Chapter XI: Part 11

“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prosecution, a witness has not been called who was proposed to be called; and a witness that has been called has been withdrawn, when our witnesses have been on the floor to contradict him.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.

“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.

After the examination of this witness had closed, he evinced a disposition to stay in Court, on which the prisoner, Brunt, observed, “My Lord, the witness stays in Court.” Wilson then rose, and said, with great indignation, “My Lord, let that perjured villain be turned out of Court.” He then took his departure.

The EARL OF HARROWBY was next called, and repeated his former evidence.

JOHN BAKER, the butler to the Earl of Harrowby, corroborated his Lordship’s evidence.

RICHARD MUNDAY and GEORGE CAYLOCK proved the presence of the prisoner in Cato-street on the evening on which the plot was discovered.

GEORGE RUTHVEN, JAMES ELLIS, THOMAS WESTCOTT, and others belonging to the police-office in Bow-street, were then examined as to the seizure of the gang in Cato-street.

CAPTAIN FITZCLARENCE repeated the evidence which he had given on the former trial.

Mr. Gurney then stated to the Court, that the case for the prosecution was closed, except so far as related to the examination of the arms, ammunition, _&c._, which had been seized either in Cato-street, or on the premises of the conspirators. It would be more prudent to examine them by day-light.

The _Lord Chief-Baron_ acquiesced in the proposition, and adjourned the Court till the next day at nine o’clock.

SECOND DAY.--TUESDAY, _April 25_.

At nine o’clock in the morning the proceedings were resumed. The arms and ammunition were brought in, and underwent an inspection in presence of the Jury.

Mr. GURNEY proceeded to call

GEORGE RUTHVEN, who had seized the arms found in Cato-street. He identified certain arms placed on the table of the Court as the arms which he had seized, and repeated the evidence which he had given on the former trials. He also produced the grenades.

HECTOR MORRISON said, that he had sharpened a sword, which was produced to him, from heel to point, by desire of Ings.

SAMUEL TAUNTON produced several pike-heads, fire-balls, cartridges, _&c._, which were found at Brunt’s and Tidd’s lodgings, and repeated his former evidence.

SERGEANT HANSON described the composition of the fire-balls, and opened one of the grenades for the satisfaction of the Jury. It contained twenty-five pieces of old iron. He stated, that it was quite clear that it had not been made by any military man. His evidence was the same as it had been on the former occasions.

The case for the prosecution was then closed.

THE DEFENCE.

Mr. CURWOOD addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, and urged all those topics already detailed in his former speeches. He concluded by calling a witness of the name of JOHN BENNETT, who was accordingly sworn and put into the box, but before his examination commenced,

Mr. Gurney begged to ask the purpose for which this witness was called.

Mr. Curwood stated, that he was to contradict part of the testimony given by the witness Hyden, in his cross-examination.

Mr. Gurney observed, that he had a few observations to make regarding the relevancy of the evidence of this witness, and therefore desired that he might be ordered to withdraw for a few moments from Court.

The witness accordingly withdrew.

Mr. Gurney then observed, that he conceived that this witness was called to prove that Hyden had asked him to go with him to the shoemakers’-club, because something would be done there for the good of the country. Now Hyden refused to swear that he had not used such expressions; he said that he thought that he had not, but he could not positively tell. Supposing then that Bennett were to prove the words imputed by the learned Counsel to Hyden, he would not prove any thing which would invalidate Hyden’s testimony. He therefore hoped that his learned friend would not waste the time of the Court by calling this witness.

Mr. Curwood stated, that Hyden had sworn that he had never made use of the words imputed to him. He, therefore, intended to call evidence to prove that he had.

The Judges then referred to their notes, and after examination of them, said that Mr. Curwood was mistaken in his opinion as to Hyden’s words; they were to the effect stated by Mr. Gurney.

Mr. Curwood then declined to call Bennet, and said that he had no other witness to examine.

