“John Monument, another accomplice, corroborated Adams. He stated that the prisoner said to him, ‘Great events are at hand; the people everywhere are anxious for a change.’ This observation shewed that the assassination of Ministers was not the sole and only object of the parties. The evidence of Thomas Dwyer, as far as it went, confirmed the testimony of those who were examined before him. If his statement were correct, the prisoner told him the general plan and object which he and his associates had in view. These were the four witnesses called to explain the designs of the accused parties. Two of them were accomplices; but, in general, none but accomplices could be acquainted with such foul and illegal designs. The two other witnesses did not stand in the same situation. Communications were made to them, on the subject of the conspiracy, it appeared, with little reserve;—a circumstance of which the Jury were to judge.
“A great many other persons had been called, chiefly for the purpose of confirming the testimony given by these witnesses; for, if they had spoken to truth, without farther evidence to the facts, treason was undoubtedly proved. They proved the intention to levy war, to form a Provisional Government, and, of course, to change the Government as by law established. Eliza Walker proved that the prisoner Brunt had hired a lodging for Ings in the house where he resided; and Joseph Hale, Brunt’s apprentice, deposed to the meetings that were held from time to time in Brunt’s room. He proved that meetings were held there every evening, and that grenades, fire-balls, and pikes, were on the premises.
“Thomas Sharp, a watchman, deposed, that he saw four suspicious persons, on the 22d of February, watching about Lord Harrowby’s house. Morrison, a cutler, proved that Ings brought him two swords to sharpen, and a sword found at Cato-street appeared to be one of them. Alderson, a pawnbroker, deposed, that, on the 23d of February, Davidson took a blunderbuss out of pawn. Thomas Monument, the brother of John confirmed his testimony in several points. This was the evidence confirmatory of the testimony of the first four witnesses. Many of the facts stated by Adams were spoken to by them; but the treasonable purpose could not be well proved, except by accomplices. Information on that point could scarcely be expected from a pure source. Hyden was a witness of that description; but Dwyer, to a certain degree, was not.
“The prosecutors then called persons to prove what occurred at the stable in Cato-street; and Captain Fitzclarence, and several Bow-street officers, gave a detailed account of the transactions there. It did not appear to him necessary that he should go, in detail, through the testimony of these witnesses. It was not necessary to inquire by what particular hand a gun or a pistol was fired; but it was material to observe, that, when the officers did come, many at least of the persons present made a most desperate resistance. A knife, said to belong to Ings, was found on the premises; and two bags and a case-knife were found on his person. The bags were important; because it was sworn that he stated the purpose for which he brought them. It was argued by the Counsel for the defendant, that they were meant for the reception of plunder, and not for the horrible purpose that had been stated; but this did not invalidate the testimony of Adams, because Ings might not have wished to declare that he meant to put plate in the bags; and, if so he might have said, what he was sworn to have uttered, as a reason for carrying them. This closed the evidence for the Crown.
“On the part of the prisoners, Mary Baker was called, who, the Jury would recollect, was not cross-examined. This arose from a commendable delicacy, on account of the near relationship in which she stood to one of the prisoners. The Jury would say, whether her evidence went at all to shake the case. Indeed, it appeared from her statement, that she had seen at Tidd’s lodgings instruments similar to those produced in Court. A man named Hucklestone was then called, to prove that Dwyer was not to be believed on his oath; and he stated, that he thought he was not worthy of belief, because Dwyer had informed him that he procured money by base accusations. This however, was entirely contradicted by Dwyer; and it was for the Jury to say which of the two witnesses was entitled to their credit.
“The Jury would also consider the character and bearing of the evidence of Doane and Mitchell, with respect to the paragraph in The New Times, announcing a cabinet dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, which, according to Whittaker, was not on the same day in any other newspaper in London. It was, however, a matter of no consequence how it found its way into the paper, since it was proved that cabinet dinner was intended to be given on the 23d of February. This was the whole of the evidence on each side. No witness was called to impeach the veracity of Adams, Hyden, and Monument. And if they gave credit to any one of those persons, (even to Hyden, who supported what the others told them, and whose account, though more concise than theirs, was the same in effect), they must find a verdict against the prisoner.
“Besides the testimony of the witnesses, they had seen on the table a considerable quantity of arms, which were proved to have been found in Cato-street, and at the lodgings of one of the prisoners. It was almost conceded, that a conspiracy was entered into for the purpose of assassinating his Majesty’s Ministers at Lord Harrowby’s house. Indeed there could be little doubt of it.
“If then it were admitted that this most wicked scheme was entertained, it was for them to consider whether it could reasonably be supposed that that was all which was intended? They were to consider, what was the probability that those persons, unconnected in any respect with each other, except so far as this plan brought them together—and certainly quite unconnected with the persons who conducted the affairs of his Majesty’s Government—did not view that assassination as part of a scheme, having for its object a general and tumultuous rising of the people, to levy war against the King; or whether they conspired to effect that assassination alone?
“Whether they adopted this plan to satisfy their thirst for blood, or to accomplish that ulterior scheme to which the witnesses had spoken? In deciding this question, it was fit that the Jury should attend to the great quantity, as well as the nature of the instruments produced. They certainly were far more in number than could have been wanted, or used in the abominable attempt that was to be made at Lord Harrowby’s. Some of them could not have been used there at all. The hand-grenades might have been thrown, but the fire-balls could not have been used for the purpose which they meant to effect at that house. When those dangerous articles were found, some at one place and some at another, it was for the Jury to take the circumstance into their serious consideration.
“If, on a view of the whole case, they, as just and conscientious men, felt satisfied that a conspiracy to levy war was made out in proof before them, if their minds were freed from all doubt on the subject, they would, he was convinced, discharge the painful duty that devolved on them with proper firmness. But if, after a due examination of all the circumstances, and after attending to the observations of the very eloquent counsel, who had addressed them on the part of the prisoner, first and last, their minds were not satisfied that the case was proved, they would discharge the more pleasant duty of acquitting the prisoner. The case was now in their hands; and he doubted not but their verdict would be consonant with the principles of justice.”