Chapter X: Part 10

_Prisoner_: “Armstrong, on the evening he was taken to the hospital, drank spirituous liquors, so as to be intoxicated. The day after this punishment, the sickly season advancing fast, I thought it was necessary for the preservation of my life to get away, the climate being very bad, and I having been for a length of time before very ill. I arrived in England some time in August in the same year. Upon my arrival at the Secretary of State’s office, I found there had been a number of charges exhibited against me by Captain Crawford, then a lieutenant of the African corps, and Mr. ——. These charges upon trial about ten months after appeared to be totally groundless, and Captain Crawford was reprimanded highly by his Majesty for presuming to bring such charges against me; many of the other charges were found groundless, and very much exaggerated. As soon as the inquiry into these charges was over, I went down to Bath, and heard nothing farther, either of the punishment of the men, nor anything concerning them, until two messengers came down to me at Bath. The man who was the chief messenger told me he came down on a message to me from Lord Sidney. I asked him, in the presence of two people, if he had a warrant; he said he had not, yet I suspected that he had a warrant. I told him, ‘I will comply with my Lord Sidney’s command immediately.’ I sent to the Bear Inn for a post coach and four horses, and I and the two messengers got into it quickly. We travelled three miles out of town, and I stopped the coach, as I had occasion for a person that was then in Bath to be in town, and I sent for this person; we then proceeded on our way to London. I paid the expenses of the carriage: I paid the dinner bill at Marlborough, and when we came to Reading I ordered supper in the usual way. I did not think it was absolutely necessary for me to tell the messengers I was going away. I left Reading about eleven o’clock at night, nor did I absolutely know what the charges were. I did not know whether they called it an arrest or not when the business took place; and from the persecution I had met with before, I thought it was dangerous to appear at that time; for all the newspapers were full of false paragraphs, some of them asserting that I had fired men from the mouths of cannon; others, that I had additional means of punishment added to the ropes with which the men were punished. It terrified me so that I could not face it till I thought men’s minds were cool to listen to the truth without prejudice. This is all that I have to say. I am here now to answer for it, and I commit myself to the protection of your lordships and of the gentlemen of the jury.”

Several witnesses were called for the defence, the principal of whom was Mrs. Lacy, widow of the Captain Lacy, who was with Wall at the flogging of Armstrong; and certainly, if her evidence was to be taken, the conduct of the men, with Armstrong at their head, was riotous and mutinous. Part of her examination was as follows:—

_Lord Chief Baron Macdonald_: Who headed these men the first time?—I do not know; but the second time I perfectly recollect it was Armstrong.

_Mr. Knowlys_: But whoever they were, they addressed themselves to the governor, and he answered them?—Yes; they addressed themselves to the governor and demanded the short allowance due from Governor Adams.

Do you recollect what he said to them?—I think it was to return to their barracks and give him time to consider of it.

Then he did this in person, not by any messenger?—No, in person.

Did they go away to their barracks at the desire of their governor?—They did.

After they had gone this first time, did you see them come again?—I did; in about an hour and a half’s time they came again.

In what way did they come then, and to what number?—They came headed by Sergeant Armstrong, Upton, and Patterson; and these were the chief of the African corps, to about seventy or eighty in number.

In what way did they come?—They came in a most riotous and mutinous manner.

Were they apparently sober?—From their manner one would not suppose that they were.

Did you see them before they reached the government house?—I saw them at the time they came there.

State everything you saw pass.—I heard them swear that if the governor did not satisfy their demands they would open the stores and satisfy themselves.

Where was the governor at the time they uttered this expression?—He was speaking to them.

How came he to speak to them?—I heard what passed from the soldiers.

At the time they came up, was the governor outside the government house or did he go out to them?—He went out to them.

Did you hear the governor say anything to any particular person in the company? you said Armstrong was one amongst them?—Yes.

Do you recollect Armstrong saying anything to the governor, or he to him?—I heard Armstrong swear that if the governor did not satisfy his demands he would open the stores.

What else passed between Armstrong and the governor?—After the governor spoke to him he went off with the men shouting and making a great noise in every state of mutiny.

Were any orders given by the governor to Armstrong?—I do not know.

Did the governor consent to their staying there in that way?—Certainly not.

What did he say to them about their staying there?—I cannot repeat what the governor said; I heard them behave in a mutinous manner.

Did the governor say anything to them about their staying there or departing from that place?—He ordered them to depart.

When the governor ordered them to depart, what was the answer made by Armstrong or any of the company?—They behaved in a riotous manner.

What answer did they make to him?—They would not for some time; they declared they would break open the stores and supply themselves.

That was the answer they made to the governor’s orders to depart, was it?—It was.

Did Armstrong or any of the company with him say anything about his leaving the island at that time?—They were, I believe, very mutinous for some time before.

Did they say anything about his departing or not from the island?—I do not know. They said they would not let him leave the island till they were satisfied.

Who was the spokesman upon this occasion?—Armstrong, Upton, and Patterson were the three spokesmen.

Did they express their determination in a peaceable and quiet manner, or the contrary?—They spoke it in a most threatening manner.

Was it in an alarming manner?—Indeed it was.