Mr. ADOLPHUS then shortly addressed the Jury on the same side with Mr. Curwood. He took a comprehensive view of the whole of the evidence; denied that the evidence of Adams, the accomplice, was entitled to the slightest credit; and contended that, as it was not supported by more credible witnesses, the offence of which the prisoner had been guilty, however great, did not amount to the charge in the indictment of high treason. He concluded his address, in which he displayed much zeal and ability, by appealing to the Jury on the danger to society of receiving the unsupported evidence of an avowed accomplice, in a crime of a nature so serious as that with which the prisoner stood charged. He entreated them not to convict the prisoner because he was a bad man, but to examine how far the charge against him had been substantiated.

A Juror rose and observed, that there was no evidence in the present case of the ammunition having been brought back to Brunt’s house.

The Chief-Baron said there was not, or of several other matters alleged, which he would advert to afterwards.

Mr. Adolphus said he had no intention of overstating any point; that he had been unavoidably absent during part of the trial, and that might have occasioned some inaccuracies--

The Solicitor-General interposed, and Mr. Adolphus sat down without any further remark.

While Mr. Adolphus was delivering his address, Mr. Harmer’s clerk delivered to the prisoner a written paper, which he began to read; but he did not seem to view its contents with much attention.

The Chief Baron addressing the prisoner, said, “John Thomas Brunt; your learned counsel have concluded their very able defence; but if you wish to say any thing in your own defence, this is the time.”

The prisoner then rose and spoke as follows:--

“My Lord, I have had a defence put into my hands only a few minutes ago, which I have not had time to peruse over. Yet I have two or three observations to make respecting the evidence--particularly respecting the evidence of Monument. It’s quite useless for me to deny that I was in the room in Cato-street; but immediately on the arrival of Monument in Cato-street, he approached me, and asked me what was going to be done, when he saw the arms on the bench; to which I replied, that I was not aware of any thing being going to be done, for that Edwards had not brought so many men by thirty as he stated he would bring, and that it was not my intention to endeavour to do any thing with so few men. I would not be led by any individual. Accordingly, perceiving that Monument betrayed a great deal of fear, I persuaded him to go away.

“My Lord, a considerable stress has been laid upon what I said respecting the number of men who were to go to Lord Harrowby’s house. This I declare was not true. I will admit, my Lord, that when Thistlewood, as has been stated, addressed himself to the few men who were there, and spoke, as the witness said, that if they did not go it would be another Despard job, that some few men did go into the small room; but, my Lord, it never came into my mind, I solemnly protest, to go there. They were endeavouring to see if fourteen or fifteen men were disposed to go to the square; but I would not agree to a plan which I knew must expose these few individuals to instant death.

“I will now call your Lordship’s attention to two circumstances respecting the conduct of myself. In the first place, Adams says, in order to implicate me more deeply, that I declared that I would go into the room and blow the house about their ears. This, my Lord, is false. For you see that when Monument comes forward, he makes a declaration to you, gentlemen of the Jury, that I declared I would go myself and bury myself in the ruins. Is this consistent?--is it upon such evidence as this, that you will deprive a son of a father, and a wife of a husband?

“I should wish to advert to another circumstance. While I was in Coldbath-fields prison,--when I was there for nearly three days, during which I was scarcely out of my room, even to wash myself. When I came down out of my room to the fire I saw Monument; I saw Strange; I saw Cooper; I saw Bradburn. Monument, my Lord, came to me, and sat himself down close by me, and whispered in my ear these words: he said, ‘What did you say when you came before the Privy Council?’ I says, ‘That I said I knew nothing about the matter.’ This, my Lord, induced me to ask Monument what he said? and I says, ‘What did you say?’ upon which he says, ‘I could say nothing--you told me nothing. Why did you not tell me more?’ I says, ‘It were impossible for me to tell you what I did not know myself. You know very well, that when you saw the man call on us to go into the small room I declined.’

