Part 21

“Much observation had been made on the degree of credit that ought to be given to persons, who admitted that they had joined in the design. On this point he should only say, that, according to the law of this country, and, he believed, of every other country, accomplices were considered competent witnesses; but the credit that should be given to them was matter of consideration. The evidence of an accomplice was to be weighed, with reference to the probability of the story he told, the confirmation of it, so far as it was capable of confirmation, and the absence of that contradiction which might be adduced, if the story were false.

“There was, however, no rule of law which said, that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be credited; neither was there any rule of law which declared that it must be rejected. To declare the latter would be to open the door, and give the greatest latitude and impunity to crime. For, as had been said by the learned counsel for the prosecution, if such a doctrine were acted on, bad men would feel that they might proceed in their base designs with perfect security, and they would trust each other without reserve; whereas bad men now distrusted each other. They were afraid of detection; and that distrust prevented the commission of many offences which could not be perpetrated without the assistance of several persons.

“Having made these general observations, to direct their attention to the evidence, he would now, some hours having elapsed since the witnesses were heard, read to the Jury such parts of the testimony as were necessary for their consideration in coming to a decision. [Here his Lordship proceeded to recapitulate the evidence, briefly commenting on it as he went on.]

“The first witness was R. Adams, who undoubtedly stood in the situation of an accomplice. But, if the story he told were false, there were several persons mentioned by him, and they could have been brought forward to disprove his statement, and to discharge themselves of the crime imputed to them, if they were innocent, but whom the Crown could not compel to appear. This witness said, that the officers, when they entered the room in Cato-street, cried out, ‘Here’s a pretty nest of you; we have a warrant to take you all;’ and the officers swore they only called out, ‘We are officers--surrender.’ This difference was not material. The two expressions were nearly the same in import; and, in the scene of confusion which undoubtedly occurred on the entrance of the officers, it was very possible that a mistake might arise as to the exact expression used.

“That part of the evidence, in which Adams described his irresolution, gave, his Lordship observed, the exact picture of a man of weak mind, not knowing whether he should go on or recede--balancing whether he should remain true to his associates, or make a discovery--and who, when taken into custody, did come to the resolution to disclose all he knew. If his testimony were true in substance and general effect, it proved not only a determination to assassinate his Majesty’s Ministers, but shewed to them that that was only a part of a more extended and general plan, which embraced the seizure of arms, the taking possession of the Mansion-house, and the forming of a Provisional Government; a plan formed on some vain expectation, that, if the blow were ever struck, there were a great number of people in the metropolis who would readily join in the scheme, and levy war against his Majesty. Such an expectation was vain then, and he hoped would ever be found so when such treasonable attempts were made.

“This witness mentioned a man, named Edwards. Why he was not examined his Lordship could not say. Perhaps the prosecutors did not wish to call him for very good reasons. How far the Jury would disbelieve Adams on that account, it was for them to say. What he had remarked on the evidence of this witness, he was sorry to say, was considerably against the prisoner. As to the character of Adams, before this transaction, they knew nothing. No person had said any thing about it. Hyden was a witness of a very different description; for he, it appeared, disclosed all he knew, early enough to prevent the mischief that was meditated.

“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.”

The Jury then retired; but, in a few minutes returned into court, and requested his lordship to read to them the Act of the 36th of Geo. III.

Lord Chief-Justice Abbot said, he meant to hand it to them; but he would, in the first place, state, that, by the terms of the statute, it was to continue in force during the life of his late Majesty, and till the end of the next session of Parliament: therefore the Act had not expired when the alleged conspiracy was discovered. But, if it ever had expired, it would have been of no consequence, since, by a late Act of Parliament, the statute of the 36th of Geo. III. was made perpetual. His lordship then read the Act, and particularly pointed out the clause which made it treason--“to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose the King from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm; or to levy war against him within this realm, in order to compel him to change his councils.” His lordship observed, that it seemed to be admitted by the Counsel on both sides, that if the project stated on the part of the prosecution were proved, it fell within the meaning of this Act; for, if a Provisional Government were formed, the royal style must of necessity cease. To levy war did not require soldiers drawn up in military array. It was sufficient if a number of people met to do some public act, in which they had no private interest, but which affected the country at large. Devising to force the King to change his measures was always considered a levying of war, under the old statute of Edward III.

