Part 20

“He now begged the attention of the jury to another part of the case. They had heard of the name of Edwards in this case; this man, who lived at 166, Fleet-street, who afterwards lived at Ranelagh-place, why was not this man called? He was not an accomplice in any criminal degree, as must be inferred from the conduct of Government in letting him go quite at large. Why was not this man called? They would then have the spy to support the testimony of the informer. He could tell the Jury why; because it was remembered what had been the effect of calling a witness of a similar description on a former occasion. The witness then produced underwent a long and able cross-examination from the Counsel employed for the prisoners, and the result was, that he and his testimony were put out of Court together, and had no other effect on the minds of the Jury, than to convince them that the whole was a fabrication.

“If Edwards had been called, he would have told the Jury how this case had been got up; for he was well acquainted with the whole machinery of it. It would be recollected, that it was he who made the fusee for the hand-grenades; what would the Jury infer from his non-appearance, but that the whole of this case, as far as related to the charge of high treason, was a fabrication destitute of any foundation whatever.

“He would now come to a part of the statement made by the Attorney-General in his address to the Jury. He had said, that he supposed a part of the defence would be, that the Jury should discredit the whole of this story, from its great improbability. He (Mr. Adolphus) had never any such intention, nor did he think, that the youngest advocate at the bar would have attempted such a line of defence.

“To deny the existence of a plan, however wild and visionary, on the ground that it was improbable, would be to go in the face of the most authentic historic authority. He would take as an example one of the most familiar cases on record. The Earl of Essex, it was known, in a moment of moody displeasure with Queen Elizabeth, did not contrive a regular plan for displacing her from the throne, but in the instant he rushed forth into the streets, at the head of some few of his followers, and endeavoured to stir up the citizens to rebellion; imagining that the people might be induced to second his scheme, and effect in a moment that which he had madly fancied.

“This was a most wild and visionary plan; but, if we were reject it on the ground of its improbability, we should be blotting a page from our history, the truth of which was never before doubted. No, it was not his intention to deny the existence of the present plan, on the ground of its improbability, but he wished the Jury to disbelieve the witness, on the ground of the improbability of the plot as he had described it. When, in the course of yesterday, they saw the pikes, and swords, and pistols and guns, and hand-grenades, which were taken from the prisoners, or at their houses, no doubt they might have felt some alarm.

“They might have participated in the feelings of some persons who were near him at that moment; one of whom said, he should not like to have one of those instruments presented to his breast. No doubt; nobody would like it: but let the Jury seriously consider, how those instruments were to be applied. If they took the twelve hundred rounds of ball-cartridge which were said to have been taken, and divided them by twenty-four, they would find that they had just ammunition enough only for fifty men; but where were those fifty men--or if they were in existence, where were the arms to use this ammunition with? They had only seen a few guns and pistols, and putting them together, there was not sufficient for a party to commit more than an ordinary highway robbery with. Could it be supposed that it was ever intended to upset a government, and dethrone a sovereign, by such means? Was there, taking the evidence of those who appeared before them, recollecting that others who might have been called were kept out of the way; was there, he would ask, sufficient to shew that the object of the prisoners was to upset the government and constitution of this country? He thought he could shew, that their object was quite of another description.

“Let the Jury look at the situation in which the prisoner at the bar stood. They had, as was stated by the Attorney General, often before heard of him. He had, not very long before the present transaction, been released from Horsemonger-lane prison, where he had been confined in consequence of a letter sent to my Lord Sidmouth. He came forth from that prison with rancorous feelings against that noble lord, and probably against others of his Majesty’s ministers; would not such a man be a fit subject to work upon, in proposing an attack upon the lives of those ministers? Must not the Jury suppose that the other prisoners would have heated feelings, after the transaction which took place at Manchester? He would not offer any comments upon that transaction, further than to say, that all which was said and written upon it, was not without an effect; and, on the minds of the prisoners, would it be strange, that an artful and cunning man might work such an effect as to excite them to the murder of his Majesty’s ministers, which would not of itself amount to high treason? With their feelings worked up, some of them with strong personal enmity against some of those ministers, they had determined upon making an attack upon several of them at their houses.