From the conduct and manner which the people observed towards the governor at the time, did you yourself at that time apprehend mischief?—Upon my word, I did.

Upon your oath?—Upon my oath, I did.

It should here be observed on this testimony of Mrs. Lacy, that, if not otherwise exaggerating, she certainly overstated one fact—viz., as to the number of men assembled being seventy or eighty—as none of the witnesses, except Mrs. Faulkner, who came on the same side after her, made them out even up to a third of eighty. Mrs. Lacy was also, in all probability, wrong in positively asserting, against the convincing evidence for the Crown, that the first witness, Lewis, was not the orderly-sergeant, and was not present on the day in question. She was shown to be still more at fault when she stated that her deceased husband was incapacitated in consequence of a _coup de soleil_ from coming forward to exculpate Governor Wall when first apprehended. Mrs. Faulkner, the next witness, even went beyond Mrs. Lacy in describing the violence of the supposed mutiny, and she was much shaken on cross-examination. Her husband, Faulkner, one of the garrison, though testifying to some mutinous behaviour on the part of the men, quite broke down in endeavouring to show that there was a real court-martial. He was asked:—

During the time the officers were inside the ring, what took place?—Armstrong was called forward and asked what he had to say for his own defence; he said nothing; he did not reply at all.

_Mr. Justice Rooke_: Did they tell him what he was charged with?—By being mutinous.

_Mr. Alley_: What was said to Armstrong?—Captain Lacy said, “What have you to say for yourself, Armstrong, being in this mutinous affair?”

Did he make any answer?—He made no reply.

_Mr. Justice Rooke_: Did they tell him what mutinous affair it was?—Stopping the governor from going on board; and threatening to bring his stores on shore if he did not settle with them.

Did Captain Lacy or anybody else say all that to Armstrong?—Yes, Captain Lacy told him.

Now let us hear all Captain Lacy said?—Captain Lacy told him he was tried for stopping the governor from going on board and threatening to bring his stores on shore.

You heard Captain Lacy say this yourself, did you?—Yes, I did. He was then tried by Captain Lacy, Lieutenant Fall, and Lieutenant O’Shanley.

_Lord Chief Baron Macdonald_: Was there any more trial than telling him he had wished to prevent the governor from going, and that was a mutinous affair? Was there anything more?—There was no more trial.

Then the trial was acquainting him with that and asking him what he had to say for himself?—Yes.

_Mr. Alley_: Did he say anything for himself?—No, he did not.

Do you recollect whether anything further was said?—Nothing farther was said.

Did you see the surgeon there?—Yes, I did.

Do you recollect anything further that passed at that time?—The surgeon and linguist were both there at the time.

Do you recollect whether any sentence was pronounced?—There was.

What was said?—Captain Lacy told him he was to receive eight hundred lashes by the linguist; he was then tied up and received them; the surgeon was there present the whole time.

In confutation of the last assertion, the surgeon had already stated that he was not present the whole time. The other witnesses for Wall, one of whom was proved not credible on oath, did not carry his case any further. A few respectable witnesses gave him a character for humanity, but their testimony was feeble; and one of them, on cross-examination, would not go so far as to state Wall bore a general reputation of being humane.[19]

One glaring contradiction to Wall’s line of defence was his own letter to Government on his return from Goree, in which (it was read at the trial) he makes no allusion to any mutiny or riot having occurred. There also remained unanswered the facts that Armstrong had not the shadow of a trial, and that he was punished in a monstrous way, with an unusual instrument and with an excessive number of blows. Upon all this the learned Chief Baron pointedly commented in his lucid summing up, from which I give the following introductory remarks, as most apt and explanatory on the subject of suppressing military and naval mutiny, and on corporal correction in general.

“This case,” said the Chief Baron, “will, gentlemen of the jury, for many reasons, in my apprehension, require your closest and best attention. In the first place, the charge against the prisoner at the bar is the heaviest which our law knows; his life is at stake; and that of itself would, I am sure, be sufficient to excite every degree of care and attention in you; but in other respects it seems to me to be of peculiar importance, for on the one hand, as the Attorney-General has most liberally and most sensibly said, when a well-intentioned officer is at a great distance from his native country, having charge of a member of that country, and it shall so happen that circumstances may arise which may alarm and disturb the strongest mind, it were not proper that strictness and rigour in forms and in matters of that sort should be required, where you find a real, true, and genuine intention of acting for the best for the sake of the public. You see they are in a situation distant from assistance and from advice; in these circumstances, if a man should be so much thrown off the balance of his understanding as not to conduct himself with the same care and attention that any one in the county of Middlesex would be required to do, and does not exceed greatly the just and proper line of his duty, allowances for such circumstances ought unquestionably to be given to him.

“But, on the other hand, it is of consequence, that where a commander is so circumstanced—that is, at a distance from his native country—at a distance from inspection—at a distance from immediate control—and not many British subjects being there—if he shall, by reason of that distance, wanton with his authority and his command, it will certainly be the duty of the law to control that, and to keep it within proper bounds. The protection, therefore, of subjects who are serving their country at that distance, on the one hand, is one of the objects you are to have in view to-day. The protection of a well-intentioned officer—if such he be—who does not by his conduct disclose a malevolent mind, but may disclose human infirmity to a certain extent, who, being in trepidation and alarm of mind, overlooks some things he ought otherwise to have regarded;—such a man’s case is, on the other hand, deserving of great attention....

