Part 24

“Some of you remember, as I do, the conflagration of houses, and the blazing of prisons, by a mob misled by an individual. The actors in that scene were tried, convicted of felonies, but not of treason. Their infatuated leader was acquitted of high treason. God forbid that I should say my client stands before you free of guilt. God forbid I should apologize for his conduct!

“The evidence precludes me from denying that there was an intention to assassinate Ministers. Poverty rendered the men desperate, and impelled them to crime. But treason is incredible and impossible. The whole hinged on Thistlewood. He had but lately got out of prison, having challenged Lord Sidmouth, who properly prosecuted him, instead of accepting it. That he should entertain feelings of revenge was natural and inevitable, considering that his was a bad mind. But this is not treason.”

The learned Counsel having concluded his very able speech, the prisoner was addressed as follows, by

_Chief Justice Dallas._--James Ings, do you wish to leave your defence to the observations of your counsel, or do you wish to say any thing yourself?

_Ings._--I wish to state the particulars how I became acquainted with this party, if you will allow me.

_The Chief Justice._--Any thing and every thing you wish to state, of course the court and jury will hear. Now is the time for you to state those things; speak loud, and we will attend to what you say. Probably, before you say any thing, you will consult your counsel.

_Ings._--I have but little to say.

_The Chief Justice._--After having drawn your attention to the propriety of consulting your counsel, you will now do what you think best.

_Ings_, addressing himself to the Jury, spoke as follows:

“Gentlemen of the Jury, I am a man of no education and very humble abilities. If you will hear me with patience, I will not detain you long. I lived in Portsea. I came to London in the beginning of May, 1819. I came with my wife and family. The reason I left Portsmouth was, that I was unable to get employ to support my family (here the prisoner seemed affected by his feelings.) When I came to London I thought I could get employ, but I was for a considerable time, and could get nothing to do. Knowing nobody I suppose was the reason. I had a few pounds with me when I came from Portsea. Finding my money going I did not know what to do. It did not go by drinking or gambling.

“I determined to get into business, and I went up to Baker’s-row, where I set up a butcher’s shop. I stopped there three months, from Midsummer to Michaelmas; the summer being hot was against me; I lost a considerable deal of money in the course of the summer; I then took a house in Old Montague-street, which I opened as a coffee-shop; in fitting up the shop my money was all gone; I did not take money enough to support my family. I now persuaded my wife to return to Portsea among her friends, where I thought she would be better than with me in London.

“After my wife had left me some considerable time, there was a man who used to come and take a cup of coffee at my shop. I had never nothing to do with politics; but he began to speak about the Manchester massacre. I said very little; I always took him to be an officer. He came frequently before I left the house.

“Some time after I met him in Smithfield. I went there to see if I could get any employ. He asked me how I did; and I said very well. He said, he had been often to my house, and asked me to stand treat. I said it was not in my power, and my reason was, that I had no money; I added that I should be obliged to sell my things. He asked me what things I had to sell, and I told him various articles. He agreed to buy a sofa bedstead.

“I then went to live in Primrose-street. This was in January last. A few days after, I met him in Fleet-market. He asked me where we could have something to drink; and respecting the sofa bedstead, he said he thought he had a friend that would buy it. I took him to my house, but we could not agree. We came back to Fleet-street; he then told me there was something going to be done. I asked him what it was, and he said no good man would want to know what was to be done before it was begun. We went directly and had some bread and cheese. He took me to the White Hart, where I saw a few of my fellow-prisoners. I asked who he was. I understood his name was Williams; but I since know that it was Edwards. He told me that it was he made Thomas Paine (the statue of Paine) at Mr. Carlisle’s; and it was the same man that did make it. He afterwards took me to another room where I got refreshment.

“I did not know the particulars of any thing that was going to be done. I was a stranger, and went for food. That very day he brought me a sword to get ground for him, which I took to the cutler’s in my own name; and do you think, gentlemen, if I knew that any thing was going on, that I would have left it in my own name? I often went to the man afterwards, for I had no friends. On the 23d of February, he came to me at my lodging, in Primrose-street, for my landlord charged me nothing for my lodging, and says, ‘There’s something a going to be done; do you come up to the alley opposite Mrs. Carlisle’s; about six o’clock, I shall meet you there.’ I went from there up to the room. I was there all day, and I got some bread and cheese.