“I admit, as was said by Adams, that I was one that was named to go to the house; but, gentlemen of the Jury, you were not told that he was the villain who so named me, and that he constantly came to my house twice a-day, although he now comes to give evidence to deprive me of my life.

“I am no traitor--I was determined, when I entered into this base plot, that I would lose my life sooner than I would betray an individual. I would be put to death--I would die on the rack, rather than I would betray a fellow-creature. This is my principle. This shews the intention of Monument to betray me.

“Now, my Lord, I come to advert to a circumstance which occurred to me at Cambray, in France. It becomes me to state any thing which may be of use to me and my fellow-prisoners. While I was in Cambray, in France, my Lord, I met Adams when I first came from Paris. Adams worked for the officers, and I assisted him in work which he was incapable of performing himself. He afterwards became so jealous, that he threatened to take my life, and I was obliged to leave the house, which I did, and I never worked for him again. I afterwards went from Cambray to Lisle, where I worked for an English tradesman of the name of Brailsford. I worked for him two or three months, until I got a little money. During this time I knew nothing of Adams.

“When I came home I found that my wife had lost her senses, and was in St. Luke’s, in consequence of her having heard that my son and myself had been assassinated in France. I settled myself, and my wife shortly after came out. I got a good seat of work, and at this time I was persuaded to receive, as my apprentice, Hale, the witness, who has been called to you.”

Here the prisoner entered into some details relative to the character of the relations of Hale, in which he was interrupted by the Chief Baron, upon the principle, that these persons were in no way connected with the present case. He then went on to detail a variety of acts on the part of his apprentice, all tending to prove him a person of bad character, and unworthy of credit, to which he said, if he had the means, he could bring evidence. He then spoke as follows:--

“Of Hyden I know nothing.” Here he again referred to the written defence with which he had been furnished. He said he had not had time to read it, but continued.

“I wish to advert to a person of the name of Edwards, who was the first person that ever instigated me to enter into this snare. This Mr. Edwards I first saw in company with Mr. Thistlewood, at the White Lyon in Wych-street. This Edwards came to my lodging in Fox-court. I was very short of work, and he used frequently to call on me--such a thing as two or three times a-day; and this was long before the back room was taken. If I was not at home he would wait for me; and often followed me to places where I went for work. This was the case at the house of a gentleman of the name of Scott, who saw him, and asked me if he was waiting for me? and said, ‘Why does he not come in?’

“This man constantly harassed me, and oftentimes, my Lord, he supplied me with money. He told me, and I can bring other people to prove it, that he said that if he could get a hundred such men as me, he could do any thing. He considered me a staunch man, my Lord, and thought, I suppose, that I was a fit man to make a prey of. He often took me out to call on people, and to treat them with drink. This was his constant practice. He was continually with me before this business; and I solemnly declare, that this was the individual, and not Mr. Thistlewood, who brought me into this plot.

“I must now, my Lord, advert to what took place in Cato-street, and to his (Edwards’s) conduct on that evening. I will state nothing but the truth.

“My Lord, from the different favours I received from Edwards, I had a good opinion of the man. When the officers came up into the room in Cato-street, I made my escape in the best manner I could. I did not make my escape, however, like a coward or a traitor, I did not desert my companions. I went immediately to Grosvenor-square, where I knew this villain was, although I shall, probably, by his means, be sent into another world very shortly. I went to the villain, and told him what had happened; at which he seemed very much surprised, and left the square with me.

“Shortly after up came Thistlewood and another person, who was in the room in Cato-street; but who has not since been taken, nor never will I dare say, my Lord. However, we proceeded from Grosvenor-square, and he took us into several wine-vaults to drink; I now believe, merely for some person to identify us. I then went to Fox-court, Holborn, where I had not been many minutes, when, as my apprentice stated, another man came in, who said he had received a violent blow in the side. But my apprentice has not stated, as the fact was, that the very individual who came on the stairs and called us out, was Edwards.