The Jury again retired, and, in about a quarter of an hour, returned with a verdict of--GUILTY, ON THE THIRD and FOURTH COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT. That is to say, on those counts which charged the prisoner with conspiring to levy war, and with the actual levying of war against the King.

The verdict, which was in some measure anticipated, was received by the Court in perfect silence; and the wretched man was taken from the bar, surrounded by several officers.

Throughout the trial he had maintained the greatest composure, but during the absence of the Jury he seemed poignantly to feel the melancholy situation in which he was placed. The candid avowal, however, of his Counsel, as to his ultimate fate upon the indictments for murder, had left him no hope of escape of an ignominious death.

When taken back to the cell, he seemed to be absorbed in the melancholy contemplation of his approaching fate, which he of course felt was irrevocably sealed. He scarcely uttered a single word to those by whom he was accompanied, but threw himself into a chair, and appeared to be entirely abstracted from all about him. He partook of some refreshment, but was unable to recover his spirits.

In the course of the evening he asked for a glass of wine, which Mr. Brown instantly sent to him.

It appeared that up to the last moment, Thistlewood confidently anticipated an acquittal, as indeed did many persons of respectability who were in Court. The speech of Mr. Adolphus had a powerful effect upon his auditors; but the reply of the Solicitor-General at once dissipated the momentary impression which he had made.

It was observed that a number of persons were collected in the neighbourhood of the Sessions-house, who were known to have been constant attendants at the Smithfield, Spa-fields, and Finsbury Meetings. Some of these intimated an intention to give three cheers if the verdict was such as they expected; but upon the real verdict being announced, they departed with strong manifestations of disappointment.

At the termination of Thistlewood’s trial, the Court was adjourned till the following Friday, the 21st of April.

TRIAL OF JAMES INGS.

SESSIONS-HOUSE, OLD BAILEY.

_First Day, Friday, April 21, 1820._

At eight o’clock in the morning the jurymen, who had been summoned, arrived at the Sessions-house, and, at nine, Lord Chief Justice Dallas, Chief Baron Richards, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Sergeant, took their seats.

The prisoner, James Ings, was then put to the bar; he seemed to labour under strong feelings of agitation and had none of that firmness of aspect which he displayed on the former days: he was dressed in a suit of black.

Mr. Shelton, the clerk of the arraigns, proceeded to call over the list of the jurymen, commencing at the name with which he had terminated, when the jury in Thistlewood’s case was impanelled.

After a considerable number of challenges, both on the part of the crown and of the prisoner, the following jury was finally impanelled and sworn:

Charles Palmer, William Moore, Thomas Beecham, John Beck, Benjamin Rogers, James Carey, George Smith, James Eade, Benjamin Blythe, William Percy, John Young, William Edgecombe.

Mr. Shelton then proceeded to read the indictment against the prisoner, which was the same already described in the case of Arthur Thistlewood.

Mr. Bolland, at a few minutes after ten, opened the indictment in the usual way to the Jury.

The Solicitor-General rose at ten o’clock to address the Jury for the prosecution. “It was hardly necessary for him, he said, to entreat their serious and patient attention to the statement he had to make to them in the performance of his duty: they owed it to themselves, to their country, and, above all, to the prisoner at the bar. In justice to him, there was one fact now known, and to which he might without impropriety allude. One of the parties in this conspiracy had been already convicted. That circumstance they were bound not to let operate to the prejudice of this prisoner; towards his part of the offence they were bound to look, not through the medium of any thing that had already passed in that Court, but solely through that which would this day be laid before them in evidence; to that alone they were to direct their attention, and by that must they form their opinion of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. On the law of the case it would be unnecessary for him to make a single observation, for upon it not a single objection, not a single doubt, had been stated since this commission had sat. The charge against the prisoner, divested of all technicalities, was simply this, that he had conspired with others, by force and violence, to overthrow the laws and constitution of the country. This was to be effected by an extensive plan of assassination, and by other means which he should hereafter mention.

