Part 23

“Upon the meaning of the words ‘proveably convict,’ the great Lord Coke had written a whole section, shewing that they did not mean probably convict, but convict by the most unequivocal and satisfactory evidence.

“The object of the statute, therefore, in making this wholesome provision was to protect his Majesty’s subjects, whose lives might be at the mercy of the most infamous of mankind. It was necessary, therefore, that the Jury should examine the facts proved with the most scrupulous circumspection, before they made up their minds to the conclusion of the prisoner’s guilt.

“The Solicitor General had admitted, that the evidence of the conspirators ought not to be believed unless it was confirmed in all its material circumstances. It was to be observed, that the confirmation alluded to, was not meant to apply to collateral facts irrelevant to the matter in issue, but to the whole body and substance of the evidence; and therefore if they found that the material witnesses to establish the conspiracy were not confirmed in the substantial part of their evidence, it was their duty to pronounce a verdict of acquittal.

“The learned counsel admitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish an intention on the part of the prisoners to commit, perhaps, a dreadful riot, to commit murder, and to effect the destruction of houses; but he strenuously urged, that this was not sufficient to make out the crime of high treason, as alleged in the indictment. He adverted to the evidence of Adams, and other witnesses, and contended that it was wholly incredible, and inconsistent in every part.

“But supposing the conspiracy which they had proved, really to have existed, he urged that it was the most ridiculous plot that could ever enter into the mind of the most infatuated man, considering the absolute destitution of means to carry it into effect. The records of fiction and of history did not furnish an instance of such a wild and chimerical scheme.

“After commenting with considerable ingenuity, upon the evidence of the principal witnesses of the Crown, he proceeded to deprecate in strong terms the doctrine of constructive treason; and called upon the Jury, as guardians of their own and the public liberties, to make a stand against the further extension of this abominable doctrine, which had been condemned by Lord Hale, and some of the wisest judges that ever sat to administer justice. Returning again to the description of evidence adduced to support the conspiracy, he insisted that they could give no credence to Adams, who stood confessed the betrayer of his companions, a traitor to his king, a rebel against his country, intending to assassinate and murder his fellow-subjects, an apostate to his religion, and a scoffer of his God.

“Would a British Jury in this sanctuary of justice sacrifice to torture and death eleven men, merely upon the evidence of such a self-convicted wretch? He had stated to the Jury the danger to which our liberties and lives would be exposed, if a man could be convicted of high treason, on evidence like that which they had heard; but as he preferred supporting himself in all cases by the authority of great men, he would remind them of what the present Solicitor-General had said, without telling them on what occasion the words to which he would allude had been spoken, or how long it was ago.

“A witness was called to discredit the testimony of another. He, on cross-examination, admitted, that he had accompanied a person to the Park, who went there for the purpose of extorting money from individuals, by charging them with certain practices. On this occasion the natural feelings of his learned friend, the Solicitor-General, broke forth, and he inquired, ‘Would any honest man--would any man worthy of belief in a court of justice, accompany a person who went on such an expedition? Would any man, entitled to credit with a jury, agree with another in such a plan to extort money?’ This, in point of fact, had not been done by the witness to whom he alluded; but he, Mr. Curwood, must beg to apply this sort of reasoning to the principal witness for the prosecution, and ask if a man who had acted as Adams had done was entitled to belief in a court of justice.

“Was a man entitled to credit, who, like Adams, was an apostate, a traitor, a rebel, a betrayer of his companions, a murderer, and an assassin--all of which he admitted that he had intended to be?

“Yet such a man had his learned friend put up on the present occasion. But who would believe him, unless, indeed, it were made out, which no lawyer would say it was, that such a man was entitled to credit when he came into a court of justice to seek the lives of men, though not in other cases, where his object was different.

“If this principle were not established, then out of their own mouths was the principal witness for the prosecution condemned. He called upon the Jury to look if he were confirmed, he would not say by good, but even by infamous witnesses. It was nothing that he was corroborated in various insignificant particulars, but he was borne out in nothing that went to prove that the prisoner at the bar had committed high treason; and he therefore begged of them, under these circumstances, to give that verdict which would dismiss Adams with shame, as a man not to be believed in a court of justice on his oath.

