Part 18

“It was true that the evidence of an accomplice might be believed under certain circumstances, that is, when he was supported by other more respectable witnesses; but then he must not be supported by only a few witnesses, but by all the witnesses which could be called to confront him. He would even go so far as to say that those who availed themselves of the evidence of an accomplice were bound to produce every witness acquainted with the facts to which he swore, not merely those who could support, but even those who were likely to contradict them. These persons were the solemn gages of his truth, and like witnesses to the signature of deeds, ought to be called forward for the common good of all parties. This was not merely his opinion, but the opinion of many eminent lawyers who had gone before him. Indeed he had read an opinion of one of them in a book, which he could not with propriety mention there; an opinion which was so much in unison with his own, though much more forcibly expressed, that he could not omit the opportunity of reading it to them. The argument in it was clear and satisfactory, and the law was not more accurately laid down than it was forcibly expressed. The passage to which he alluded was as follows:

“‘An accomplice may be a witness; even unconfirmed, he is a witness competent to be heard.’--A witness of the most infamous character, unless he has been actually convicted of certain specific crimes, and the record is brought into Court, may indeed be heard; but it is for you, gentlemen, to determine what degree of credit you will give to his evidence. Let him be heard; let him be examined; I thank them for calling this witness: I thank them for submitting him to the admirable cross-examination of my learned friend: I thank them for stopping certain subjects of inquiry; all this must satisfy you, that no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. I am sure, that if this were a case not of the immense importance which it is; but if it were a suit instituted to decide the smallest question of civil right, that you would not attend or give the slightest credence to such evidence. But in a case of this nature and of this magnitude, in a criminal case, in a case of treason, in a case of the highest description of crime, and, with respect to its inflictions and penalties, the severest that the law recognizes; in a case of high treason, I say, to build your decision upon evidence of this character, upon such a witness, and such a treacherous foundation, is it possible that my friends on the other side can expect it; is it possible that they can hope, or even wish for it? Can you believe that they could have known the previous conduct and character of this man, when they brought him into Court? It would be an insult to your understandings; it would be an outrage to common sense; a mockery of justice, to suppose that the smallest degree of reliance can be placed upon such evidence.

“But it is said that he is confirmed; and because he is confirmed in some facts, you are therefore to believe him in the rest. This is a position which lawyers are in the habit of stating in a very unqualified manner; but it is not a position which can be maintained to this extent, according to any principle of common sense. There is no man who tells a long and complicated story, like that which you have heard, who may, and must not of necessity, be confirmed in many parts of it. The witness was upwards of eight hours in giving his evidence, and of course stated many facts, which no man denies, which have been in all the newspapers for weeks and for months past; and because he is confirmed in certain particulars, you are therefore required to believe the whole of his story to be true. Is this a proposition to be insisted upon? Can it for a moment be maintained to this extent, and in this broad and unqualified way? But, gentlemen, every profession and science has its phrases; the necessary qualifications are by degrees lost sight of, and the worst errors are thus introduced.

“Let us then look at the mischief of this doctrine, and see the evils and injustice that have arisen out of it. The notorious Titus Oates, the witness for the Crown in the trials founded upon the Popish Plot, in the reign of Charles the Second, that most infamous and perjured wretch, who was afterwards convicted of perjury for his evidence upon those trials, and suffered the punishment of the law for his crime, was confirmed in his testimony in many most important particulars. Unfortunately, the juries, misled in those times of heat and party animosity, were prevailed upon to believe him, and many unhappy persons suffered in consequence of the extreme punishment of the law; and murders were committed, under the forms of justice, in consequence of the reliance placed upon the frail and fallacious testimony of a man of that description. You perceive, then, gentlemen, the danger of this doctrine; and that it is not because a man is confirmed in certain circumstances that you can safely believe him, as to other facts where that confirmation is wanting.

“What is the character of falsehood? Who has lived in the world, and has at all examined the operations of the human heart and mind, who does not know that this is the usual and proper character of falsehood--that it does not wholly invent, falsehood engrafts itself upon truth, and by that artifice misleads and deceives, truth is exaggerated, things that exist are discoloured or distorted--these are the usual operations of falsehood; this is a part of its nature, its address and dexterity. It arises, therefore, out of the very nature of perjury, that it must be confirmed to a certain extent; and it is because there is confirmation in certain particulars, to which

## particulars I shall, by-and-by, take the liberty of drawing your

attention, that you are gravely required to believe the whole of the miserable fictions with which you have been insulted in the evidence of this abandoned wretch.