“At six I went to Fleet-street. He was standing in the alley. I understand since, from the list of witnesses, that he lives in that alley. He told me to wait, which I did, for an hour. He then came and gave me a couple of bags and a belt, and asked me to come to the room in Fox-court. On my going there he told me that he was going to put some gin in the bags; and that it was to be got on the sly. That was the sole reason that I put the bags under my coat, lest the patrol should see them. I went with him up to St. Giles’s, where he said we were to get the gin. When we got there, he told me it was not there. We went up to Oxford-street, where he said a friend lived. He left me and I waited for him an hour. He then took me up to John-street, I believe it was, for I never was there before, to the stable. He told me I would see some friends there; he then left me.

“When I came under the archway, I saw Davidson; Davidson took me into the stable. I never was up in the loft. I declare positively, before God, I was not in the stable more than five minutes when the officers came in: there was only me there. Mr. Ruthven, then, or somebody with carroty whiskers, and another, went up the ladder into the loft, and a third man came in, collared me, and said, “You are my prisoner.” Very well, I says. Soon after he collared me, he began beating me with his staff till my head swelled most dreadfully. In the mean time I heard a gun or pistol go off in the loft.

“When he let me go and run out of the stable, I followed him into the street. On going into the street, an officer went after me, and I ran all down the street. I met a man who struck me violently on the head with a stick as I was going towards him. I ran from him, and with that I was pursued, when I was stopped by a watchman who beat me also. They took me down to the watch-house. That is all I know about the meeting.

“I am like a bullock drove into Smithfield market to be sold. (Here the prisoner burst into tears.) I say I am like a bullock drove into Smithfield to be sold. (This he repeated with great energy.) The Attorney-General knows the man. He knew all their plans for two months before I was acquainted with it. (Still crying.) When I was before Lord Sidmouth, a gentleman said, Lord Sidmouth knew all about this for two months. (Still in tears.) I consider myself murdered if this man is not brought forward. (A more violent gush of tears.) I am willing to die on the scaffold with him. He told of every thing which he did himself. I don’t value my life if I can’t get a living for my family. (In still greater grief.) My life is of no use to me if I want bread for my wife and family. I have a wife and four children. I never was in the habit of drinking, nor nothing of the sort. I cannot describe my feelings to you about my wife and family. (In tears.)

“I hope, before you give your verdict, that you will see this man brought forward, or else I consider myself a murdered man. I knew nothing of their plots; he was the instigation of it all. I never attended none of their radical meetings. I hope you will weigh well this in your minds before you return your verdict. That man Adams, who has got out of the halter himself by accusing others falsely, would hang his God. I would sooner die, if I had 500 lives, than be the means of hanging other men.”

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS.--Is there any thing more you wish to say?

INGS.--Nothing more. I have only one thing to prove my character. A gentleman put it down from my childhood. (He here handed a paper, which his Lordship declined to take.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to address the Jury about three o’clock. It had been more than insinuated that these prosecutions were intended to extend the law of treason, and that their verdict would enlarge the powers of the Crown. But it was not so; by the due administration of justice alone were they to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.

“The 36th of the late King was not calculated to introduce uncertainty and speculation. If the prisoners had the intention, and acted upon the intention, of levying war, it was treason, however inadequate their means. No man could doubt the truth of the story which Adams related. The learned gentleman then commented on the evidence at great length, insisting that the case was satisfactorily proved.”

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS proceeded to address the Jury. This most painful inquiry having, in point of proof, been terminated, it became his duty to recapitulate the whole of the evidence, and to make such observations on the case as the different points seemed to him to require.

“With respect to the indictment, it contained a number of different counts and charges, which were founded on two specific statutes. The first, an ancient statute, passed in the reign of Edward III.; and the second, a more recent act, passed in the reign of the late King. But, to make the case as clear as possible, they might dismiss most of the counts from their minds, and look to the charge as composed of two heads; one, conspiring to depose the King, and the other conspiring to levy war to compel him to change his measures. He should now proceed to recite the evidence as he had taken it. [The learned Judge here read the evidence of the whole of the witnesses, pointing out those facts which were most worthy the consideration of the Jury.] The learned Judge then, in allusion to the testimony of Adams, observed, that, if the doctrines held that day could be adopted, no such thing as an accomplice could be admitted in a court of justice. His evidence would be at once got rid of, by stating that he was guilty himself.

“They were, however, informed, that though it was often necessary to receive the evidence of an accomplice, yet in the practical application of that evidence, they were to view it with a suspicious eye. They were not to receive it, except it was confirmed. On this point he had heard the law grossly mis-stated.

