Part 16

GILES MOY confirmed this evidence, so far as he was concerned.

ROBERT CHAPMAN, one of the Bow-street officers, went to Cato-street; saw Ings in the stable, and heard him say, “Look out, above.” Witness, in the watch-house, took from Ings a knife-case, two balls, and a pistol-key. He saw one running through the stable with a sword in his hand.

CAPTAIN FITZCLARENCE appeared on the right of the bench, and said, he was a lieutenant in the Coldstream Guards; he went with a piquet to John-street on the 23d of February, about eight in the evening. On hearing reports of pistols, they went to Cato-street. He was directed by a police-officer to the stable. He met two men at the door: the man on his right cut at him with a sword, the other man presented a pistol. He got in and seized a man, who called out, “Don’t kill me, and I will tell you all.” He gave him in charge, and then secured another man in one of the stalls. On going up stairs, he secured three, four, or five persons. He fell against the body of poor Smithers, who was lying dead. He saw several arms.

SAMUEL TAUNTON, a Bow-street officer, went to Brunt’s lodgings, searched the front and back rooms, and found two baskets. Brunt, who was in the front room, and had been previously taken into custody, said, he knew nothing of the baskets. The room did not belong to him in which they were; it was the back room. In the same room there was a pike-staff and an iron pot. Witness sent for the landlady, Mrs. Rogers. She said, her niece had let the back-room to a man she did not know. Brunt, said, it was a man at the public-house, and he did not know his name.

Witness then went to Tidd’s, in the Hole-in-the-Wall passage, near Gray’s Inn-lane. There he found a box full of ball-cartridges, 965 in number; he found ten grenades, and a great quantity of gunpowder. He found, in haversacks, 434 balls. He found also sixty-nine ball-cartridges, and about eleven bags of gunpowder, one pound each. The grenades were in a wrapper. In one of the baskets at Brunt’s were nine papers of rope-yarn and tar; in the other, three of the same, two flannel bags of powder, one pound each, and five empty bags, a paper of powder, one leathern bag, with three balls in it. They were all here.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus.--This was on the 24th. Brunt had been in custody before. Tidd was absent.

DANIEL BISHOP, a Bow-street officer, went on the morning of the 24th, with other officers, to apprehend Thistlewood, about ten in the morning, to Whitecross-street, Moorfields. The house was kept by Harris. He received a key from Mrs. Harris, which opened a ground-floor. There he saw Thistlewood, who thrust his head from under the clothes in bed; the shutters were shut. Witness told his name and business, and, having a sword in one hand, and a staff in the other, threw himself on the bed. Thistlewood said, he would make no resistance. He had his breeches on, in the pockets of which they found two balls, two cartridges, and some flints. They also found a small silk sash.

Cross-examined.--A man of the name of Edwards did not go, nor any who knew where Thistlewood was.

LAVENDER produced and identified the belt found in Thistlewood’s coat-pocket.

RUTHVEN produced the pike-staff, grenades, _&c_.

All the soldiers and officers who had any of the articles seized were now arranged behind the witness-box, and handed to Ruthven their several charges, and Ruthven laid them on the table. A pike was screwed on a staff, and handed to the Jury. The whole of the frightful apparatus was now exposed to view. Guns, blunderbusses, carbines, swords, pistols, pikes, sticks, cartridges, bullets; even the pot in which the tar was boiled,--all were produced and identified.

The fire-arms remained loaded till produced on this occasion, when the charges were drawn; they were loaded with ball. One of the grenades had been given to a person by an order of Colonel Congreve to be examined. The production of Ings’s knife excited an involuntary shudder; it was a broad desperate-looking weapon.

The Jury inspected the arms separately, and particularly the pikes, the construction and formation of which have already been minutely described. The whole had a most formidable appearance.

JOHN HECTOR MORRISON, servant to Mr. Underwood, cutler, in Drury-lane, was re-called, and looked at two swords, which, he said, were the same he had ground for Ings.

Serjeant EDWARD HANSON, of the Royal Artillery, examined by Mr. Gurney.--I examined one of the grenades produced to me at Bow-street; it is composed of a tin case, in the form of a barrel, in which a tube is soldered. The case contains three ounces and a half of gunpowder. The priming in the tube is a composition of saltpetre, powder, and brimstone. The tin was pitched, and wrapped round with rope-yarn, which was cemented with rosin and tar. Round the tin, and in the rope-yarn, twelve pieces of iron were planted. From the lighting of the fusee to the explosion might take about half a minute. If one of them were to be exploded in a room where there were a number of persons, it would produce great destruction. The pieces of iron would fly about like bullets.