“I would also mention to you, that in all cases of corporal punishment, as I conceive, where there is lodged a discretion, regard is to be had to the extent of that punishment and to the means of inflicting it; because legitimate punishment may be inflicted in such a manner as to show that the infliction of the punishment was made the ground of wilfully carrying it to an extent and excess that would be attended with the destruction of him who is the object of it. I conceive, for example, that a regimental court-martial, although it is to act by discretion, and is not strictly meted and bounded in the degree of punishment by act of Parliament—nor are many subordinate punishments which are discretionary in other courts—that such tribunals cannot go to any excess that they please, either in the extent of that punishment or in the mode of administering it. I conceive that a regimental court-martial, and those who are to see its sentence put into execution, are bound by the rules which good sense, experience, and humanity point out, as not being so excessive as upon the very face of them to be possibly the means of executing a sentence they could not pronounce, namely, a sentence of death.

“Now, gentlemen, to make this extremely familiar. It is perfectly clear that many persons have authority to correct in a certain degree. A master has to correct his servant. A parent has not only the power, but it is his duty to correct his child; but let me suppose that instead of inflicting five or six strokes with a few birch twigs upon that child, you inflict five or six hundred; although the instrument may be a legal instrument, and cannot be quarrelled with, yet the extreme excess of the quantity may denote an intent to do mischief, not bridled by that which ought to bridle human actions. I will put it likewise that the instrument itself is improper. Suppose, instead of five or six strokes with a rod, you give five or six blows with a cudgel, you would say that was an instrument likely to kill the child, and would be an excess with respect to the instrument itself. So also, I conceive, it is not to go abroad to the world that a court-martial is to inflict an over-great number of strokes with an instrument likely to do much more mischief than the ordinary instrument. It may be that a hundred strokes with a particular instrument may do more mischief than a thousand with the instrument ordinarily used. I take it they are bound to inflict that measure of punishment which has been known ordinarily to be inflicted and borne; and it may be a question whether the quantity be inordinate in proportion to the instrument, that may not be evidence of such malice as may constitute that which would otherwise be justifiable, a murder according to the definition of the law of England.”

The Judge then went elaborately through the evidence; and after he had concluded, the jury went out for some time, and returned with a verdict of “Guilty.”

The Recorder proceeded to pass sentence of death upon Wall, that he should be executed the following morning, and that his body should be afterwards delivered to be anatomised according to the statute.

Mr. Wall seemed sensibly affected by the sentence, but said nothing more than requesting the court would allow him a little time to prepare himself for death.

On the 21st of January a respite was sent from Lord Pelham’s office, deferring his execution until the 25th. On the 24th he was farther respited till the 28th. His wife lived with him for the last fortnight prior to his conviction. He, before trial, although allowed two hours a day, from twelve till two, to walk in the yard, did not once embrace this indulgence; and during his confinement never went out of his room, except into the lobby to consult his counsel. He lived well, and was sometimes in good spirits. He was easy in his manners and pleasant in conversation; but during the night he frequently sat up in his bed and sung psalms, being overheard by his fellow-prisoners. He had not many visitors; his only attendant was a prisoner, who was appointed for that purpose by the turnkey.

After trial he did not return to his old apartment, but was conducted to a cell; he was so far favoured as not to have irons put on, but a person was employed as a guard to watch him during the night, to prevent him doing violence to himself. His bed was brought to him in the cell, on which he threw himself in an agony of mind, saying it was his intention not to rise until they called him on the fatal morning; and he kept his word.

The sheriffs were particularly pointed and precise in their orders with respect to confining him to the usual diet of bread and water preparatory to the awful event. This order was scrupulously fulfilled. The prisoner during a part of the night after sentence slept, owing to fatigue and perturbation of mind. The next morning his wife applied, but was refused admittance without an order from one of the sheriffs. She applied to Mr. Sheriff Cox, who thereupon himself attended her to the prison.

From the time of the first respite until twelve o’clock on Wednesday night, Wall did not cease to entertain hopes of his safety. The interest made to save him was very great. The whole of Wednesday occupied the great law officers; the judges met at the Lord Chancellor’s in the afternoon. The conference lasted upwards of three hours, but ended unfavourably to Wall.

The prisoner had an affecting interview with his wife, the Hon. Mrs. Wall, the night before his death, from whom he was painfully separated about eleven o’clock. This disconsolate and affectionate lady, unremitting in her solicitude, caused Wall to write a note to Mr. Kirby, the jailor, about nine o’clock, requesting that she might be permitted to remain in the cell until eleven, thus cordially manifesting her fond but delusive hopes to the very latest moment. Mr. Kirby, with a feeling of humanity, readily complied with this request. But no tidings of mercy arrived, and at eleven o’clock she saw the end of all her earthly joys. After many tender embraces, the wife reluctantly departed, overwhelmed with grief and bathed in tears, while the unfortunate husband declared that he could now, with Christian fortitude, submit to his unhappy fate. During the greater part of the night he slept but little.

