personal nature, Thistlewood wished to kill one of his Majesty’s ministers; and that, in order to effect that purpose, he had no objection to kill them all. The Jury ought, however, to recollect that, whilst influenced by this wish, he had always been accompanied by two spies: how far they had advised these plots was not clear, but one thing was clear, that, upon such evidence as theirs, they were called upon to convict Thistlewood of high treason. That he had been guilty of murder he (Mr. Adolphus) was not now going to dispute; but it was too bad that the crimes of murder and treason should now be blended together, and that he should be represented as meditating a crime which he never had for one moment in his heart.
“He had already stated to them, that if Adams’s evidence did not convict Thistlewood, none else did, for the evidence of the other witnesses was little or nothing. If, therefore, he shewed them, as he hoped and trusted he should shew them, that the witness Adams was totally unworthy of belief, then a verdict of acquittal must be given for the prisoner at the bar. In order to convince them how totally undeserving he (Adams) was of credit, he (Mr. Adolphus) should beg leave to direct their attention to three points. He should ask them how far Adams had been confirmed in that part of his evidence which related to the treason; then how far he had been contradicted by his own evidence, or that of others; and, lastly, how far he might have been confirmed by others, if the Counsel for the Crown had thought proper to call them.
“What then was the testimony which Mr. Robert Adams had given to them? He (Mr. Adolphus) would tell them. The man had commenced his evidence by informing them, that he had been a soldier some years in the Blues. That any subject of the King should entertain such schemes as had been entertained by these alleged conspirators, was certainly deplorable; but that a man in the situation of Adams, a soldier, sworn to defend his Majesty to the best of his ability from all harm and danger, should have voluntarily entered into them, and should never have felt any of what he (Adams) had termed compunctious visitings as to the guilt in which he was going to involve himself, until four days after the execution of that guilt had been rendered impossible, was a circumstance so atrocious as to deprive him of all claim to credibility and respect.
“This loyal soldier, however, proceeded to inform them, that he had become acquainted with Brunt about three years ago, when the British army was at Cambray, at which time Brunt was attending it in the capacity of a shoemaker. After the dispersion of the army he lost sight of him for some time, but afterwards met him again in the month of January last, when Brunt introduced him to Thistlewood. Then occurred one of the most extraordinary circumstances which he (Mr. Adolphus) had ever heard of, though it appeared to be nothing else than the fashion throughout the whole of this case. At his very first meeting with this Mr. Adams, Thistlewood let him into the whole secret of his traitorous designs. But could any one believe that Thistlewood himself was so reckless of life, as to use language to a stranger equivalent to this?—‘My fate is so hard, my circumstances are so desperate, that I care not a straw what becomes of me. I put myself, and all my designs, into your hands, without any regard to the consequences; and yet those designs are so horrible and so sanguinary, that if you have the slightest portion of loyal feeling about you, you must denounce me to Government, you must hand me over to justice, you must embrace the opportunity which I have given you of condemning me, without any scruple, out of my own mouth.’ Was it possible that any man in his senses could be thus blind and foolish? Could the most credulous man alive be persuaded to attach credit to so incredible a story? He thought not; and he therefore trusted, that on such evidence, they would never find the prisoner guilty of high treason.
“But though the prisoner, and those with whom he was connected, had not meditated so great a crime as treason, the evidence inclined him to believe, that after the perpetration of the bloody deeds which they meditated, they had intended, under shelter of the confusion which such atrocities would have created, to have commenced a general plunder and devastation of the metropolis. Such an intention, though it enhanced their guilt, did not make it amount to high treason; and, indeed, any person who carefully perused the evidence, would observe that it tallied well throughout with a design to plunder, but very ill indeed with a design to depose the King and to alter the form of Government. For what was it that Mr. Adams next said? Why, after some conversation as to his excellence as a swordsman, Thistlewood is represented as saying, ‘No man worth 10l. was worth any thing for the good of his country. The tradesmen and shopkeepers of London were a set of aristocrats together, and all worked under the same system of government. He should like to see the day when all the shops should be shut up and well plundered.’ Why, the whole intent of their conspiracy was disclosed in this sentence. Here was nothing about depriving the King of his style and dignity; but there was a good deal about plundering the city. Their arms, too, were fitted for this purpose, but not for overturning the Government, as must have been evident to all, from the miserable display of their armory which had been so ostentatiously made on the preceding evening. Therefore, unless they could suppose, that to murder the man whom they hated, and to plunder the shops during the trepidation ensuing on such murder, amounted to a deposing of the King, they must acquit Thistlewood of high treason.