[The witness here opened another of the grenades for the satisfaction of the Jury; it was composed in the manner already described. The pieces of iron principally consisted of old cart-nails, such as the tires of wheels are nailed on with. The carcase, or tin-case, was wrapped in an old stocking, and the powder which it contained was pronounced very good.]

Witness, in continuation.--I examined one of the fire-balls; it consisted of oakum, tar, rosin, and stone-brimstone, pounded. If one of these was thrown into a house, and alighted on wood, it would be sure to set it on fire. The effect would be still more certain on straw or hay.

The Attorney-General.--“That is the case, my Lord, on the part of the Crown.”

THE DEFENCE.

Mr. CURWOOD now rose to address the Jury on the part of the prisoner. He commenced by stating, “That if it were consistent with a sense of moral and professional duty, he would not have stood there to address them. It was one of the characteristics of the profession to which he had the honour to belong, however, and one which perhaps reflected upon it the greatest credit, that they were not at liberty to refuse their assistance to persons in the situation of the unfortunate man at the bar. No man could feel more impressed than himself with the sense of the great and weighty duty he had to perform. He felt that the unhappy prisoner had a right to call upon him to do his duty boldly and fearlessly, and without any consideration for the Government who were the prosecutors on this occasion; he felt also that he had a duty to perform to his country, by assisting in the administration of the law, and not by any power which he possessed, if he did possess such power, to endeavour to pervert that law. He owed something too, to his own fair fame, which was all, his only inheritance.

“With these feelings pressing upon him, he might truly say, he was placed in a trying and critical situation. It was fit on an occasion of this sort, that they should know something of the man by whom they were addressed. It could not be denied that the unfortunate transactions, to which their attention had been so painfully directed, had arisen out of that state of the country which they must all alike lament and deplore. It was clear also, that while they had attachments to certain

## parties, prejudices would arise which it was out of their power to

control in favour of the sentiments of those parties. With respect to himself, although like every other Englishman, he had his feelings upon certain points, yet he never belonged to any particular party, nor was he in the habit of attending political meetings. With respect to Government, he never had received any place or appointment from them, nor was it likely that he should. In the present instance, therefore, he had no motive to influence him in doing his duty, or at least in endeavouring to do it fairly and honestly.

“It was due to his Learned Friends and to himself to state, that in consequence of the lateness of the moment in which they were called upon to undertake this arduous task, not having received their instructions till a late hour on Thursday, that the difficulties with which they had to cope were of no ordinary kind; and these difficulties became the more formidable, when it was recollected that they had arrayed against them the most distinguished talents which it was in the power of the Crown to procure--talents not a little aided by the advantage of study, and of a mature consideration of all the facts of the case which they were called upon to discuss. No doubt, in the notice which they (the Jury) had given to the Attorney-General, when he opened this case, they had not failed to observe, and he had observed it with unfeigned surprise, that he had not stated to them precisely what were the points which they were called upon to try. He had indeed stated that it was a prosecution for high treason, but he had only defined what was the quality of the treason which he meant to impute.

“Unfortunately, there was mixed up with this transaction a great deal for which the prisoner might hereafter be answerable, and which was calculated to make a deep impression on the minds of the Jury; but whatever was their opinion upon the moral guilt of the prisoner, if, upon a review of the evidence, they should not be of opinion that he had committed the precise offence charged in the indictment, it was their duty to pronounce a verdict of Not Guilty. It therefore devolved upon him to state precisely what they had to try; it was not merely a question of high treason, but a question of a particular species of high treason.

“The indictment was very long, and contained many things which, in the language of the law, were called overt acts. They were not, however, because a great body of evidence had been given to them, to jump at the conclusion, that the substantive treason alleged had been committed. The sorts of treason charged were four in number: the first was founded upon the late statute of the 36th of the King, for conspiring to depose his majesty from his imperial style and dignity. It was now nearly 400 years since that statute, to which Englishmen had been wont to look with veneration as a protection for the dearest rights of man--he meant the statute of Edw. III.--had been passed. There, among other treasons set forth, was the conspiring to take away, or the compassing and imagining, or intending to compass or imagine the King’s death--but there had subsequent treasons started up. There was now another Act of Parliament in existence, which embraced not merely the compassing and imagining the King’s death; but the conspiring to depose him from his imperial style and dignity. It was also treason to conspire to levy war against his majesty. This was the question then which they had to try.