When, the following Thursday morning, Wall ascended the scaffold, accompanied by the Rev. Ordinary, there arose three successive shouts from an innumerable populace, the brutal but determined effusion of one common sentiment, for the public indignation had never been so high since the hanging of Mrs. Brownrigg, who had whipped her apprentices to death.

The wretched Wall bowed his head under this extreme pressure of ignominy, and almost immediately afterwards was, without signal, launched into eternity. After hanging a full hour his body was cut down, put into a cart, and immediately conveyed to a building in Cowcross Street to be dissected. Wall was dressed in a mixed-coloured loose coat, with a black collar, swandown waistcoat, blue pantaloons, and white silk stockings. He appeared a miserable and emaciated object, never having quitted the bed of his cell from the day of condemnation till the morning of his execution.

The body of the unfortunate governor was not exposed to public view as usual in such cases. Mr. Belfour, Secretary to the Surgeons’ Company, applied to Lord Kenyon, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, to know whether such exposure was necessary; and finding that the forms of dissection only were required, the body, after those forms had passed, was consigned to the relations of the unhappy man upon their paying fifty guineas to the Philanthropic Society. The remains were interred in the churchyard of St. Pancras.

The “Gentleman’s Magazine” of 1802 thus refers to the execution of Governor Wall:—

“Thursday, Jan. 28, 1802.—This day Joseph Wall, Governor of the island of Goree, after a trial at the Old Bailey, which occupied the time of the court from nine in the morning till near eleven at night, was, for the wilful murder of Benjamin Armstrong, a sergeant in an African corps, executed pursuant to his sentence. The gallows-hunters behaved with great indecorum, hissing, groaning, and shouting, even to his very last moments. Mr. Wall was six feet four inches high, and of a genteel appearance. He behaved with great steadiness and composure during his long and painful trial, which lasted fourteen hours. He was sixty-five years of age, but did not look so old. He was respectably connected with several families of distinction in Ireland. His brother, Counsellor Wall, was a literary gentleman, who excited great notice in his day, and was the author of several literary productions; but what was most remarkable was, that he was the first person who presumed to publish Parliamentary Reports with the real names of the speakers prefixed. Dr. Johnson (in our Magazine) dressed them in Roman characters; others gave them as Orators in the Senate of Liliput. Mr. Wall laid the foundation of a practice which, we trust, for the sake of Parliament and of the nation, will never be abandoned.”

It is quite clear, from the periodicals and from the squibs and verses about it at the time, that Wall’s execution was approved of by the public, and was looked on as a praiseworthy act of retributive justice.

THE TRIAL OF COLONEL DESPARD.

Towards the close of the year 1802 the feeble Peace of Amiens was evidently on the eve of ending, and Europe was in feverish excitement. The first Consul, Napoleon Bonaparte, fast approached the zenith of his power: already had the “gloom of his glory” arisen “and o’ershadowed the earth with his fame.” Unlike his illustrious nephew, Napoleon III., he could not understand England, nor England him, and so the war between them was about to be revived more deadly and determined than before. England feared not (when did England ever fear?), but the British people were everywhere in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, natural upon the momentous preparations for the renewed struggle. Continual alarms of internal treachery magnified into giant cases of treason, and exaggerated demonstrations of loyalty were the order of the day. This political condition must be fully understood to make us now-a-days comprehend the extraordinary sensation caused by the following criminal attempt of a half-crazy officer and a parcel of pauper miscreants, truly one of the most miserable affairs that perhaps ever occupied a Royal Commission sitting on a trial for high treason. The chief conspirator, Despard, who had been a thorough gentleman and a soldier, and who had Nelson himself to give him a character, must, from what he supposed was the neglect, but what was no more probably than the procrastination of Government, have lost his wits and have become a dangerous lunatic, more fit for a madhouse than the gallows.

One can hardly refrain from a smile on reading the following amplification of Lord Ellenborough, when passing sentence upon such poor and incapable conspirators:—“The object,” said his lordship, “of the conspiracy, in which you have borne your several very active and criminal parts, has been to overthrow and demolish the fundamental laws and established government of your country; to seize upon and destroy the sacred person of our revered and justly beloved sovereign; to murder and destroy the various members of his royal house; to extinguish and annihilate the other branches of the legislature of this realm.” Yet the learned and able judge did no more than speak the sentiments and suspicions of the period. It was, indeed, the then excitement of the public, and nowise any intrinsic importance, that has made this crime of Despard historical. I here give it somewhat fully because the interest really lies in details revealing the minuteness of the capabilities of the prisoners, and the magnitude of the proceedings against them.