“They were in this state, when forth came the never-to-be-forgotten announcement in _The New Times_, placed there by the hand that was to betray them, that a Cabinet dinner was to take place on the Wednesday following at Lord Harrowby’s. Did not the whole of their conduct shew that it was against the ministers themselves that the attack was intended, and not against the government, or with a view of effecting a revolution? and was there not proof, that this personal feeling was excited by some of the recent transactions at Manchester to which he had alluded? What was the speech which Ings was to have made on the arrival of the party at Lord Harrowby’s house, where the ministers were expected to be assembled? ‘My lords, you see we have got men as good as the Manchester yeomanry;’ and then, turning to his associates, ‘Citizens, advance, and do your duty!’

“During the whole of these proceedings, nothing was heard of any intended attack upon Carlton-House, or upon any of the branches of the illustrious family of Brunswick. There was no such thing. The whole which their preparations and intentions embraced, were--first, the murder of his Majesty’s ministers, and then robbery. This was the object of setting fire to some houses, that plunder might be obtained in the confusion which might be thereby created.

“These, to be sure, were heinous crimes, but they did not amount to the charge of high treason against the prisoners. The setting fire to buildings, with the intention of robbing in the confusion which the fire would create, was not, unfortunately, a novel case. He was old enough to remember, and perhaps some of the jury might also recollect the circumstance of the setting fire to the premises of a timber-merchant, in order to rob a pawn-broker’s shop, which was close by it. Indeed, the manner in which some of the prisoners had spoken of the shopkeepers of London, shewed that their object was plunder, and it appeared that bags were made for the purpose of holding such plunder.

“He had now gone through the whole of the points on which it was his intention to trouble the Jury. He had done so, perhaps, imperfectly, but he would not apologize for the time which he had delayed them. He had not, on this occasion, all the preparation which was desirable. On the contrary, he had but a very short notice of the duty which he was to perform; and, he remembered, on a former occasion, that one of the most learned Counsel at the bar expressed his inadequacy to a similar task, though he stated, that he had occupied a month in preparing for the defence.

“In pleading for the life of the unfortunate man at the bar, and, after him, of the other prisoners, it was not too much for him to ask the Jury to consider well the nature of the evidence which had been given in support of the charge of high treason. He now, however, left the case entirely with the Jury. If they thought, under all the circumstances, that there was evidence sufficient to prove the charge, then he should submit; but if, on the other hand, they were of opinion that the case was not made out, or that it was not proved to their satisfaction, they would, he was confident, acquit the prisoner.

“The learned gentleman again expressed his own inability to give the Jury a perfect direction on this important trial; and concluded by praying that God might direct and enlighten their minds on the awful occasion, so that they might administer impartial justice, always remembering that the highest attribute of justice was mercy; and that, whether the result of their verdict should be, that the prisoner would only have a week to live, or run out his days to that length to which Providence might please to extend them, it would be dictated by justice, tempered with mercy.”

The _Lord Chief Justice_ now addressed the prisoner, and said, if you wish to offer any thing for yourself, in addition to what has been said by your Counsel, you are at liberty so to do.

_Thistlewood._--I wish, my Lord, to have two witnesses examined to the testimony of Dwyer. There is a man in Court who will prove that Dwyer extorted money from him.

The _Lord Chief Justice_.--You must not state that; you should have consulted with your Counsel. The time for giving evidence is now past.

