“You have next the very extraordinary and very irregular evidence of Dwyer. He, according to his own account, is a very modest bricklayer, and has for thirty years served one master. His conscience told him, and he told Thistlewood, “It is a very hard thing for me to inveigle the minds of men.” A man who had such notions of right and wrong, ought to have told him that it was very wrong to murder. He gave information to Colonel James within an hour of the time the communication was made to him on the 23d of February. Colonel James advised him to go to the Secretary of State. He tells that Thistlewood was in five or six revolutions. I don’t know Thistlewood’s history or revolutions. [Here the learned Council read large extracts of Dwyer’s evidence.] Here is evident intention of riot, but nothing of a revolution; and it is remarkable that there is not a tittle of mention of a Provisional Government.
“The whole fabric of treason falls to the ground like the card-house of a baby. Adams sees not what is done in Cato-street. Monument sees not Adams, and is not seen by Adams. Dwyer sees neither Adams nor Monument on any occasion. Monument, like Wilson, is so cold in the cause, that, when he has a pair of shoes to mend, he pays no attention to the plot. This is not evidence on which you can believe the existence of treason.
“As a plot, it is beneath the attention of Government.
“That plan of assassination which has filled the nation with horror, was such, that nothing can be too effectual to guard against it, and the utmost vigilance of the magistrates ought to be exercised to prevent a mischief so nefarious from finding shelter in society. But I will say, in the words of a great writer, that ‘the chirpings of the grasshoppers disturb not the stately ox, who grazes unconscious of their noise.’ So is it unworthy of the Government of this country to prosecute as traitors some dozen of ragged beggars, impatient of extreme poverty.
“I shall point out to you in what points Adams is materially contradicted. Here you will remember that one contradiction is of more importance than ten thousand confirmations. Confirmations to any extent, only prove that the witness spoke truth to that extent; one contradiction proves the unprincipled contempt of an oath, and the wilful fabrication of falsehood.
“The learned gentleman again adverted to the meetings which were held in the house where Brunt lodged, and asked, ‘was it not strange that the landlady, Mrs. Rogers, should have known nothing of those frequent meetings, where so many persons attended, and where such noises were made as had been described. Would not the Jury think it a very singular circumstance that the landlady should have been ignorant of all this passing in her own house?’ Let the Jury now look to the account given by Adams of what passed in Cato-street. He stated that there was only one candle lighted. The officers, however, proved that there were eight, and that they were all put out on the firing of the pistol. He was equally incorrect in describing what was said. It was not as he swore, ‘there is a pretty nest of you.’ No; for the evidence of the officers themselves went only to the words,—‘We are officers, lay down your arms.’ He (Adams) knew when in prison, that something was said by the officers, and he made that account which he thought the least likely to be contradicted.
“What would the Jury infer from those contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence; but, that he was a man who respected neither God nor his Gospel, and who swore to that which he knew to be untrue. Would they, under such circumstances, attach any weight to his evidence? But he (Mr. Adolphus) would come to another part of his evidence, where he was not only contradicted with the account given by others, but where he was inconsistent with himself.
“It would be recollected, that he swore to Strange being present at the meetings on two occasions; yet, when Strange was put to the bar he could not recognise him—not point him out whom he swore to as having been present at two meetings held in the open day. Was this the man upon whose evidence the Jury could return a verdict, which would affect the life of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar.
“He now begged the attention of the jury to another part of the case. They had heard of the name of Edwards in this case; this man, who lived at 166, Fleet-street, who afterwards lived at Ranelagh-place, why was not this man called? He was not an accomplice in any criminal degree, as must be inferred from the conduct of Government in letting him go quite at large. Why was not this man called? They would then have the spy to support the testimony of the informer. He could tell the Jury why; because it was remembered what had been the effect of calling a witness of a similar description on a former occasion. The witness then produced underwent a long and able cross-examination from the Counsel employed for the prisoners, and the result was, that he and his testimony were put out of Court together, and had no other effect on the minds of the Jury, than to convince them that the whole was a fabrication.
“If Edwards had been called, he would have told the Jury how this case had been got up; for he was well acquainted with the whole machinery of it. It would be recollected, that it was he who made the fusee for the hand-grenades; what would the Jury infer from his non-appearance, but that the whole of this case, as far as related to the charge of high treason, was a fabrication destitute of any foundation whatever.