The ancient and honourable family of Despard is to this day of high standing and respectability in Ireland. The first of the Despards who settled there was a commissioner sent by Queen Elizabeth for partitioning the Irish lands. This Commissioner Despard and his father had fled from France in 1572 to escape the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Their descendant, William Despard, Esq., of Cranagh, in the Queen’s County, was M.P. for Bantry. His third son, William Despard, Esq., of Killaghy, in the County of Tipperary, M.P. for Thomastown, married Frances, daughter and coheir of Daniel Green, Esq., of Killaghy Castle, County Tipperary, and was father (with other issue) of an eldest son, William, his successor, and a second son, Francis Green. The eldest son became William Despard, Esq., of Coubrane and Cartoun, Queen’s County, and Killaghy Castle, County Tipperary, and married, May, 1732, Jane, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Walsh, Rector of Blessington and had (with another who died young) six sons, viz.:—1. William, who married and left a family; 2. Philip, Captain 7th Fusiliers, who married and left a family; 3. Green, Captain R.N., who died unmarried; 4. John, a Lieut.-General in the Army, who married Harriet Anne, daughter of Thomas Hesketh, Esq., and granddaughter of Sir Robert Hesketh, Bart., and had an only child, Harriet Dorothea, wife of the late Vice-Admiral Henry Francis Greville, C.B., kinsman of the Earl of Warwick: she left, with other issue, a son, the present Major-General H. L. F. Greville, R.A.; 5. Andrew, a colonel in the army, who died in 1840, aged 90; and 6. Edward Marcus, the unfortunate subject of this trial. Edward Marcus Despard was born in 1750, and as the above genealogical account shows, was the youngest of six brothers, all of whom, except the eldest, had served their country either in the army or navy. In 1766, he entered the army as an ensign, in the 5th regiment; in the same regiment he served as a lieutenant, and passing into the 79th he was successively lieutenant, quartermaster, captain-lieutenant, and captain. From his superior officers he received many marks of approbation, particularly from General Calcraft, of the 50th, General Meadows, and the Duke of Northumberland. He had been for twenty years detached from any particular corps, and entrusted with important offices. In 1779 he was appointed chief engineer to the St. Juan expedition, and conducted himself so as to obtain distinction and official praise. He also received the thanks of the Council and Assembly of Jamaica for the construction of public works there, and was in consequence appointed by the Governor of Jamaica to be Commander-in-Chief of the Island of Rattan and its dependencies, and of the troops there, and to rank as lieutenant-colonel and field engineer; and he commanded as such on the Spanish main, in Rattan, and on the Musquito shore, and the Bay of Honduras. After this, at Cape Graciosa Dios, he put himself at the head of the inhabitants, who voluntarily solicited him to take the command, and took from the Spaniards Black River, the principal settlement of the coast. For this he received the thanks of the Governor, Council, and Assembly of Jamaica, and of the King himself. In 1783 he was promoted to the rank of colonel. In 1784 he was appointed first commissioner for settling and receiving the territory ceded to Britain, by the sixth article of the definitive treaty of peace with Spain, in 1783. He so well discharged his duty as a colonel that he was appointed superintendent of his Majesty’s affairs on the coast of Honduras, which office he held much to the advantage of the Crown of England, for he got from that of Spain some very important privileges. The clashing interests, however, of the inhabitants of the coast produced much discontent, and the colonel was, by a party of them, accused wrongly, as it turned out, to his Majesty’s ministers, of various misdemeanours. He therefore came home, and demanded that his conduct should be investigated; but after two years’ constant attendance on all the departments of Government, he was at last told by the ministers that there was no charge against him worthy of investigation, and that his Majesty had thought proper to abolish the office of Superintendent at Honduras, otherwise he should have been reinstated in it; but he was then, and on every occasion, assured that his services should not be forgotten, but in due time meet their reward. Well it would have been for the colonel if he had rested satisfied with this intimation and waited quietly for the promised employment; but official delay, the circumlocution of a busy time, and the apparent spurns of his merit, which he took too impatiently, seem to have somewhat turned his brains. The colonel got irritated by continual disappointments, and began to vent his indignation in a public and unguarded manner.[20] He consequently was looked on in the light of a suspicious character, and was arrested and held for some time, in harsh confinement, in Coldbath-fields gaol, under the Act the 38 George III., c. 36 (continued by subsequent acts), which empowered “His Majesty to secure and detain such persons as his Majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and Government.” Imprisonment increased rather than amended the rancour and restlessness of Despard’s temper, and on his liberation he was little better than a lunatic: he had become a wild revolutionist, and, what was a strong sign of his mental aberration, an infidel. He daily grew more and more malignant against Government. Thus inflamed, he endeavoured to inflame others, and at length brought upon himself, and those poor ignorant wretches who were seduced by his arguments, disgrace and death. A madder or more miserable conspiracy than his never was hatched. It was revealed to the public in the following manner:—On the 16th of November, 1802, in consequence of a search warrant, a numerous body of the police-officers went to the Oakley Arms, Oakley-street, Lambeth, where they apprehended Colonel Despard, and near forty labouring men and soldiers, many of them Irish. Next morning they were all brought up before the magistrates in the Union Hall. The result of the examination was, that Colonel Despard was committed to the county gaol, and afterwards to Newgate; twelve of his low associates (six of whom were soldiers) were sent to Tothill-fields Bridewell, and twenty to the New Prison, Clerkenwell. Ten other persons who had been found in a different room, and who appeared to have no concern with the colonel’s party, were instantly discharged.

The colonel during all the preliminary examinations was invariably silent.

The Privy Council, the more effectually to try the prisoners, issued a special commission.

On the 21st of January, 1803, the special commission was opened at the Sessions House at Newington. The judges present were:—The Right Hon. Sir Edward Law, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench; the Hon. Sir Alexander Thomson, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer; the Hon. Sir Simon Le Blanc, one of the Justices of the Court of King’s Bench; and the Hon. Sir Alan Chambre, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas.