“If such a man were corroborated by other infamous witnesses, it would, in fact, be no confirmation; how, then, did the case stand when they found that he was not even confirmed by the testimony of those who were almost as infamous as himself. Having done with Adams, the next witness was Hyden, he described himself to have formerly belonged to a shoe-making club, and to have been introduced to Thistlewood in the month of February. And what was the first proposal made to him? Why, Thistlewood was represented to have said, without any disguise or reserve, “Will you be one to murder his Majesty’s ministers?”

“Good God!--what must that man be whose heart would not revolt with horror from such a proposal? But this person expressed no disgust at the plan with which he was thus made acquainted. Was this man then more worthy of belief, than one who would join with another to extort money?

“Was this, to use the words of the Solicitor-General, a man worthy of belief in a court of justice? The answer that his learned friend would feel disposed to give must be, that he was not. Then what confirmation could his evidence supply to that of Adams? It was not necessary for him to go through all the details of the conversations between this witness and Adams, but he must remark, that of these not one word went to confirm the facts that would amount to the crime of high treason, though they all tended to establish a plot to assassinate his Majesty’s ministers.

“It was true, that something was stated to have been said of seizing the cannon in the Artillery-Ground, and of retreating to the Mansion House. All this proved that a great riot was in contemplation, but it evinced no intention of committing high treason. This witness described himself to have joined in the plan, and to have told the conspirators that he would be with them.

“The next witness was Monument. He had sworn that he was told by Thistlewood he ought to get arms, as all his (Thistlewood’s) friends were armed. At that period it could not be denied, that there was a great ferment in the public mind, in consequence of the transactions which had taken place at Manchester but a short time before.

“Many of the warmest friends to the measures of government were of opinion, that an inquiry into those transactions ought to be instituted; while others, without reserve, termed what had occurred at Manchester ‘a massacre,’ and declared that since they were liable to be so dispersed at public meetings, they would attend them armed, that they might be prepared to defend themselves. Thistlewood had used words to this effect. He (Mr. Curwood) would not deny that to go armed to such meetings, was a desperate resistance of the law; but he would maintain that it did not amount to high treason, and he entreated the Jury never to dismiss from their minds that it was for high treason, and for high treason only, that they were trying the prisoner at the bar, and not for disobedience to the law in other respects; and therefore if the facts proved did not amount to high treason, it would be their duty to return a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

“The witness, Monument, had confirmed the evidence given of the existence of a plan for the assassination of his Majesty’s Ministers, and for creating a riot; but he proved nothing respecting that proclamation which was said to have been prepared by Thistlewood, and which alone went to give the conspiracy the character imputed to it in the present indictment. But the witness, Monument, he contended, had shewn himself during this trial to be the same unfeeling villain he had set out with being; yet, from the aggregate of infamy brought forward on this occasion, there resulted no proof of high treason.

“Palin and Cook, who might be able to give evidence in favour of the defence, he shewed that he had no means of bringing forward, as, if they were to offer that testimony which might acquit the prisoner of high treason, they would bring themselves into peril, as the Attorney-General well knew that if they were to appear in the witness’s box, they would not be suffered to depart with impunity. Eleanor Walker and Mary Rogers had only proved the taking of the room in which the consultations of the conspirators were held. This was not denied. It was admitted that they held consultations, and for a nefarious purpose; but the question for the Jury to try was, whether or not these consultations related to high treason. Hale had also proved the room and the purchasing of some sheets of cartridge paper. This he (Mr. C.) contended, was wanting for their cartridges. Adams said it was for their proclamations, but of this there was no proof, and the fragments of cartridge paper that had been found were not written upon.

“The three next witnesses proved various facts connected with the plan of assassination, but nothing that amounted to high treason; and what was proved to have taken place in Cato-street, though murder and riot appeared to have been in contemplation, he could discover nothing like ‘a levying of war.’ If they had not ‘levied war against the King,’ conspiring to do that which had been done, could not be ‘conspiring to levy war against the King.’

“This was a question which must be left to the understandings of the Jury. They all knew what war was between different states. It was carried on by large bodies of men, formed into companies, under the direction of proper officers, and accompanied by all the _materiel_ of war. A civil war was the same, but that one part of a state in a civil war was opposed to another part of the same state. It would be for them to determine whether enough had been proved to shew that any thing like war had been levied. It had been laid down by Sir Matthew Hale, that any disturbance was not necessarily a ‘levying of war;’ for in that case every riot would be high treason. To constitute a levying of war, there must be something worse than a common riot or outrage; ‘there must be a _species belli_?’

