Part 22

On this occasion Ings said, that the day the Prince Regent last went to Parliament, he himself went to the Park with a pistol in his pocket, with the sole intention to shoot him; and as a test of his sincerity, he said, “there’s the pistol I took with me,” alluding to the pistol he had previously produced. He regretted he had not done it, and if he had, he should not have cared a farthing for his own life. Witness saw Ings at all the subsequent meetings.

On the meeting held about the time of the King’s funeral, when the plan for a rising was talked of, during the absence of the horse and foot guards, it was Ings and Brunt that said, nothing short of the assassination of the King’s ministers would satisfy them. Ings said, with his blood all of a boil, “that he must have them, (the ministers,) if possible, before the parliament was dissolved.”

On the meeting held on Saturday the 20th of February, at which Tidd took the chair, with a pike in his hand, and at which Thistlewood proposed the murder of the ministers in detail, Ings was present, and said, “whoever has the lot to murder Lord Castlereagh, I am the man to turn out to murder that thief!”

On the Tuesday, at the meeting at Brunt’s, witness saw Ings pull three daggers from out of his pocket: he was asked what was the purpose of pulling out these daggers? When he seized one, and making a sort of a rush, and a motion with his arm, said, with an exclamation, to “run into their ---- bodies.” After Edwards had communicated the paragraph in _The New Times_, respecting the cabinet dinner on the Wednesday, and after Brunt declared his belief in a God, from his prayers being answered in bringing the ministers together, Ings exclaimed with exultation, that “he should have a better opportunity of cutting off Lord Castlereagh’s head.”

“It was subsequently arranged, that Ings should head the party to go into the room in which the ministers were assembled. He was to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s and Lord Sidmouth’s heads, and to bring them away. He was also to cut off Lord Castlereagh’s hand, which he was to cure (pickle), as it would be thought a great deal of at a future day.” He was to be armed with a pair of pistols and a butcher’s knife.

The same afternoon, Ings was employed in making fire-balls to set fire to the different buildings; Edwards was making fusees to the grenades. On Wednesday evening, February the 23d, the proclamation, written by Thistlewood, was signed “James Ings, Secretary.”

Witness then described Ings’s preparation for action, his brandishing his knife, and his sanguinary declarations that he would cut off the heads of his Majesty’s ministers, and bring away the heads of Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth in his bags. The handle of his knife, he said, he had bound round with wax-end, “in order to prevent his hand from slipping while he was at work.”

The witness then proceeded to detail the well-known occurrences in Cato-street, and the part which Ings took therein. He swore he would rather die or hang himself than not do the job that night.

In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus, witness said, I was born at Ipswich; I am now a Christian; there was a time when I was not a Christian; I was then a man in the same form as now. I was what they termed a Deist. I believed in God. I renounced Christianity and believed only in God. I re-commenced Christian after the 23d of February. I renounced my faith as a Christian last August. I never pronounced my disbelief in God--nor ever denied Christ, till I read that cursed work of Paine’s! I never was an Atheist, but always believed in a God. I have no pension.

The paper produced is my hand-writing; I was examined here on Monday, and have since been in Coldbath-fields. I have had no communication with any body. I have had a room in the house of the Governor; I have seen nobody that has told me any part of the proceedings in this Court. During the days when I was here, I was kept in a room by myself. Heard nothing of the progress of the proceedings, except the conviction of Thistlewood. I had known Edwards from the first part of January. From the time I joined Brunt and the others, I never intended to commit murder, nor to give information; I intended to wait for an opportunity to see if any thing enabled me to creep out of it; I was prevented from creeping out, from threats that had been held out; I was not disposed to plunder the shops, although I was in a society that were so disposed.

Before I went into prison, I was asking Brunt what was the plan that was first drawn out? Brunt said that nothing would be communicated till the day of action, and then the men would be called together, receive a treat, and be told what was to be done; after which they would not be lost sight of. Brunt said, if he had any suspicion of any one giving information, he would run him through. This was on the 16th of January. When I was examined on Monday, it did not come to my recollection about Ings telling of shooting the Prince Regent.

Mr. GURNEY: We studiously passed over certain points of the evidence for the purpose of shortening it.

The Witness: I can tell many things, if I am asked, that I did not tell on Monday. If any thing fresh comes to my mind as I stand here I’ll tell it. There were things that transpired that I did not state last Monday, and that I have not stated to-day. I had no personal knowledge of Monument. I can be answerable, that there was one candle in the room.

I did not see more than one a-light. If a man spoke the truth, he could not say there were eight candles in the room. If any man said there was, I should say he was a false man. I cannot be answerable for every word which passed.