“We went with him; and, on going into Holborn, there we met a man of the name of Palin, and three more individuals with him. We went altogether into Mr. Thompson’s wine-vaults, opposite St. Andrew’s Church, on Holborn-hill. We drank some small glasses of liquor. When we came out of the shop, we were followed very shortly by Edwards, who called me on one side, and said he wished to speak to me. I heard what he had to say. He began to find fault with Palin, who was drunk. He declared that he was the man that had betrayed us, and that he was unworthy to live. He said, that, to prevent treachery, he ought to be made away with.

“From that we walked on till we came to Little Britain, or somewhere thereabouts. We came to a dark place, where Edwards said that Cook lived; but I did not know myself. He urged me again respecting Palin, who still remained much intoxicated. He said to me, that it would be the safest way to put him out of the world. He urged me several times to assassinate Palin. He then put his hand in his pocket, and pulled out a brass-barrelled loaded pistol, with which he told me to assassinate Palin. He likewise offered me a sword-stick; and he said, ‘If you put him out of the world, we shall be safe.’ He also shewed me a constable’s staff; and said, ‘I will act in the same capacity as I did in Grosvenor-square; and, if there is any alarm, I will officiate as an officer, and you may depend on it no discovery will take place.’

“Finding he entreated me to be guilty of murder, I made this reply: ‘If you consider Palin a villain, the weapons are in good hands.’ Finding he could not entreat me to commit murder, he says, ‘I must wish you a good night; I am going to conduct Thistlewood to some secret place.’ As he had always appeared to be a particular friend of Mr. Thistlewood’s, I thought he was the most proper person to do this.

“Knowing of no evil intention myself against any individual, I was determined not to know where he went; and I consented to bid him good night. I then went home. Edwards afterwards came to me, and whispered to me, and told me that he thought Palin and Potter had betrayed us, and that he had not the smallest doubt of it. He then advised me to send the articles which were found in the basket in the back-room, and which my apprentice has described, over to a place in the Borough, which I was going to do, but afterwards abandoned that intention.

“This is all I wish to say respecting what I know of the plot. Now Edwards was the man who always found money, and who went about to old-iron shops, buying pistols and swords, and other things for the men who could not afford to buy them themselves.

“This, I declare before God, whose awful tribunal I shall, in all probability, ere long, be summoned to attend, is the truth. Should I die by this case, I have been seduced by a villain, who, I have no doubt, has been employed by Government. I could not have abused confidence reposed in me; and, if I die, I shall die not unworthy the descendant of an ancient Briton! Sooner than I would betray a fellow-man, I would rather suffer a thousand deaths! This is all that I wish to say.”

The prisoner delivered the last part of his speech with great energy, striking his clenched fist on the board before him. He then took his seat with perfect composure, holding in his hand the defence which he had made no use of.

The CHIEF BARON began to sum up the evidence; but, while his Lordship was proceeding, Brunt said, “My Lord, there are some of the witnesses for the prosecution in Court; and, as their hearing the evidence summed up may prejudice the trial of some of my fellow-prisoners, I hope your Lordship will order them to withdraw.”

Mr. Gurney.--My Lord, they are only those witnesses who were permitted to remain by common consent; they are the officers.

The Lord Chief Baron.--They are only those whom your Counsel have consented to remain.

Mr. Baron Garrow repeated the same observation to the prisoner, who bowed respectfully to the Court, and resumed his seat.

The CHIEF BARON began his charge to the Jury by telling them, that this was not constructive treason. A nefarious assassination was admitted by the Counsel for the prisoner, and by the prisoner himself, to have been intended; an assassination of some of the most honourable and the most amiable of the King’s subjects.

His Lordship then read the evidence.