“But let us look with a little more accuracy to the shades and distinctions upon this material point. I beg you to follow me; for it is most important, according to my apprehension of the question. A man may be seduced into the commission of an offence, who had previously maintained a good character; he may repent of his crime, and give information, and then come into court as a witness. If the story which he tells is found to be probable; if he is not only uncontradicted in any facts, but is confirmed in essential particulars; if there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the situation in which he stands, a jury, may, possibly, upon such evidence, be justified in finding a verdict of guilty. I repeat it, that if the previous character of the man were good; that if the story he tells is probable; if it is not proved to be false in any part of it; if he is confirmed in essential particulars, and there are no circumstances of suspicion arising out of the persons with whom he is connected, and by whom he is surrounded, then the Jury may give credit to his evidence.

“He could not help observing, that, if he had desired the best friend whom he had in the world to enlarge his mind by the infusion of good sound legal opinions, or to compose for him a dissertation on this express subject, that friend could not have given him any sentences so adequate to the expression of the sentiments which he wished to convey to the Jury, as were the sentences which he had just read to them. He could have wished to have given them the book which contained these sentences to keep in the box with them, but the practice of the Court prevented him from doing so; he would, however, ask them to retain them, if they could, in their minds, as a shield of protection for the prisoner, against a man, who ought not to be believed on any one point, but who had interwoven with his falsehoods many truths, which he had acquired either from common report in common conversation, or which had been impressed on his recollection by the injunction of those under whom he acted.

“The next step which he had to take, would be to comment on the evidence, but before he entered into an examination of it, he should beg leave to describe the nature of the defence which he was going to make. He thought it, therefore, his duty, to say at once, that no doubt could be entertained of Thistlewood having been at a meeting in Cato-street, and that he, with the other members of that meeting, had determined to murder all the Cabinet Ministers. To entertain a doubt of the existence of the meeting, or the sanguinary designs which those who attended it entertained, would be full as absurd as to doubt the existence of light now that the sun was casting its full radiance upon the Court. Whilst that meeting was in deep deliberation, it was interrupted by the arrival of a party of police officers. In the affray which ensued, Smithers met his death, or, he ought rather to speak out plainly, was murdered.

“Making, however, these concessions, and admitting the facts to be as bad as bad could be against the prisoner at the bar, believing even, as he did believe, that Thistlewood was guilty of the murder of Smithers, still he maintained that his guilt did not amount to high treason. He would admit, that from motives of a personal nature, Thistlewood wished to kill one of his Majesty’s ministers; and that, in order to effect that purpose, he had no objection to kill them all. The Jury ought, however, to recollect that, whilst influenced by this wish, he had always been accompanied by two spies: how far they had advised these plots was not clear, but one thing was clear, that, upon such evidence as theirs, they were called upon to convict Thistlewood of high treason. That he had been guilty of murder he (Mr. Adolphus) was not now going to dispute; but it was too bad that the crimes of murder and treason should now be blended together, and that he should be represented as meditating a crime which he never had for one moment in his heart.

“He had already stated to them, that if Adams’s evidence did not convict Thistlewood, none else did, for the evidence of the other witnesses was little or nothing. If, therefore, he shewed them, as he hoped and trusted he should shew them, that the witness Adams was totally unworthy of belief, then a verdict of acquittal must be given for the prisoner at the bar. In order to convince them how totally undeserving he (Adams) was of credit, he (Mr. Adolphus) should beg leave to direct their attention to three points. He should ask them how far Adams had been confirmed in that part of his evidence which related to the treason; then how far he had been contradicted by his own evidence, or that of others; and, lastly, how far he might have been confirmed by others, if the Counsel for the Crown had thought proper to call them.

“What then was the testimony which Mr. Robert Adams had given to them? He (Mr. Adolphus) would tell them. The man had commenced his evidence by informing them, that he had been a soldier some years in the Blues. That any subject of the King should entertain such schemes as had been entertained by these alleged conspirators, was certainly deplorable; but that a man in the situation of Adams, a soldier, sworn to defend his Majesty to the best of his ability from all harm and danger, should have voluntarily entered into them, and should never have felt any of what he (Adams) had termed compunctious visitings as to the guilt in which he was going to involve himself, until four days after the execution of that guilt had been rendered impossible, was a circumstance so atrocious as to deprive him of all claim to credibility and respect.