I always found Mr. Edwards very deep, and very deep in conversation with Brunt and Thistlewood.

There was a shot-hole in my coat from a pistol that was fired from the window, when I was escaping from the stable.

I do not know a man of the name of Chambers. I never called upon a person of that name in company with Edwards. I did call with Edwards upon a woman at Pimlico, to buy a pair of boots. On that day I did not call upon any man of the name of Chambers to solicit him to kill his Majesty’s ministers. I never said I would kill his Majesty’s ministers, and have blood and wine for my supper. I never had any conversation with any body to use Cashman as a watchword.

After the affair at Cato-street I did not take any ammunition away with me from Cato-street. Hall gave me a pistol and live rounds of ball-cartridges. I loaded the pistol, and laid it on the bench; I did not touch it again; and threw the four ball-cartridges away in the room.

I never carried the large hand-grenade. I cannot say that I can charge my memory with a score of words which Edwards ever said; whatever he said was always in a side-winded way amongst themselves.

ELEANOR WALKER, on being examined by Mr. Gurney, gave similar evidence to that given by her on the former occasion.

MARY ROGERS, Joseph Hale (apprentice to Brunt), Thomas Smart (watchman in Grosvenor-square), C. Bissex (also a watchman for the same place), Frederick Gillan, John Hector Morrison (journeyman to Mr. Underwood, the cutler, in Drury-lane), Edward Simpson (corporal-major of the 2d Life-Guards), and James Aldous (pawnbroker), also detailed the same facts to which they before deposed.

THOMAS HYDEN, the man who gave the information to Lord Harrowby, recapitulated the facts proved on the former trial.

In cross-examination, he said, he had been formerly a gentleman’s servant; that was six years ago. He lived with Colonel Bridges last. He might have lived with him a month or more. He could not certainly say. He had lived in Manchester-mews for five years. He had not been there all the time himself. He was away two or three months.

He was now in the Marshalsea; he was not ashamed of the place. It was for a debt of eighteen pounds, and due to Mr. Powell, a milkman. He went into prison last Saturday, on execution. He had been sued at the beginning of last summer. I was at home at different times in June, July, and August, at Manchester-mews. My family were there till last Saturday. I said on Tuesday last I lived in Manchester-mews. I am living now at this place where I stand. My family goes there now two or three times a day. I have known Davidson three or four months. I do not know Mr. Edwards.

I know a person of the name of Edwards. I know a good many persons two hundred miles in the country. I have been to the Scotch Arms, in some small court somewhere down by the Strand. I was there twice, to the shoemakers’ club, with a friend of the name of Clarke, a master-tailor. It was reported to be a shoemakers’ club. I am not able to say whether politics and the affairs of the State were the topics of discussion.

I never was at any of the meetings in Fox-court. I knew nothing of the affair in Cato-street till told by Wilson; I was to get the cream for a family in Princes-street, Cavendish-square. I have served them about three years, but I do not know their name. My wife brought home the order for the cream. I have been at the house, but I do not know when. It was the first time I saw Wilson; he said to me that I need not be alarmed, for a gentleman’s servant furnished money. He said this more than twice.

Re-examined: My family continued to carry on my business in Manchester-mews till Saturday last, when I was arrested. As far as I know my family have possession of the premises now. I believe the house in Princes-street is No. 6. My wife serves the family sometimes; I have been there; I believe the house to be the front door going from Cavendish-square towards Oxford-street.

LORD HARROWBY appeared on the right of the Bench, and spoke to the interruption of cabinet dinners, and the issuing of cards of invitation for the 23d. His Lordship named the company who were to be present. His Lordship then stated the receipt of Hyden’s communication, and the change of arrangements adopted in consequence.

His Lordship, in cross-examination by Mr. Curwood, said, he had not personally known any thing of it before; but he had heard a long time antecedently, that something of this nature was to be attempted.

JOHN BAKER corroborated the testimony of Lord Harrowby as to the intended cabinet dinner.

JOHN MONUMENT was next examined, and was again conducted into Court in the charge of two of the yeomen warders of the Court. His evidence in chief was precisely the same as that which he gave on Thistlewood’s trial.

In cross-examination, witness said, that Thistlewood remarked, that every man would have equal honour with myself. I went to Cato-street for fear. I was foolish, for I certainly went there without knowing what I was to do. I thought they were going to the House of Commons. When I was told by Brunt they were going to a cabinet dinner, I fully thought they were going to destroy the ministers, and yet I went. I went to Tidd’s, because I was afraid. I cannot tell why I did not go to a magistrate to tell my fears. My intention was, when I got into the room and found out what they were going about, to run away.