In recapitulating the evidence of Adams, his Lordship observed, upon that part where he (Adams) mentioned “that he had been induced to give up Christianity by reading that infernal work, Paine’s _Age of Reason_, and the writings of Carlile,” that the circumstance was important for the consideration of the Jury. They would weigh every part of his testimony with jealousy, considering the situation in which he was placed, and look upon his statement as requiring corroborative proof. Unless it was supported by such evidence, they would, of course, receive it with considerable hesitation; but if they found it corroborated by the evidence of unsuspected witnesses, they would consider of it accordingly. His Lordship then went through the evidence of the other witnesses, remarking upon those parts where they coincided with the account given by Adams. He then adverted to the arguments of the prisoner’s Counsel, and to the observations of the prisoner himself; which latter (though, perhaps, it might not have produced the impression which they could have wished, for the sake of the prisoner) they would give every attention to.

As soon as his Lordship concluded, and before the Jury retired, one of them addressed the Court: “My Lord, I hope your Lordship will allow me to ask a question as to a point of law.”

_The Lord Chief Baron._--Certainly, Sir; any thing you please.

_Juror._--My Lord, we are bound to take the law from your Lordship, and no doubt you will give it to us most correctly. I wish to know whether, if the evidence bore out that an arming had taken place, and that there was a resistance to the civil power, would that, in the law, be a levying of war?

_The Lord Chief Baron._--Undoubtedly. After a short pause, his Lordship said, “Gentlemen, do I understand the question rightly? Please to repeat it again.”

The Juror repeated the question; and his Lordship replied, that a resistance to the civil authority would not constitute a levying of war.

_The Juror._--My Lord, if there was an arming for the purpose of inducing his Majesty to change his measures, would that be a levying of war?

_The Lord Chief Baron._--That, gentlemen, would constitute a levying of war; and, if you believe that it was proved in evidence, it would support the indictment under the Act of his late Majesty. I put only the first and third counts to you, gentlemen, not to embarrass the case.

_The same Juror._--I would wish to consider the whole of the indictment. I hope your Lordship will excuse my asking these questions.

_The Lord Chief Baron._--Certainly, gentlemen, it is your province to consider the whole of the case before you. You have also an undoubted right to ask any questions you may think necessary.

The Jury then retired at twenty minutes before four; and in about ten minutes returned with a verdict of GUILTY on the THIRD and FOURTH COUNTS.

The prisoner’s appearance was in no degree altered by the annunciation of the verdict. He bowed slightly to the Court, and was removed in the care of two of the gaoler’s assistants.

TRIAL OF R. TIDD AND W. DAVIDSON.

SESSIONS-HOUSE, OLD BAILEY.

_First Day, Wednesday, April 26, 1820._

At ten minutes after nine o’clock, Mr. Baron Garrow, Mr. Justice Best, and the Common-Serjeant, took their seats on the bench; the Attorney-General, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Bolland, and the prisoner’s counsel, Messrs. Adolphus and Curwood, appeared in Court at the same time.

After a short consultation between Mr. Curwood and the Attorney-General, Mr. Harmer quitted the Court, and proceeded to commune with the prisoners in the gaol.

During the absence of Mr. Harmer, Mr. Baron Garrow addressed the gentlemen who were waiting to be called on as Jurors. “They might,” he said, “feel some surprise at the delay” and the Bench, therefore, felt it right to declare that the present interruption was caused entirely by an application made by the prisoners’ counsel. He hoped that the Jury would not consider the delay as intended to convey any want of respect towards them.

One of the Jurors said, he hoped the Court would allow them to sit down, as many of them had come a considerable distance to attend the Court.

Mr. Baron Garrow said, that the Court felt every disposition to accommodate, in every possible manner, the gentlemen of the Jury, and requested them to occupy the seats vacant in the Court.

Soon afterwards Mr. Harmer returned to Court, and communicated to Mr. Curwood the result of his conference.

Mr. Curwood then, addressing Mr. Baron Garrow, stated, that a proposition, which he had thought for the benefit of his clients, had been acceded to by them, and that two of them (Tidd and Davidson) were willing to take their trials at the same time.