On the same day the Grand Jury met, among whom were Lord Leslie, foreman, Viscount Cranley, Lord William Russell, Sir Mark Parsons, and four other baronets. The names of Sir Mark Parsons and Lord William Russell awake in themselves criminal recollections, for Sir Mark’s father was hanged for felony in 1760, and Lord William was murdered by Courvoisier in 1840. This Grand Jury returned a true bill against Edward Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, John Doyle, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, Samuel Smith, and John Macnamara, for high treason.

The court then adjourned to the 5th of February following, when it again met at the same place, the Sessions House, Newington; and, on the same judges taking their seats, Edward Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, John Doyle, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, Samuel Smith, and John Macnamara were set to the bar, and, being arraigned, severally pleaded “Not guilty.” Despard had already had assigned to him for counsel Serjeant Best and Mr. Gurney. On the request of the other prisoners, Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Howell were assigned their counsel.

The prisoners’ counsel having signified that they should separate in their challenges of the jury, the Attorney-General stated that he should proceed first on the trial of Colonel Despard. The court then adjourned to the following Monday, the 7th February, when it met again, and the trial of Despard began before the same judges.

The counsel for the Crown were:—The Attorney-General, the Hon. Spencer Percival, afterwards First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Manners Sutton, afterwards Lord Manners and Lord Chancellor of Ireland; Serjeant Shepherd, afterwards Sir Samuel Shepherd, Attorney-General, and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer of Scotland; Mr. Plumer, afterwards Sir Thomas Plumer, Solicitor General, and successively Vice-Chancellor of England and Master of the Rolls; Mr. Garrow, afterwards Sir William Garrow, Attorney-General, and a Baron of the Exchequer; the Common Serjeant; Mr. Wood, afterwards Sir George Wood, a Baron of the Exchequer; Mr. Fielding, afterwards a police-magistrate; Mr. Abbott, afterwards Sir Charles Abbott, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, and Baron Tenterden. The solicitor for the Crown was Joseph White, Esq., Solicitor for the Affairs of his Majesty’s Treasury. The counsel for Colonel Despard were Serjeant Best, afterwards Sir William Draper Best, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and Baron Wynford; and Mr. Gurney, afterwards Sir John Gurney, a Baron of the Exchequer. The solicitor for Despard’s defence was Mr. Palmer, of Barnard’s Inn.

The indictment was opened by Mr. Abbott.

The Attorney-General, in addressing the jury, began by enforcing the necessity of a patient attention to his statement and a due consideration of the evidence. “No one,” he said, “would deny that, if there has been a plot to overturn the Constitution and destroy our Sovereign, the base conspirator should suffer his merited punishment, but the nature of the charge should not operate to his disadvantage; the grand principle of our law ought rather to be confirmed, ‘that every man should be considered innocent till he is found guilty.’” The Attorney-General then adverted to the nature of the crime of treason, and expressed his expectation that, if the charge were substantiated, the jury would pronounce the prisoner guilty without the least hesitation; and, after many remarks to show that there was not the least ground for suspecting the prosecution to have been brought forward from any party motive or prejudice on the side of Government, he concluded his preliminary remarks with observing, that from the clearness of the evidence, the trial could not be long. He then proceeded to state the counts in the indictment, which were three in number, and charged the acts to have been done with the intention of compassing the death of the king, imprisoning his person, and dethroning him. To prove the criminal intention, an overt act is necessary, and in this indictment eight overt acts were stated, which were divided into two classes: the four first charged the seduction of his Majesty’s troops, for the purpose of assassinating and imprisoning him; and the remainder, plans for the accomplishing of these purposes. After fully stating the law respecting treason and conspiracy, the Attorney-General read over the names of the persons included in the indictment, and observed that ten of them, besides the prisoner, were apprehended at the Oakley Arms on the 16th November. It appeared that, in the last spring, a detachment of Guards returned from Chatham, and shortly afterwards a conspiracy was formed for overturning the Government; a society was established for the extension of liberty, of which two men, named Francis and Wood, were very active members; they frequently attempted to seduce soldiers into the association, and sometimes with success. Francis administered unlawful oaths to those that yielded, and among others were two named Blaine and Windsor, giving them two or three copies of the oath that they might be enabled to make proselytes in their turn. Windsor soon after becoming dissatisfied gave information to a Mr. Bownas, and showed him a copy of the oath. This gentleman invited him to continue a member of the association, that he might learn whether there were any persons of consequence engaged in it. The prisoner at the bar tendered this oath; it was found in the possession of Broughton, Smith, and others. It was printed on the cards in these words:—“Constitution! the independence of Great Britain and Ireland! an equalisation of civil, political, and religious rights! an ample provision for the families of the heroes who shall fall in the contest! a liberal reward for distinguished merit! These are the objects for which we contend, and to obtain these objects we swear to be united.”

The form of the oath was:—“In the awful presence of Almighty God, I, A. B., do voluntarily declare that I will endeavour to the utmost of my power to obtain the objects of this union—namely, to recover those rights which the Supreme Being in His infinite bounty has given to all men; that neither hopes nor fears, rewards nor punishments, shall induce me to give any information, directly or indirectly, concerning the business, or of any members of this or of any similar society, so help me God!”