THOMAS MONUMENT confirmed the last witness in every particular.

RUTHVEN repeated his former testimony. In cross-examination, he said, he had no doubt there were four or five lights in the loft, and others in the little room.

James Ellis, William Westcott, Luke Nixon, Joseph Champion, John Wright, and William Charles Brooks, police officers, likewise repeated their former testimony.

CAPT. FITZCLARENCE.--The first thing he saw was a police officer, who cried out, “Soldiers, soldiers; stable door, stable door!” He was met by two men at the door, one having a pistol, another a sword. He followed one of them into the stable, and took him.

Serjeant WILLIAM LEGG, of the 2d regiment of Coldstream Guards, was at Cato-street; saw the pistol levelled at Captain Fitzclarence, and seized it, when it went off. It was Tidd who levelled it. He took him into custody. He saw above on the loft, Cooper, Gilchrist, and Monument.

HERCULES TAUNTON gave evidence of the seizures made at Brunt’s and Tidd’s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus.--A reward had been offered for the apprehension of Palin. He was not apprehended, nor Potter, nor Cook.

DANIEL BISHOP was called, but not being in attendance, his examination and the production of the various articles seized was postponed till to-morrow morning, and the Court adjourned at eight o’clock.

The Jury were then, as in the former case of Thistlewood’s trial, placed in a room by themselves, and not permitted to have conversation with any person whatever.

Ings in the course of the day revived in spirits, as he became interested in the evidence; but he frequently reverted to a state of gloomy sullenness.

The other prisoners were anxious to keep the witnesses out of Court, when not under examination, and repeatedly called on those who accidentally made their appearance to withdraw.

SECOND DAY.--SATURDAY, _April 22_.

At a quarter before nine the Jury were conducted to the box by the sheriff’s officers.

Shortly after this the guns, pistols, swords, pikes, grenades, ammunition, and other materials of war, seized in Cato-street, were brought into court, and placed on the table.

At nine the same learned Judges who presided the day before, took their seats.

Ings and the other prisoners were then put to the bar.

_Evidence for the Crown continued._

DANIEL BISHOP was now put in the box, and described the circumstances attending the apprehension of Thistlewood, which were detailed in his former evidence.

In cross-examination by Mr. Adolphus: Witness said he had apprehended the prisoner from private information, not received from an officer; he did not know a man of the name of Edwards.

RUTHVEN was next called, and said there were now placed on the table the arms and ammunition taken in Cato-street; he then proceeded to select each article separately, and to exhibit it to the Jury; the pikes and grenades were minutely inspected. A pike blade was placed in one of the handles in order to show the manner in which it was to be used. When thus presented it had a most terrific appearance. The knife stated to have been found on the person of Ings was next produced, and exhibited to the Jury. While they were examining it, Ings exclaimed, “It was not found upon me, my Lord.”

HECTOR MORRISON, servant to Mr. Underwood the cutler, identified the two swords which he ground for Ings. They were made extremely sharp from heel to point. The prisoner directed that they should be made as sharp as a needle at the point, and that they should be made to cut both at the back and front; this was done. The swords seemed since to have been rubbed on a stone to make them keener.

SAMUEL TAUNTON selected the articles found in Tidd’s lodgings, as well as those found in the back room of the house in which Brunt resided.

Serjeant HANSON, of the Royal Artillery, described the formation of the fire-balls and hand-grenades, and opened one of the latter, as in Thistlewood’s case, for the information of the Jury. He also looked at the flannel bags found in Tidd’s lodgings. They were what are termed flannel cartridges for a 6-pounder. They were the same as those used by the Royal Artillery, only that those produced were formed of flannel, whereas those used by the artillery were composed of serge.

It was now announced that the other prisoners might retire, and they were re-conducted to their apartments.

Serjeant HANSON, examination by one of the Jury, said, that the grenades found in Cato-street were not made exactly in the same manner as those made for the use of the artillery, although they were calculated to produce similar destructive consequences. The cart-nails would be propelled with irresistible force by the explosion of the tin carcase, and would scatter death around. There was rather more powder in the case than was sufficient to burst a nine inch shell.

The Attorney-General: That is the case on the part of the Crown.

THE DEFENCE.