_Thistlewood._--I will waive it then, my Lord. I have nothing further to offer.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now commenced his reply. He said, “That in rising to address the Jury in support of this prosecution, he felt that he had a most anxious and painful duty to discharge. As the servant of the public on this occasion, it was his duty to perform the service with which that public had intrusted him to the utmost of his ability and power. He was anxious, therefore, that nothing should be omitted on his part for the purpose of presenting this case in a fair and proper view before them. At the same time, he felt anxious that, in the prosecution of what he was about to state, he should not misrepresent a single fact, far less a single argument, against the prisoner, or offer an observation which the justice of the case might not fairly warrant.

“He begged leave to join with his learned friend (Mr. Adolphus) in praying the gentlemen of the Jury to dismiss from their minds all prejudices and impressions unfavourable to the prisoner, and to confine their attention solely and undividedly to the evidence which had been laid before them, on the oaths of the witnesses whom they had heard. In saying this, he was aware that it was superfluous and unnecessary. He was addressing an English Jury--a body of men sworn to administer justice to the public on the one hand, and to the prisoner on the other; and he ought to apologize for suggesting a doubt, that, in the discharge of their momentous duty, they would not keep their eyes steadily fixed on the evidence, upon which the fate of the person at the bar must ultimately turn.

“The situation in which the prisoner then stood was an admirable proof of the excellent system of our laws, and of their being built and formed upon the principles of liberty and freedom. They had had it not only proved in evidence, but admitted by the Counsel for the prisoner, that he had projected and harboured in his mind the assassination of the confidential servants of the Crown.

“They were aware of the passions and prejudices which were excited by this discovery in the public mind, and they saw that this prosecution was not commenced, nor was the unfortunate man placed upon his trial, until an opportunity was afforded for those passions and prejudices to subside. Independent of this, he was entitled to the delivery to him of all the particulars of the accusation which he was called upon to answer; and these particulars had been delivered to him at a period so far back as three weeks from the present time. This indulgence was granted to him, in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting Counsel as to any point of law, or any objection which might arise in his favour; and in order also that he might bring forward such testimony as might be necessary to his defence. He had also a list of all the Jurymen, who could by possibility be called to sit on his trial, and these he might reject, without assigning a cause, to the number of thirty-five.

“On this account he was justified in saying, that the Jury whom he was then addressing, whatever might be the result of their deliberations, was a Jury of the prisoner’s own choice. The prisoner, also, had received a list of the witnesses who were to be called by the Crown. That list was furnished in order that he might have an opportunity of inquiring into the previous character, history, and conduct of every witness who might be called against him, and for the purpose of enabling him to impeach their character, if his inquiry should enable him so to do. Such was the benevolent spirit of the British law; and such the advantages to which a man, placed in the situation of the prisoner, was entitled.

“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.

“A charge so grave and serious required therefore, at the hands of an English Jury (and would, he was sure, from what he had seen, receive) the most mature and patient consideration. The charge, as it stood in the indictment, consisted of several counts. First, conspiring and imagining to depose the King; 2d, conspiring and imagining to put the King to death; 3d, conspiring and imagining to levy war against the King, in order to compel him to change his councils; and 4th, actually levying war against the King.

“Two of these offences, conspiring the deposition of the Monarch, and levying war against him, were declared to be treason, by a statute passed so long ago as the reign of Edward the Third. In the construction of that statute, it had been held, not only in many cases decided in this country, but also in the opinion delivered to us by various learned writers on this law, that all conspiracies and attempts to depose his Majesty, and all conspiracies to levy war against him, were treasonable, and must be considered as overt acts, proving an intention to take away his life; because, as historical experience showed, the death of a sovereign generally followed the loss of his kingly authority.

“But, in order to remove any mistake that persons might fall into on this subject, a statute was passed in the reign of his late Majesty, similar in substance, and nearly so in language, to statutes that had been enacted in former years, but which had expired. By that statute, the conspiring or compassing to depose the King, or to levy war against him, were declared to be substantive treasons. Some of the persons called before them on this occasion were represented, and truly represented, to have been accomplices in this traitorous design. This character did not, however, apply to all the witnesses who had been brought forward.