“The testimony of an accomplice ought to be confirmed in some

## particulars, but not in all; for if they possessed the means of proving

all he stated, there would be no necessity to call him to give evidence.

“It was for the Jury to say whether the prisoners had not a revolutionary object in view. If they were assembled merely for the purpose of assassination, of course the charge of treason was not made out, but if they thought otherwise, undoubtedly it was. It might be said that it was impossible men could entertain such an extravagant project; if he had been told that there were twenty-five men on the face of the earth, and still less, of the country to which he had the honour to belong, who intended to commit the foul and dreadful act of butchery and blood which had been described, he should have said, till they were detected, that it was utterly impossible--that such a thing never had happened and never could. But looking to the evidence, it was clear and undoubted that such an occurrence had happened.

“The prisoner had called witnesses before them, and he had implored the Jury, ere they disposed of his fate, to consider his case maturely. In that request he went hand in hand. If they were of opinion that those persons assembled only to destroy fourteen individuals, and that the materials found were merely collected for that purpose, they would then give the benefit of that doubt to the prisoner. But, on the other hand, if, in the discharge of their duty, acting in the name of that Being who had been more than once appealed to in the course of this inquiry, they believed that the offence was proved, they would then, he was sure, fearlessly and intrepidly return with a verdict in conformity with their sentiments.”

The Jury retired at twenty-five minutes after eight o’clock, and, at a quarter before nine, returned a verdict of--GUILTY, ON THE FIRST AND THIRD COUNTS--that is, of conspiring to depose the King, and to levy war to compel him to change his measures.

The prisoner was then taken from the bar, and the Court adjourned.

TRIAL OF JOHN THOMAS BRUNT.

SESSIONS-HOUSE, OLD BAILEY.

_First Day, Monday, April 24, 1820._

At nine o’clock in the morning, the Lord Chief Baron Richards, Mr. Baron Garrow, Mr. Justice Richardson, and the Common Serjeant, took their seats.

The prisoner, Brunt, was then put to the bar. He was decently dressed in coloured clothes, and had with him several papers, some of which were closely written upon. He looked rather paler than before, but preserved his accustomed composure.

Mr. Shelton proceeded to call over the names of the Jurymen in attendance. The first name called, and to which there was no challenge on the part of the prisoner or the Court, was Mr. Alexander Barclay.

Mr. Barclay stated, that, as he had been on the Jury by which Thistlewood had been tried, he hoped he might be excused on the present occasion.

Mr. Curwood said, that it was because he was on the former Jury he wished him to be on the present, as he would be enabled to see the difference of evidence.

The Solicitor-General said he had no objection.

Mr. Barclay was then sworn; and he was foreman of this as well as the former Jury.

Mr. Curwood exhausted his right of challenging peremptorily before the Crown, on whose behalf the last four challenges were made in succession. As the Jurors were sworn, they were very attentively noticed by the prisoner. After the challenges had been gone through, the following Jury was impanelled:

* Alexander Barclay, of Teddington, grocer, (foreman).

* Thomas Goodchild, Esq., North-End, Hendon.

* Thomas Suffield Aldersey, Lisson-grove, North, Esq.

* James Herbert, Isleworth, carpenter.

* John Shooter, North-End, Hendon, gent.

James Wilmot, Western-road, Isleworth, market-gardener.

* John Edward Shepherd, Eden-Grove, Holloway, gent.

* John Fowler, St. John-square, iron-plate-worker.

* William Gibbs Roberts, Ropemakers’-fields, Limehouse, cooper.

John Dickenson, Colt-street, Limehouse, builder.

John Smith, John-street, Oxford-street, undertaker.

John Woodward, Upper-street, Islington.

Those gentlemen to whose names a * is prefixed served on the first Jury.

Mr. Bolland immediately proceeded to open the indictment against Brunt.

The Attorney-General then stated the case to the Jury, going over all the facts already detailed in the former trials, and commenting upon them with great clearness and ingenuity. As soon as he had concluded his address, the other prisoners (untried) were brought into Court.

ROBERT ADAMS (the first witness against Thistlewood and Ings) was put into the box, and examined by the Solicitor-General. He detailed the same story, in substance, which he gave on the former trials; adding some things which he had then omitted, and varying a little his account of others. In the course of his evidence he came to that part where he described Brunt to have said, that, if any officers came in there, he (uttering an oath) would murder them, and they might be easily disposed of afterwards, so as to prevent their murder being discovered.

_Brunt_, (rising hastily from his seat at the bar)--My Lords, can the witness look me in the face, and look at those gentlemen (pointing to the Jury), and say that I said this?