The Attorney-General then commented on different passages contained in this oath, and endeavoured to show that it could only bear a treasonable interpretation. Proceeding in his statement, he observed that, about the middle of summer, the conspirators began to think it might be dangerous for them always to meet at the same place. To avoid suspicion, they therefore went to various public-houses in Windmill-street, Oxford-street, St. Giles’s, Hatton Garden, Whitechapel, in the Borough, about the Tower, and to the Oakley Arms in Lambeth. To these meetings they invited soldiers, and treated them; toasts were given to answer the objects of the association, such as “the Cause of Liberty,” “Extension of Rights,” “the Model of France,” &c. They now increased greatly in audacity, and were betrayed by their confidence into the greatest extravagances; some of them proposed a day for attacking the Tower, and the great blow was to have been struck on the 16th November, the day on which the king first intended to go to Parliament.

“I shall hasten,” continued the Attorney-General, “in the statement of my evidence, to the later scenes of this conspiracy; because, during the early part of it, excepting in the instances of endeavouring to administer these unlawful oaths, the evidence will not bring Despard very forward in the conspiracy. But when it appeared to approach a little more to its maturity, the colonel appears a more conspicuous character. The events of the last week previous to his arrest will furnish me, I think, with no less than four opportunities of showing him connected with these conspirators, in most treasonable communication upon the design. On the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday on which they were arrested, on the 9th November, he was at the same Oakley Arms, in company with some of the same traitors in whose company he was found on the 16th. Broughton is a name I particularly recollect, who, I think, was the person that invited the witness whom I shall call to prove his having been there, and represented that the time was now approaching when it was intended that a great stroke should be struck. You may recollect that his Majesty had intended to meet his Parliament, the last sessions, a week sooner than he actually did. It was intended that he should have met Parliament on the 16th instead of the 23rd; and on the 16th it was the intention of these conspirators, supposing his Majesty had on that day gone down to the House, to have carried into effect this plan of destroying him. On the night of the 9th of November, I shall show the prisoner to have been present amongst these conspirators. I shall prove him likewise to have been present at a meeting that will be very particularly deserving of your attention on the Friday. The same Broughton will be proved to have prevailed upon two persons, whom I shall call to you as witnesses—Windsor was one of them, and Emblin another—to go on the Friday to the Flying Horse, at Newington, Broughton telling them that if they went, they would meet a nice man there, and find that things were in a fine train. They accordingly went, and the nice man whom they found, and to whom they were there introduced, was Colonel Despard, the prisoner at the bar....

“That meeting lasted about two hours; and the plan of carrying this treason into execution was the main subject of conversation. The mode in which the Tower was watched and guarded was one topic of conversation, with a view to see what facilities or difficulties might attend an attack upon that place. The principal thing, however, which will require your consideration, was the plan of intercepting the king in his way down to the Parliament House; this was discussed. The difficulties attending it—the mode in which these difficulties were to be met with and got rid of—were parts of the conversation supported by different persons. I think it was Broughton who suggested that one good way would be to shoot the horses of the coach, and then the coach would necessarily stop; upon which it was observed by one of them that the Life Guards who were surrounding the coach would cut down any man who attempted to approach it; and on this occasion the prisoner at the bar made use of expressions which will be particularly spoken to, and will be particularly worthy of your attention. Upon its being stated that the Life Guards would resist any attempt that should be made upon the coach, and cut down any man who should approach it, and on its being asked who would be found to do it, he said that if no one else would do it, he would do it himself, accompanying it with an expression strongly demonstrative of the turn and frame of his mind at the moment, and of the desperate extent to which he meant to carry his treason; accompanying his expression by no less remarkable words than these: “I have well weighed the matter, and my heart is callous.” Gentlemen, this cannot be equivocal; callous, indeed, must be the heart which meditated the plan that I charge against him; and the expression could hardly be used with reference to any other.”

The Attorney-General then observed, that Government was well aware of the proceedings of these people, but would not interfere while danger was at a distance; however, when the schemes were nearly completed, about thirty prisoners were arrested at the Oakley Arms, and a sufficient body of evidence collected to prove them guilty. The conspirators consisted of the lowest order of the people, as journeymen, day-labourers, and common soldiers, with the exception, however, of the prisoner at the bar. Several were discharged; and Windsor, the evidence, came after the arrest, and offered to deliver himself up and communicate all information in his power: on his testimony several others were taken into custody. These were the principal points in the speech of the Attorney-General; but he continued for some time to expatiate on the probable system of defence for the prisoners, which he conceived would be principally an attack on the credibility of the witnesses: he contended that an accomplice is competent; observed that there could not be a doubt of the guilt of some of the prisoners; and that the papers were sufficient to prove the conspiracy, independent of oral testimony. He concluded thus:—