“This loyal soldier, however, proceeded to inform them, that he had become acquainted with Brunt about three years ago, when the British army was at Cambray, at which time Brunt was attending it in the capacity of a shoemaker. After the dispersion of the army he lost sight of him for some time, but afterwards met him again in the month of January last, when Brunt introduced him to Thistlewood. Then occurred one of the most extraordinary circumstances which he (Mr. Adolphus) had ever heard of, though it appeared to be nothing else than the fashion throughout the whole of this case. At his very first meeting with this Mr. Adams, Thistlewood let him into the whole secret of his traitorous designs. But could any one believe that Thistlewood himself was so reckless of life, as to use language to a stranger equivalent to this?--‘My fate is so hard, my circumstances are so desperate, that I care not a straw what becomes of me. I put myself, and all my designs, into your hands, without any regard to the consequences; and yet those designs are so horrible and so sanguinary, that if you have the slightest portion of loyal feeling about you, you must denounce me to Government, you must hand me over to justice, you must embrace the opportunity which I have given you of condemning me, without any scruple, out of my own mouth.’ Was it possible that any man in his senses could be thus blind and foolish? Could the most credulous man alive be persuaded to attach credit to so incredible a story? He thought not; and he therefore trusted, that on such evidence, they would never find the prisoner guilty of high treason.

“But though the prisoner, and those with whom he was connected, had not meditated so great a crime as treason, the evidence inclined him to believe, that after the perpetration of the bloody deeds which they meditated, they had intended, under shelter of the confusion which such atrocities would have created, to have commenced a general plunder and devastation of the metropolis. Such an intention, though it enhanced their guilt, did not make it amount to high treason; and, indeed, any person who carefully perused the evidence, would observe that it tallied well throughout with a design to plunder, but very ill indeed with a design to depose the King and to alter the form of Government. For what was it that Mr. Adams next said? Why, after some conversation as to his excellence as a swordsman, Thistlewood is represented as saying, ‘No man worth 10_l._ was worth any thing for the good of his country. The tradesmen and shopkeepers of London were a set of aristocrats together, and all worked under the same system of government. He should like to see the day when all the shops should be shut up and well plundered.’ Why, the whole intent of their conspiracy was disclosed in this sentence. Here was nothing about depriving the King of his style and dignity; but there was a good deal about plundering the city. Their arms, too, were fitted for this purpose, but not for overturning the Government, as must have been evident to all, from the miserable display of their armory which had been so ostentatiously made on the preceding evening. Therefore, unless they could suppose, that to murder the man whom they hated, and to plunder the shops during the trepidation ensuing on such murder, amounted to a deposing of the King, they must acquit Thistlewood of high treason.

“At another meeting, this formidable band of traitors declared that they were so poor, that they could not wait longer than the ensuing Wednesday for the effecting of their intended revolution. He left it to the jury to say, whether such a declaration savoured more of plunder or of high treason. But, in his opinion, a scheme of plunder was the only thing which could be thus easily arranged; not a revolution in the state, which must depend upon many fortuitous events and circumstances. After this, their conversation became sportive; they gave certain facetious nick-names to certain distinguished noblemen; how justly it was not their business then to decide. This occurred on the 13th of January, just one month and ten days before the transaction in Cato-street. What occurred next, according to the testimony of the respectable Mr. Adams? Why, that three days afterwards he was himself arrested for a small debt, and carried to Whitecross-street prison, which residence he did not leave until the 30th of January. Was this man, who could not even preserve his liberty, more likely to be found engaged in a design to destroy the state, or in a design to commit pillage and plunder, to enrich himself? He had nothing to lose, he had every thing to gain; and if the worst came to the worst, he had only to save himself, and hang the rest of his companions, by turning King’s evidence against them.