“Could the Jury find this on the present occasion? The utmost force that had been mentioned consisted of forty men. These forty men were to be marched with unfurled banners through the city, to take two cannon in Gray’s Inn-lane, and six in the Artillery Ground, and they were to possess themselves of the Mansion-house. Was this a levying of war? That the conspirators had been formed into companies was more than he had ever heard, and where was the money that was to carry on the war? In what holes and corners had they hidden themselves that nothing was known of them?

“From the circumstances to which he had called their attention, he would leave the Jury to judge how far the charge of levying war, or conspiring to levy war against the King had been made out. In a former instance, if he recollected right, the same charges were brought forward on a former trial that were now preferred, and in that case there were stronger circumstances--great bodies of persons had assembled, gunsmiths’ shops had been broken open, and arms had been stolen from them; yet in that case the Jury, not denying the existence of any guilt whatever, had rightly determined, as he thought, and as he hoped the present Jury would do, that the party accused was not guilty of high treason.

“He then shewed, that to endeavour to remove the ministers from their situations was not a crime; and he argued, that to attempt removing them by force was not high treason.

“He trusted the Jury would believe that he contemplated the plot to assassinate ministers with all the horror and indignation that such a design was calculated to inspire; but he could not sacrifice his duty to his feelings, and he hoped that they would feel as he did, and feel how necessary it was for the safety of other lives, that those who were concerned in it should not for that offence be convicted of high treason. It was most consoling to him to reflect, that he should be followed by his learned friend, who would address them with much more eloquence than he could command.

“He concluded by calling on them, whatever their feelings might be, to look at all the circumstances of the case, and see if they could find it proved by good, or even by bad witnesses, that there had been a levying of war. If they did find this, he could not expect a verdict; but if they found, as he thought they must, that there had been no levying of war, they must return a verdict of “NOT GUILTY.”

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

THOMAS CHAMBERS examined: I live in Heathcock-court, Strand. I have seen a man of the name of Adams in company with a man named Edwards, about a week before the Cato-street business took place, in my room. They came together. They made a proposition to assassinate his Majesty’s ministers. Adams and Edwards asked me to go with them. I refused. Adams said, “They were going to kill his Majesty’s ministers, and that they would have blood and wine for supper.” They came again on the Monday night before the Cato-street business took place. They brought with them a large bag.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney: I am a bootmaker; I might have seen Ings. I am not certain. I cannot say how long I have known him. I don’t suppose I have been in his company above twice or three times. The first time was at a place where they sold the Black Dwarf and the Medusa, kept by a man of the name of Watling. I cannot state where else I have seen him. I know a house called the Scotch Arms, in Round-court, in the Strand. I have been there three times, but did not see him. Those times were before Christmas. There was no chair there. There was no person sitting in a chair. There was no chairman. It was in no other room but the tap-room.

I have been at the Black Dog, in Gray’s-Inn-lane, once; there was no chair there; there might be about seven persons there; it was on a Sunday night; I cannot say whether before or after Christmas; I was invited there by a man of the name of Bryant, who was going to the Cape of Good Hope. They were all strangers to me except one, and that was Mr. Thistlewood; I know Brunt very well, he was not there; I don’t think I know Palin; I will not swear I did not see him; I was at all the meetings in Smithfield; I cannot state who carried the black flag; I carried no flag at the last meeting; I before carried two flags--one had inscribed on it “The Manchester Massacre;” I never saw such a flag as “Let us die like freemen, and not be sold like slaves.” I carried the flag inscribed “Trial by Jury,” at Mr. Hunt’s entry into London. I know Davidson. I have not much knowledge of Tidd. I know Wilson. I know Harrison very well. I have not much knowledge of Strange nor Cooper.

I have known Mr. Hunt ever since his triumphal entry into London. I was shocked at the proposition of going to murder his Majesty’s ministers, at least so much that I did not go. Though Bow-street was so near, I did not go there to give information of the plot.

MARY BARKER spoke to Edwards’s bringing grenades to Tidd’s, her father’s. There was one very large ball brought away by Adams.

This was the whole of the evidence for the prisoner.

Ings here requested, and was permitted to withdraw for about a minute. He returned with an orange in his hand, which he sucked with great composure.

Mr. ADOLPHUS then rose to address the Jury.