“In behalf of the prosecution, he would plainly and simply narrate the facts as he knew they would be proved in evidence. He would narrate them without the smallest exaggeration or distortion of facts. The best gift and pride of the people was the pure and impartial administration of the laws of this country, and he would state the facts as they would soon hear them in evidence, and leave them to decide upon their applicability to the prisoner.”

The Solicitor-General then detailed the evidence he had to adduce against the prisoner; it was exactly as it is subsequently given by the witnesses, and corresponded entirely with that given already on the trial of Thistlewood. When the learned gentleman came to that part of the evidence which described the conflagration that was to have been made on the night of the intended assassination, and the proclamations which were to have been posted up on the night of the intended assassination, calling on the friends of liberty to meet, for their tyrants, meaning the members of his Majesty’s government, were murdered, and in which they were called upon to rally round the provisional government which was then sitting; he observed, “what would not have been the situation of this great metropolis if this dreadful project had been carried into effect?

“The people would have seen pieces of artillery moving in different directions; they would have seen a general conflagration; they would have heard of a provisional government, and that too rendered perhaps more terrible by the ignorance of the people who were to compose it. It was impossible to judge what would have been the result of such a notification. He was, indeed, willing to believe, that the people of this country were too sound to be effectively invited to rally round men whose projects were introduced to them by the horrible and atrocious crimes of assassination and murder. He trusted that hitherto, at least the natural indignation of Englishmen would revolt at any propositions coming from such a source, and to be sustained by such diabolical means.”

After detailing very minutely the evidence he meant to give against the prisoners (as it is hereafter detailed), he informed the Jury they must hear it from one or more accomplices; on the extent of whose credibility he made similar observations to those made by the Attorney-General in his opening speech on Thistlewood’s trial, and dwelt on the comparative impunity with which dark and secret conspiracies would escape, if the evidence of an accomplice were not admissible.

“But even without this testimony, they had the unimpeachable evidence of Hyden, and also a number of facts which spoke for themselves; and he would here ask, could any assignable cause be given for the meeting in Cato-street--the ammunition--the arms--but that given by the evidence which they would hear? He then observed, that it was not because the plot was contemptible and ill-formed, and left so much to hazard, that therefore its existence was to be disbelieved, the history of all plots was of the same description; they were generally characteristic of a total want of foresight and prudence, but though wild, though extravagant, yet if the project had existence, and they were satisfied of the prisoner being a party to it, then they must be prepared, if the evidence carried conviction to their minds, to bring in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, without any reference to the consequences of that verdict.”

The learned Solicitor’s speech occupied an hour and ten minutes in the delivery.

The following prisoners were then put to the bar with Ings, to be identified: Davidson, Brunt, Tidd, Harrison, Bradburne, Strange, Gilchrist, and Wilson.

EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.

The witnesses to support the case thus described were then called; but much of their testimony was similar to that given in the trial of Thistlewood. We, therefore, confine ourselves as much as possible to the new facts which came out, and which applied immediately to the conduct of the prisoner.

ROBERT ADAMS was first called, and examined by the Attorney-General. His testimony was almost in all respects similar to that on the former trial. He added, that he heard that the pike-staves which he saw in the room in Fox-court were quite green; he understood they had been brought from over the water; Ings said he had brought them. The same evening Ings drew a pistol from his pocket. There was a conversation about the illness of the present King; Thistlewood said he would rather the new King lived a little while longer, but it was not their intention he should ever wear the crown.