“First, had the prisoners at the bar conspired or imagined the death of the King; secondly, had they conspired to depose his Majesty from his imperial style and dignity; thirdly, had they conspired to levy war against the King; and lastly, had they actually levied war against the King? He apprehended that they must be satisfied that one or other of these charges was proved, before they could find a verdict of _guilty_.

“Before he came to these topics, they would look to the probability of the evidence which had been laid before them. The great mass which had been adduced certainly led them to conclude that a conspiracy of some kind had existed; but it did not follow that the substantive treason charged in the indictment had therefore been committed. It did not follow, as a matter of course, that the removal of the administration of the King must be succeeded by the deposition of the Monarch himself. Let them go by steps. There was continually in Parliament one party endeavouring to remove another; that was to say, endeavouring to remove the existing administration. He would admit, probably with the best intentions.

“Would it be contended, that this removal of an administration was necessarily connected with the deposition of the Monarch, and that every man who attempted to effect such a purpose would be involved in the crime of high treason?

“Again, other men might think it necessary that an administration should be removed by violence; and this too with the most virtuous intentions. He desired not to be misunderstood, as meaning under that plea to justify assassination. Nothing was further from his feelings; but all he meant to argue was, that they must not take it as a necessary consequence that the death or destruction of a whole administration involved the death or deposition of the King. If they (the Jury) were of opinion that it did not involve such a consequence, the evidence on this occasion did not support the substantive treason laid in the two first divisions of the indictment.

“There were two other treasons, however; one was the conspiracy to levy war against his Majesty; and the other, the actual levying of war. Now he called upon them to look to the evidence, and see whether they could draw from that a fair inference, that there was a conspiracy to levy war, and that what had been done amounted to an actual levying of war. In the detail given by the first witness, Adams, who in fact proved the whole case--he thought there was much more for ridicule, than for serious consideration. In his opinion, the testimony of this man was utterly incredible, independent of the fact of his being an accomplice.

“The Attorney-General had told them that an accomplice was a necessary witness; but though necessary, he was not of necessity to be believed. The more atrocious the guilt in which he had steeped himself, the less worthy he was of credit; and where a most atrocious and wicked witness came to tell them a tale, not only improbable, but most ridiculous in itself, would they not at once dismiss him from their notice?

“It often happened, that those who were the most ingenious in devising and promoting mischief, were the first to become informers; and that this was the case in the present instance, he should be enabled to prove. They would, however, consider the evidence which had been given by Adams to support the fact of there having been a conspiracy to levy war against the King. They would lay out of their consideration for a moment all that had been said of the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers; and they would consider the evidence as it had been given by him to support that conspiracy. They had here everything to raise their passions.

“They had all the materials and preparations for war before them (the arms on the table); but what was the result of all the discussions which took place at all the meetings of the conspirators from the 4th of February, in which the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers had been repeatedly debated?

“In the cross-examination of Adams, it appeared that one of the conspirators, Palin, had, with some degree of sense, when all those things were talked of, asked where the men were to come from to effect this mighty revolution? In one moment his Majesty’s Ministers were to be assassinated!--a detachment was to go and take possession of two pieces of cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane!--another detachment was to make a descent upon the Artillery-Ground!--a third party were to seize the Mansion-house, as a seat for the Provisional Government! and yet to effect all this, what was the actual strength of the conspirators in its most exaggerated state? Why, forsooth, forty men, two old sabres, six shillings, and a reputed pound-note!! Where an infamous witness told them such a story could they believe it?--was it credible? Would they take away the life of a man under such circumstances? If it were possible for them to do so, he could only say that they would be more insensible than the deluded men themselves.

“Then as to the other point, the actual levying of war; what a levying of war was, he hardly knew how to define. Lord Hale had said, that this was a question of fact, which a Jury alone was capable of deciding.--That learned Judge had also talked of “marching with unfurled banners, and being furnished with military officers”--but where were the unfurled banners here, or where the military officers?--The only military man they had heard of was one disbanded soldier, and the purpose to which he was to be applied was the destruction of his Majesty’s Ministers--an act which, he contended, even if effected, did not amount to a levying of war.--If they were told the contrary, he was sure they would treat such an intimation as absurd and ridiculous. Where was this great conspiracy concocted? In a two-pair back room! Where was the battle fought? In a stable! Where were the traitors incorporated? In a hay-loft! How were they armed? With a few rusty swords, halberts, and old pistols!

