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 Solicitor General had admitted, that the evidence of the conspirators ought not to be believed unless it was confirmed in all its material circumstances. It was to be observed, that the confirmation alluded to, was not meant to apply to collateral facts irrelevant to the matter in issue, but to the whole body and substance of the evidence; and therefore if they found that the material witnesses to establish the conspiracy were not confirmed in the substantial part of their evidence, it was their duty to pronounce a verdict of acquittal.

“The learned counsel admitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish an intention on the part of the prisoners to commit, perhaps, a dreadful riot, to commit murder, and to effect the destruction of houses; but he strenuously urged, that this was not sufficient to make out the crime of high treason, as alleged in the indictment. He adverted to the evidence of Adams, and other witnesses, and contended that it was wholly incredible, and inconsistent in every part.

“But supposing the conspiracy which they had proved, really to have existed, he urged that it was the most ridiculous plot that could ever enter into the mind of the most infatuated man, considering the absolute destitution of means to carry it into effect. The records of fiction and of history did not furnish an instance of such a wild and chimerical scheme.

“After commenting with considerable ingenuity, upon the evidence of the principal witnesses of the Crown, he proceeded to deprecate in strong terms the doctrine of constructive treason; and called upon the Jury, as guardians of their own and the public liberties, to make a stand against the further extension of this abominable doctrine, which had been condemned by Lord Hale, and some of the wisest judges that ever sat to administer justice. Returning again to the description of evidence adduced to support the conspiracy, he insisted that they could give no credence to Adams, who stood confessed the betrayer of his companions, a traitor to his king, a rebel against his country, intending to assassinate and murder his fellow-subjects, an apostate to his religion, and a scoffer of his God.

“Would a British Jury in this sanctuary of justice sacrifice to torture and death eleven men, merely upon the evidence of such a self-convicted wretch? He had stated to the Jury the danger to which our liberties and lives would be exposed, if a man could be convicted of high treason, on evidence like that which they had heard; but as he preferred supporting himself in all cases by the authority of great men, he would remind them of what the present Solicitor-General had said, without telling them on what occasion the words to which he would allude had been spoken, or how long it was ago.

“A witness was called to discredit the testimony of another. He, on cross-examination, admitted, that he had accompanied a person to the Park, who went there for the purpose of extorting money from individuals, by charging them with certain practices. On this occasion the natural feelings of his learned friend, the Solicitor-General, broke forth, and he inquired, ‘Would any honest man—would any man worthy of belief in a court of justice, accompany a person who went on such an expedition? Would any man, entitled to credit with a jury, agree with another in such a plan to extort money?’ This, in point of fact, had not been done by the witness to whom he alluded; but he, Mr. Curwood, must beg to apply this sort of reasoning to the principal witness for the prosecution, and ask if a man who had acted as Adams had done was entitled to belief in a court of justice.

“Was a man entitled to credit, who, like Adams, was an apostate, a traitor, a rebel, a betrayer of his companions, a murderer, and an assassin—all of which he admitted that he had intended to be?

“Yet such a man had his learned friend put up on the present occasion. But who would believe him, unless, indeed, it were made out, which no lawyer would say it was, that such a man was entitled to credit when he came into a court of justice to seek the lives of men, though not in other cases, where his object was different.

“If this principle were not established, then out of their own mouths was the principal witness for the prosecution condemned. He called upon the Jury to look if he were confirmed, he would not say by good, but even by infamous witnesses. It was nothing that he was corroborated in various insignificant particulars, but he was borne out in nothing that went to prove that the prisoner at the bar had committed high treason; and he therefore begged of them, under these circumstances, to give that verdict which would dismiss Adams with shame, as a man not to be believed in a court of justice on his oath.

“If such a man were corroborated by other infamous witnesses, it would, in fact, be no confirmation; how, then, did the case stand when they found that he was not even confirmed by the testimony of those who were almost as infamous as himself. Having done with Adams, the next witness was Hyden, he described himself to have formerly belonged to a shoe-making club, and to have been introduced to Thistlewood in the month of February. And what was the first proposal made to him? Why, Thistlewood was represented to have said, without any disguise or reserve, “Will you be one to murder his Majesty’s ministers?”