“Gentlemen of the Jury,--I call for serious attention and kind indulgence, if for no other reason, for this consideration, that, if your verdict should be against the unfortunate man at the bar, these are the last favourable words that he shall hear uttered. My Lord will state the law and the evidence to you fairly; but, beyond that, he will say nothing for the prisoner. I feel the languor that necessarily arises from the attempt to tread over ground already trodden, and trodden in vain. But I advance to the task with a clear mind, and faculties unfettered, because I can lay my hand upon my heart, and say, that no opinion I formerly offered is now changed.

“The Solicitor-General, in his fervid opening, and my Lord, have told you, that the former case is to be kept entirely out of view. I say so; but I know how difficult it is to prevent the judgment from being influenced by the memory. I cannot help here contrasting the joy and alacrity of the Solicitor-General with my own feelings. He told you, that he had to lay before you, not what he hoped to prove, but what he had already proved. I have no such encouragement. It is for me a new case; for Adams has, in this case, brought forward evidence which he thought proper to keep in his own breast on the former trial.

“Much fervid declamation has been addressed to you by the Solicitor-General upon the consequences of success in the alleged plot. But you are to dismiss from your minds this speculative danger. The Solicitor-General has also stated propositions of law upon the subject of accomplices with great eloquence, but with less accuracy than might have been expected from his station and character. He asked, ‘Has the accomplice any interest in giving a deeper dye,--in making a stronger point,--in carrying conviction?’ I answer, ‘Yes, yes, yes!’ His impunity is conditional. He comes before you in chains, and in custody.--I refer to your own breasts, whether a man that can himself be yet prosecuted, has no interest in giving not true but acceptable evidence. The accomplice has the advantage too of having all who could contradict him tied up by the prosecution, and he therefore swears boldly.

“We are told, we might call Palin. Most gracious offer! When a great reward cannot stimulate the police-officers to find him, how should we find him, and persuade him to put his life in peril? It is more a taunt than a kindness; more a reproach on our weakness than an essay on our strength. On the part of the prosecution, a witness has not been called who was proposed to be called; and a witness that has been called has been withdrawn, when our witnesses have been on the floor to contradict him. This has further impoverished my poor, my destitute clients.”

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to these observations.

Mr. ADOLPHUS proceeded.--“Cook and Harris may be imaginary persons, and how could we call them? If high treason in this case comes entirely from the mouth of an accomplice, you cannot receive it. It is the whole of the charge; and, if in that the accomplice is not confirmed, that charge is unsupported; for, if you strike out the evidence of Adams, there is not one word to prove treason.

“Let me ask you to try his testimony, then, by these tests.--1. Is his account probable, or even possible?--2. Is his manner such as to entitle him to credit?--3. Is he contradicted by witnesses for the prosecution?--4. Is he confirmed? or is confirmation withdrawn? Upon the first question, the learned Counsel argued with great force and animation, that the witness, Adams, could not stand any one of these tests, and therefore was not to be believed. If, said he, any thing is to be gained by success in these prosecutions, it is to strengthen the Government in the minds of the people; it is to obtain applause for Ministers who have so vigilantly protected us. But your verdict, gentlemen, is to decide the fate of that man, and no more. Great Britain and Europe will judge of the conduct of Ministers; posterity will decide upon their merits.

“In all questions at issue, in history and in politics, if any thing is kept back, it ought to operate against the party who keeps it back. Adams has fathered upon others what he has himself done. Call Ings a murderer--call him an assassin--call him a felon--call him what you will--but, for God’s sake, gentlemen, believe him.” After some animated comment on the evidence of Chambers, the learned Counsel returned to Adams.

“The meeting in Cato-street affords no evidence of the intention. Adams alone states it. The very situation of Cato-street, however convenient for the assassination, disproves the treason; for it is two miles and a half from Gray’s Inn-lane, and two or three miles more from the Mansion-house. They never could thus have removed to the greatest possible distance from the points of action. What, then, are you to make of two bags to carry two heavy heads? You cannot for a moment raise this into treason; as well might you believe that an attempt was to be made to liberate the prisoners in this gaol by throwing cherries and carraway-seeds. Did they, then, levy war?

“I recollect seeing a man convicted at that bar of the murder of a Minister of State (Mr. Perceval). I never can forget Sir James Mansfield, the tears streaming down his aged venerable cheeks. If strong feelings could make the assassination of a Minister treason, that would have been treason. Suppose they had seized the cannons, that would not be a levying of war; for they are not the King’s, but the property of private individuals. The Mansion-house and the Bank were not the King’s. The only tittle to support the treason was the absurdity of a ‘Provisional Government,’ stated by Adams.