“He would put it to the plain common sense and understanding of the Jury, whether they would pronounce persons so assembled and so armed, guilty of levying war against the King? It was rather a levying war against the constables, at the very name of whom they trembled. Then, if there was no levying of war, was there a conspiracy to levy war? The only evidence they had of such a conspiracy came out of the mouth of those three witnesses who were so far contaminated, that it was beyond all doubt they had themselves been deeply implicated in the projected assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers.”

“The question, then, for their consideration resolved itself into this point: they would consider, even supposing that the assassination of the Ministers was intended, whether this of necessity implied that his Majesty was also to be deposed. If they did not think that the one must of course follow the other, then their verdict must be “Not Guilty.” He implored them to do their duty strictly according to law, to consider what the law of the country was, to step neither to the right nor to the left, but to come to a fair and impartial and unprejudiced conclusion. He implored them to do so, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the country; for if once jurymen suffered their feelings of indignation towards one offence to lead them to admit the existence of another of a different character, not proved, there would be an end of the due distinctions of justice. If this man had been guilty of another offence, there was another indictment against him, on which he must take his trial if he were acquitted of this: and if he were convicted under that, he would suffer the penalty of the law. But, upon this occasion, he called upon them not to find him guilty of High Treason, because they thought him worthy of death for having incurred the guilt of assassination.

“In conclusion, the learned gentleman said, he would proceed to call a witness to prove that Adams, who had been called for the Crown, together with an accomplice of the name of Edwards, who had not been called, were the persons who had conveyed the arms and ammunition to the house of Tidd on the very morning they had been found there by the Bow-street officers.”

Mr. ADOLPHUS then proceeded to call the

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

MARY PARKER examined.--I am the daughter of Richard Tidd; I live with my father; I remember the police officers coming and finding some boxes and things in our lodgings; they came about half-past eight; those things had been in the house when they came, about a quarter of an hour; they were brought that morning; among them were the pike staves; it was no person in my father’s employment who brought them; he had been taken into custody the night before; I know a person of the name of Adams; I have seen him at my father’s; I know a person of the name of Edwards; I have also seen him there; he has been there often; I have seen similar things before the officers came; I believe these to be the same things; Edwards took part away; I do not know who took the rest; he took them away on Wednesday; my father did not take them away; Edwards did not take away the box; he only took away some things that I have since heard were used; the box was brought a day or two before my father was taken; it never was uncorded; Adams brought a large grenade; I do not know what Edwards was.

The Attorney-general declined asking this witness any question.

EDWARD HUCKLESTONE examined by Mr. Curwood.--I know a man of the name of Dwyer. I have known him for some years. Latterly I have known him intimately. I used the same public-house. I do not think he is to be believed on his oath.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.--I saw him with plenty of money, and knowing that he had little or no work, I was surprised. I was in distress. He told me he would put me in the way to make plenty of money, if I would go with him. I agreed; and he proposed that we should charge gentlemen with an unnatural offence. That he was to go up first, and then I was to join him. I left him quite shocked. This was about three months ago. He said he had got ten pounds at a time from a gentleman in St. James’s-street, by only catching him by the collar, and accusing him. I met him the next night at the Rodney’s-head, and he called me a coward. I told him of the danger, and reminded him that his brother had been transported for the same thing. He said he knew better how to general it than his brother. I ought to have communicated it to a magistrate; but I was afraid of falling a “wictim” to the Irishmen who lived in the neighbourhood. I have spoken to him since. I was a shoemaker, but am now articled to a cow-doctor in Newman-mews. I first communicated this to my brother, about a week ago. I did not mention it before, lest I might be ill-treated, as I had to go so much about among the cows. Some of the Irishmen have gone away from the neighbourhood now, and that induced me to summon up courage to mention it to my brother. I did go with Dwyer to the Park, but I was always struck with the horror of the thing. When I saw the names of the witnesses in this case in the paper, I made the communication to my brother.

(The witness was desired not to go out of Court.)