“After Adams had got out of prison, he returned to his old friends, and had several conversations with them, at all of which Edwards was present. He wished to call their attention to this curious fact, that Edwards, who could have proved all the conversations which had taken place--Edwards, whose name was placed on the back of the indictment as a witness to be summoned on behalf of the Crown, had never once been put into the box. Shortly afterwards they took a room to themselves, and had meetings in it twice or thrice every day. Adams attended them all, became acquainted with all their projects, made himself an

## active partner to all their intended atrocities; and yet, though a

soldier of the King’s, never disclosed a syllable of them to any of the constituted authorities until he was apprehended. What next? Why, between the 3d and the 16th of February, another conversation occurred; and then this plot is described as assuming, for the first time, a treasonable shape, ‘One evening,’ says this respectable witness, ‘I went in and saw Harrison, Thistlewood and Brunt: Harrison said, that he had been speaking to one of the horse-guards, who had told him that the whole of their regiment would be down at Windsor on the King’s funeral. He said that this would be a favourable opportunity to _kick up a row_, and to see what could be done.’ Kick up a row! That very phrase explained the whole matter--all the troops would not, indeed, be out of town, but all the officers of police would, and therefore it was a favourable opportunity to kick up a row, and to commit depredation. ‘Thistlewood’ continued Mr. Adams, ‘said that it was a good plan; and, added, that if they could get the two pieces of cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane, and the six pieces in the Artillery-ground, they would so help themselves as to have possession of London before morning. He also said, that when the news should reach Windsor, the soldiers would be so tired from being up all night, as to be incapable of doing any thing when they returned to London.’ In possession of London! Why this fellow, with his military education, ought to have known that he could not take military possession of any single respectable street in the metropolis with ten times the number of men said to be engaged in this wild attempt to overthrow a mighty empire. For were their numbers unknown? No--their whole battalia was well known to consist of not more than twenty-five men; and yet, with this mighty force, and with eight pieces of artillery, they were to be able to keep possession of London, because the poor dear soldiers would be tired to death by being kept up on duty a whole night at Windsor. Were such idle dreams and dotages to be credited in a court of justice? or were they to be dismissed from their recollection with that scorn and contempt which was so eminently their due?

“Adams then represented Thistlewood continuing as follows:--‘By persevering after they had got the cannon, and by using some activity, they might go to Hyde-park and prevent any person or messenger from going to Windsor, and giving the alarm. Another party should then cross the water, and take the telegraph, to prevent any communication being made at Woolwich of what was going forward at London.’ The man who devised such a plan, might, indeed, be considered as mad--but at least there was method in his madness. Roads were to be commanded in this, important diversions operated in that direction, telegraphs to be seized in one town, and soldiers paralyzed in another. All this, too, was to be done by twenty-five men and eight pieces of artillery, who were to be gifted, in addition to all their other qualifications, with the most wonderful ubiquity.

“That a wicked man, or that even a madman, might devise such a project, he could easily believe; but that any man should propose it as a feasible project to any body of men, was more than he could ever be induced to credit. For no story of oriental romance was so extravagant--no exploit of any hero of school divinity was so inconsistent with reason and probability, as was the design which Adams had shown to have been recommended by Thistlewood to his associates. And yet these men were to form a provisional government, and the forming of this provisional government was to constitute a chief point of their guilt! They form a provisional government for this mighty empire! In what way? by what means? out of what materials? Out of those illiterate and beggarly individuals, he supposed, who could not agree on the drawing up, on cartridge-paper, of three lines, to be exposed on the great day of the revolution on the blazing buildings of London, for the good of the people.

“This provisional government, formed from such materials as he had described, was not to begin the exercise of its authority, however, until the soldiers, who were to be tired to death by sitting up all night at Windsor, were fairly disposed of. From his talking thus coolly of tiring the poor soldiers to death by the labours of one night, it was quite clear that Adams, with all his military education, had either never heard of such a thing as a bivouac, or else that he had conceived all virtue and all valour, as well as all honesty, to have left the army when he quitted it. The provisional government being formed, it was only natural to expect that the business of the drama would crowd more thickly upon the Jury, and therefore they might be excused for asking what came next. Why, the provisional government was to send to the sea-ports to prevent any gentlemen from leaving England without passports: it was to send to Dover, to Brighton, to Margate, to Ramsgate, and other places, orders to that effect; to send to all of them, too, during the night of the King’s funeral--and, above all, was to send these orders to Brighton in particular. Why so? because the mention of Brighton brought the prisoner at the bar into contact with the reigning Sovereign, and laid a foundation for a charge of high treason.