An Authentic History of the Cato-Street Conspiracy / With the trials at large of the conspirators, for high treason and murder, a description of their weapons and combustible machines, and every particular connected with the rise, progress, discovery, and termination of the horrid plot

by George Theodore Wilkinson

“The charge against the prisoner was, that of having conspired to overturn the Constitution under which that system of Government existed. It was a question whether the substitution of the Government which he might have contemplated, would have been distinguished by a character of so admirable a description. He had no doubt that the Jury would pay that anxious and careful attention to this case which its importance demanded, and that they would not come to a verdict of Guilty, unless they were satisfied that that verdict was justified by the clearest evidence. But, at the same time, he called upon them to perform their duty, fearless of all consequences; to turn neither to the right nor to the left, but to pronounce such a verdict as was consistent with a proper feeling towards their country, and with a due regard to the solemn obligation into which they had entered.

“With respect to the law upon the subject, it was not necessary to trouble them with any observation. In the charge against the prisoner there was nothing of a difficult or questionable description. He was charged with conspiring for the purpose of overturning the Government of the country, and with endeavouring to accomplish that by means of the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers. If the Jury, upon a due and careful examination of the evidence, were satisfied that he had so conspired, and that he had been found taking measures to accomplish that object, then, in point of law, he was guilty of the crime imputed to him. It was admitted on all hands that a plot had been formed to assassinate the Ministers of the King, and not to assassinate one, two, or three, of those individuals against whom the prisoner might be supposed to have some personal enmity. The blow had been aimed not against one, but against all.

“The Jury would consider whether such an intention was founded with a view to overturn the Government of the country; or, whether, as had been fancifully surmised by the Counsel for the prisoner, the sole object had been the plunder of private property, and the gratification of private revenge. They would look with jealousy to the testimony which had been adduced before them, and upon that they would conclude whether the steps which had been taken were directed by the desire of promoting revolution, or solely with a view of obtaining plunder in the confusion which would necessarily follow.

“In considering the evidence of an accomplice, they would naturally look to his previous character; they would see whether there was any thing in his former course of life, from whence to conclude that he was a man capable of pursuing a continued and undeviating course of crime; but, above all, they would consider from all the circumstances of the case, what degree of credit ought fairly to be given to his evidence. He knew of no law that applied to accomplices, which did not apply to every other witness who came into a Court of Justice.

“The evidence of every witness ought to be examined with care and jealousy, and in proportion only as his story was consistent with probability was he entitled to belief. Now let them look to the fair test upon which the evidence of Adams was to be tried. His character, up to the time of his entering into the diabolical schemes of the prisoner, was unimpeached; and, if any thing could be urged on that score, no doubt the prisoner Brunt, with whom he had been intimately acquainted, would not fail to have adduced it. In so much, therefore, he stood upon fair and eligible grounds.

“Then they would ask themselves, what interest he could have in stating that which was not true? The more criminal the plot which he disclosed, the blacker hue he gave to his own reputation; and, added to this, he knew that, from the candour and correctness of his confession could he alone hope for mercy towards himself. Then he must be aware, that if he stated that which was false, his story was capable of contradiction, and therefore altogether fruitless. So that, in every point of view, he was a competent witness. As was before said, however, the Jury still had the power of exercising their own sound discretion, and of placing in him only that degree of confidence which he seemed to deserve, and which the confirmation he had received fairly justified.

“The learned counsel for the prisoner had made use of the gratuitous expression, that this man, Adams, was the only witness to prove the case. Was this the fact? Were there not three other witnesses who all spoke to the same occurrences; he alluded to Monument, Hiden, and Dwyer; the two latter of whom were, in all respects pure and uncontaminated; for what had been said of Dwyer was absolutely beneath consideration. These men were all unknown to each other—had never seen each other—and yet they all agreed in their story as to the plan for assassinating his Majesty’s Ministers, seizing cannon, providing arms, burning houses, and establishing a provisional government. Independent of these, a variety of other witnesses had been examined, who spoke to points trivial in themselves, but all confirmatory of Adams, and, as it were, completely dovetailing with the most minute parts of his story.

“This was the case with regard to Brunt’s apprentice; to the landlady of the house in which Brunt lived, and her daughter; to the officers by whom Brunt’s house had been searched; and even to Tidd’s own daughter, whose story was precisely consistent with the plan which had been detailed, but which had been so providentially frustrated. In fact, each witness formed a link in the general chain, which was complete in all its parts. But there was a still stronger argument in favour of all that had been stated, and that was, that it had not been contradicted by evidence, although such evidence was capable of being produced. For, if what Adams had disclosed was not true, why were Potter, and Cook, and Palin, to all of whom he spoke as having been present at the various meetings which took place, and who were eligible witnesses for the prisoner, not called.

“The absence of these men afforded an additional reason for giving implicit belief to all which the witnesses for the crown had said. The learned gentleman then proceeded in a luminous and eloquent strain, still farther to illustrate his argument, and with great ingenuity to contend that it was impossible, under all the circumstances of the case, for the Jury to come to any other conclusion than that the several charges of high treason imputed to the prisoner had been established beyond all doubt. If, however, as had been said by his learned friend (Mr. Adolphus) any doubt did exist, to the benefit of that doubt the prisoner was fully entitled.”

Lord Chief-Justice Abbot proceeded to sum up. “This, he said, was an indictment against Arthur Thistlewood, the prisoner then at the bar, and several other persons, who, in the progress of the trial, had appeared at the bar, in order to be identified for the crime of High Treason. That offence had truly been stated as the highest crime known to the law. It was so, because it did not merely produce individual and private evil, as most other crimes did, but, in addition to that, it created great and extensive public mischief.