“I trust you will have no extraordinary feeling that should lead you to think that you are to endeavour to extricate the prisoner by any strain of ingenuity or of conscience in this case, which would not be properly applicable to another. Undoubtedly the nature of the charge is such as requires, as I stated, your most anxious attention. It is one of the blackest and most mischievous that can come before you; but when it is brought home to the prisoner, the effect of these considerations is at an end. That he will even then, and to the last, be entitled to the fullest possible measure of justice at your hands, is that which unquestionably is true. His title to justice he can never forfeit; it cannot be forfeited in a court constituted as this is; administering English law by an English jury, under the direction of English judges; but that there shall be any feeling of humanity, which should be restlessly anxious to extend itself in his favour beyond those bounds within which both public and private duty confine it, is that which the prisoner has no title to expect, is that against which the public have a right to protest and to reclaim. I fear I have troubled you too long; I shall now proceed to call the witnesses, and if I do lay before you the evidence as I have opened it, confirmed as I have stated that it will be confirmed, I apprehend your duty to convict the prisoner, however painful the discharge of that duty may be to your feelings, will be indispensable.”

Counsel then proceeded to call the witnesses for the prosecution.

Mr. J. Stafford, clerk to the magistrates of Union Hall, stated the arrest of the prisoners. Colonel Despard at first refused to be searched, but afterwards submitted, though nothing was found on him. There were three papers on the floor, which proved to be the oath, &c., already mentioned. Several police-officers proved the presence of Colonel Despard at the Oakley Arms.

Thomas Windsor, the principal evidence, said he was a private in the Guards, and that on his return from Chatham in March, he received some papers from John Francis which were similar to those already mentioned. Francis told him the object of the party was to overturn the present tyrannical system of government. The manner of taking the oath was by reading it secretly and then kissing the card. One object of the members was to raise subscriptions for delegates to go into the country, and to pay for affidavits. The society was divided into companies of ten men, commanded by another who bore the title of colonel. Francis and a person named Macnamara called themselves colonels. Encouragements were given to get a number of recruits, for which purpose cards were to be distributed through the country; afterwards, the witness was introduced by Broughton to Colonel Despard, at Newington, when in the course of conversation the colonel said that a regular organization in the country was necessary, and he believed that it was general. The people were everywhere ripe, and were anxious for the moment of the attack; “and,” added he, “I believe this to be the moment, particularly in Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and every great town throughout the kingdom. I have walked twenty miles a day, and wherever I have been the people are ripe.” Colonel Despard then said that the attack was to be made on the day when the king would go to Parliament. He then repeated the words used by the colonel respecting the callousness of his heart, and stated that, after the destruction of the king, it was proposed the mail coaches should be stopped as a signal to the people in the country that the revolt had taken place in London. The colonel was cautious as to the admission of new members. At another meeting the colonel, accompanied by Heron, a discharged soldier, and another person, observed, “We have been deceived as to the number of arms in the Bank: there are only six hundred stand there, and they have taken the hammers to render them useless, as they must have been apprised of our intention.” They then returned to a public-house, when the colonel said privately to the witness, “Windsor, the king must be put to death the day he goes to the House, and then the people will be at liberty.” He said he would himself make the attack upon his majesty if he could get no assistance on that (meaning the Middlesex) side of the water. The prisoner Wood said, that when the king was going to the House, he would post himself as sentry over the great gun in the park; that he would load it and fire at his majesty’s coach as he passed through the park. Wood might in the course of his duty be sometimes placed as a sentry over that gun.

Mr. Bownas proved the copy of the “constitution” and oath given to him by Windsor.

Thomas Blaise, a private in the second battalion of Guards, deposed that Wood had told him of the union of several gentlemen who had determined to form an independent constitution at the risk of their lives and fortunes: he said the executive government had appointed Francis to be colonel of the first regiment of National Guards. Macnamara called upon Francis to point out three colonels and one artillery officer, and charged him to do it with the utmost impartiality. Francis then pointed out him (the witness) as a proper man for a colonel. The commissions were to be distributed previous to the attack, when one of the persons, named Pendril, observed, that if it had not been for four or five cowards it would have taken place before that day, adding that he himself could bring a thousand men into the field, and if any man showed symptoms of cowardice he would blow his brains out; if anybody dared to betray the secret, that man, he said, should have a dagger in his heart. The witness then deposed to meeting with Colonel Despard at the Oakley Arms, on which occasion he heard much conversation about the best method of attacking the king: some said the Parliament house must also be attacked, and after that they must file away for the Tower. This witness, on his cross-examination, admitted that he had been three times tried by a court-martial for desertion, and accused of theft.

William Francis, a private in the 1st Guards, deposed nearly to the same effect as the preceding witness, as to the nature of the oath which was read to him, because he could not read himself; he said, at one time there was an assemblage of people near the Tower, but they were immediately dispersed by orders from Colonel Despard, but he admitted that the oath was administered to him by the colonel himself; at one meeting the soldiers drew their bayonets, and said they were ready to die in the cause. On his cross-examination, he denied that he had ever been flogged, or had deserted.

John Connell, who had been arrested at the Oakley Arms and admitted evidence, denied that his name was John, and insisted that it was Patrick; he afterwards admitted that he was advised by the prisoner to play this trick on the counsel. He was dismissed.

Several other soldiers in the Guards gave evidence as to the meeting of societies for overturning the Government, under the name of “Free and Easy,” which met at different public-houses.