_Adams_, (turning towards the prisoner, and laying his hand upon his breast)--I can, with a clear and safe conscience.

_Brunt._--Then you are a bigger villain than I even took you to be.

The Court here interfered to prevent any further conversation between the parties.

Adams then continued his evidence.--When he came to that part where he mentioned the hand-grenades, he added--“I think it necessary here to state, as Mr. Brunt thinks proper to deny what I have said, that he was the very man that took the hand-grenades to Tidd’s house; for I followed him all the way, and I saw, with my own eyes, Tidd’s daughter put them in a box under the window.” [The witness uttered this with considerable emphasis and action.] In relating the arrangements which had been made for the murder of Ministers, and the subsequent proceedings which were intended, he added--“I think it right to state one circumstance, which escaped my memory before. Ings proposed, that after the heads of Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth were taken off, they should be placed on a pole, and carried through the streets. Thistlewood improved the plan, and said that they should be carried on a pike behind the cannon in the streets, to excite terror. On this Bradburn observed, that, after they had used Lord Castlereagh’s head, they would enclose it in a box, and send it to Ireland.--Another circumstance which he also omitted before was, that, by an arrangement between Thistlewood and Cooke, it was agreed, that, if Cooke succeeded in taking the Mansion-house, he was to send an orderly to St. Sepulchre’s Church, where he was to be met by another orderly, despatched by Thistlewood from the west-end of the town; and they were to convey to the parties an account of the progress which each had made in their stations.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--On my former examination I repented when I got home, and before that. When I perceived the error of my ways, I acknowledged it. Till I received that infernal publication, Paine’s _Age of Reason_, which Tidd gave me, I was very particular. I was not, however, so good a christian as I might have been. The principles which Brunt, the prisoner at the bar, endeavoured to instil into my mind perverted my understanding. Brunt wished to throw down the pillars of Christianity altogether. I find my conscience satisfied at the atonement I have made to my Maker. My satisfaction did not merely arise from getting my neck out of the halter. I never considered the assassinating of men, in cold blood, to be consistent with the principles of reason. On the 2d of January, the prisoner told me that it was intended to murder his Majesty’s Ministers. I was introduced to Thistlewood on the 12th: during the intermediate period of ten days, I had an opportunity of considering the plot. I did not discover it, owing to the insinuations of Brunt. In that time, I attended several meetings, and was a chairman at one of them. Whenever I hinted any dislike to the business, the parties were like madmen. I knew Edwards, and saw him making hand-grenades. I intended to put a stop to the business if possible; but, at the same time, I wished to save these people, and to avoid the trouble of the trials here.

Re-examined by Mr. Gurney.--My mind was perverted by Paine’s _Age of Reason_, and Carlisle’s publication.

Eleanor Walker, Mary Rogers, Joseph Hale, Thomas Sharp, Charles Bisset, Henry Gillam, Edward Simpson, and J. H. Morrison, gave precisely the same evidence as they had given on the former trials.

JOHN MONUMENT, the accomplice, was brought into Court in the custody of two wardens of the Tower. He was examined by the Solicitor-General, and gave precisely the same evidence as he had done on the two preceding trials, relative to his connexion with the conspirators.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--I have read Paine’s _Age of Reason_. It rather shook my faith; but it did not destroy it, because it was accompanied by the Bishop of Llandaff’s _Apology for the Bible_.

THOMAS MONUMENT, examined by the Solicitor-General.--His testimony to-day was precisely the same with that which he had given on the former day, and fully corroborated that of his brother. He was not cross-examined.

John Monument was then re-called, and re-examined by the Solicitor-General, as to the advice which had been given him by Thistlewood to say that Edwards had taken him to the meeting. He repeated his former testimony, and added, that Thistlewood told him to pass it round to the other prisoners, that it was Edwards who had betrayed them. Bradburn paid no attention to this advice.

THOMAS HYDEN, examined by Mr. Gurney, repeated his former evidence. This is the man who gave information of the plot to Lords Harrowby and Castlereagh, of which he on this occasion gave a detailed account.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curwood.--I know a man of the name of Bennett, a bricklayer. I asked him to go with me to the shoemakers’ club. I cannot swear that I did not ask him to go there, because something was to be done there for the good of the country. I wrote to Lord Harrowby myself.

Here the learned Counsel asked him to write a word or two. He did so. Mr. Curwood observed, that he asked the question because he had been informed that the witness could not write. He had been mis-informed, and had now done with the witness.