Mr. CURWOOD then rose to address the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commenced by lamenting the effect which the conviction of the last prisoner must have upon their minds, however good their intentions, and however anxious they might be to decide this case free from all preconceived impressions. This circumstance, undoubtedly weighed heavily upon his (Mr. C.’s) feelings, knowing that the construction of the human mind was such, as rendered it almost impossible to get rid of opinions once entertained. The disadvantage under which he laboured, in this respect, was the more distressing, because although the general features of this case bore a strong resemblance to the last, yet it wanted a most material circumstance of confirmation, which was produced on a former occasion.

Sir ROBERT DALLAS interposed, and objected to any allusion to what had passed on the former trial. The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, had most humanely abstained from any reference to the former case, and had entreated the jury to dismiss from their minds the fact that another prisoner had been convicted. The Court was bound to treat this as a case depending upon its own merits, and his Lordship was persuaded that the Jury would forget that such a person as Thistlewood existed, and dismiss from their minds all knowledge of the former case, if they happened to have heard any part of it.

Mr. CURWOOD resumed, and said “he should bow with respectful deference to the correction of his Lordship. His learned friend the Solicitor-General had told the Jury that, in stating the case for the prosecution, he was only anxious to acquit himself as a faithful servant of the public, by fully and fairly laying before the Jury the whole of its circumstances; and that as far as his own personal feelings were concerned, he was regardless of the result. No man would withhold from his learned friend the fullest credit for the sincerity of that statement. Though his (Mr. Curwood’s) task was much more irksome than that of his learned friend, yet he hoped he should have credit for the same feelings; that he was most anxious, not only to do his duty towards the unfortunate man at the bar, but towards his country and his own character. He was sure that the Jury were also animated by the same feelings, and that whatever might be their private sentiments, they would form their judgment upon the evidence alone, and, if upon an impartial consideration of that evidence, they found it did not bear out the facts charged in the indictment, would gladly deliver him, by their verdict of Not Guilty.

“The Solicitor-General had also told them, that the law of the case was extremely clear. No doubt it was; but it was necessary to point out the precise question for their consideration, before they ventured to apply the facts of the case to that law; because the question here was not guilt, or innocence in the abstract, for although there was strong suspicion against the prisoner of moral guilt, yet the question they had to try was, whether he was guilty not only of high treason, but of that high treason which was specifically charged in this indictment. In order, therefore, to enable them to discharge their duty fully and fairly towards the prisoner, they must not only take into their consideration the precise question they had to try, but also apply the evidence produced, in order to see whether the specific charge of high treason was made out.

“The history of the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edw. III., was well known. It was passed in order to define what treason really was, and that the ignorance, and even cruelty, which had previously prevailed upon the subject, by the erection of certain acts into crimes against the state, might be exploded. That statute contained a few short and distinct propositions, which in fact comprehended the whole law of treason. In the language of Lord Coke it was called the _blessed_ Statute, from the admirable regard manifested in it for the liberty and safety of the subject. It declared first, that whoever should compass or imagine the death of the King, should be guilty of high treason; and, second, whoever should levy war against the King and this realm, should be guilty of the like offence.

“A number of other enactments of treason had taken place at different times since then, introducing a most horrible system of cruelty and oppression, but at length it was found necessary to return to that blessed statute. It was true, that in the reign of his late Majesty a statute passed for extending the law of treason. He lamented that such a statute should ever have passed, and still more that any occasion for it should ever have existed. Upon both of these statutes the present indictment was founded.

“By the 23d of Edward III. it was made treason to compass or imagine the death of the King; and by the 36th Geo. III. it was made treason to attempt to depose him from his kingly office.

“By the statute of Edward, it was made treason actually to levy war; and by the statute of George, it was made treason to conspire to levy war.

“The four charges, therefore, which they had to try, were these: Did the prisoner at the bar compass, or imagine the death of the King? Did he conspire to depose him from his imperial dignity? Did he actually levy war against his Majesty? And did he conspire to levy war with an intention to compel his Majesty to change the measures of his government by force? These were the precise issues they had to try, and whatever might be their opinion of his guilt, as it respected other charges still pending over him, and for which punishment would reach him if he were guilty, yet unless they were conscientiously satisfied that he had actually committed some one of these four offences, they were bound to pronounce him Not Guilty.

“It had been admitted by the Solicitor General, that if the case in all its parts was not proved by unequivocal testimony, they were bound to acquit the prisoner; and he apologized for the evidence he proposed to offer, by saying, that in all cases of conspiracy it was necessary to have the evidence of some of the conspirators, in order to ascertain the purposes of their dark consultations.

“This was another of the miseries resulting from a departure from the statute of Edward. That admirable statute enacted, that before a man should be found guilty of the treasons there set out, he shall be ‘proveably convict’ of the same.