they were all so poor, they could wait no longer than the following Wednesday! Now apply your common sense to the transactions stated; is it not more consistent that these poor men were only waiting to begin a system of riot and plunder, rather than a system of rebellion and war against the government of the country? I stated to you before, that as a system of levying war, the scheme was so absurd it was wholly incredible; that it did not become credible because it was sworn to; and more particularly that it did not become credible because it was sworn to by a witness of such infamous character. On former occasions, my learned friend and I went through with more particularity the evidence in detail; but I will now merely give you the outlines of it. The first was their scheme of assassination, which I do not mean to deny has so much confirmatory evidence as to raise a fair inference in your minds, that they contemplated that fact; but you have also the admission of the learned counsel for the Crown, that that fact does not amount to high treason; that the crime of high treason consists in the levying or conspiring to levy war, and not in killing or conspiring to kill the ministers. Let us now, therefore, look to their preparations and means for levying war. They talked of having forty men, and with these they were to possess themselves of the cannon in Gray's-inn-lane; how many men it might require for that I do not precisely know, but without horse and without apparatus I should think the parish watch would have prevented their performing that service. They were further to detach another part of these forty to take the six pieces of cannon in the Artillery-ground; how many men it would require for that object a rough guess would enable us to judge of. They were to send another detachment to prevent a single orderly going to Windsor; a single man could not perform that task, but they must send a sufficient detachment to take possession, not only of the usual road, but they must have a sufficient force to prevent the men passing out over any of the bridges, or by any other road; they must therefore take possession of every outlet from London; they were to take the telegraph, to prevent a communication with Woolwich; they were to dig trenches, to prevent the approach of cavalry; and all this with a force of forty men! Now, I ask, whether the absurdity or madness of this supposed plan does not. make it wholly incredible; even after giving full credit to the assertion of my learned friend, the Solicitor-general, that men in their eager ness to obtain an ultimate object overlook in termediate difficulties? Are these difficulties they have overlooked, or are they not the ravings of insane minds? Who has told you these designs existed? The witness Adams -you are to believe him; why? because, say the learned gentlemen on the other side, he is confirmed. He is confirmed as to certain VOL. XXXIII. things, I admit; but because he is confirmed in certain things, are you to believe every absurdity that so infamous a witness chooses to state? I told you before, and I beg leave to call your recollection to it again, that he is not confirmed as to those points which involve the crime of treason. He is confirmed as to the procuring of the arms, and so far he may be confirmed as to the point relating to the assassination; but he is not confirmed as to those plans which he says passed at their deliberations, and which alone make the treason. Monument was not there; he cannot and does rot confirm him; and as far as he knows and states, he does not certainly confirm the plan for levying of war. Hiden was not there; he does not attempt to confirm him; and I think in cross-examination, he told you expressly in words, that he had no knowledge of any conspiracy or plan for levying of war; therefore, all he confirms, is the plan of assassination, not the plan of levying war; and do not, I pray you, forget for a single moment, that the plan of levying war is the only thing which constitutes treason in this count of the indictment: There was one piece of evidence indeed, which, from reading the notice given to the prisoners, I was taught to expect would have been produced, which would have been mainly confirmatory of their supposed intention to excite war in the state. The prisoners had notice to produce a proclamation, which was said to have existed, and which would have clearly manifested their intention, namely, a proclamation, "that their tyrants were de stroyed; that the friends of liberty were called upon to come forward as the provisional government was then sitting." Signed, “James Ings, secretary." Now, if that proclamation were in evidence before you; if it had been produced; if it could have been produced; or even if its existence could have been proved by testimony such as you could believe, I must here admit at once, however visionary, however absurd all their schemes were, yet if you had unquestionable evidence that such were their schemes, that such had been their deliberations and consultations, however absurd they were, I must have admitted the case was made out against these men. But is that fact confirmed at all? neither Monument nor Hiden, the confirmatory witnesses, say a word about it; they know nothing about it. Does any other witness confirm it? I will tell you what the supposed confirmation of this proclamation is, the witness Adams has told you that such a prociamation was written, and that six sheets of cartridge paper were sent for, upon two or three of which sheets of cartridge paper these proclamations were written. Hale proves he was sent to fetch cartridge paper; is the sending for a sheet of paper any proof what was afterwards written upon that paper? the wicked ingenuity of this fellow, feeling that he had here to make out a case of high treason, has availed himself of a fact in the cause, 4 Y which could be proved, to introduce a fact into the cause which I am bound to say did not exist, because there is not a shadow of proof of its existence; he does not even tell you, that those proclamations were destroyed. The witness who confirms the fact of sending for the paper, afterwards states what I consider another important fact, namely, that among the things in the cupboard was found part of the cartridge paper: now, if any thing had been written upon that cartridge paper, if even a fragment of it had been left, if you could only have found the words, "provisional government" upon that paper, I would have said that was a fair inference for you to say, that having found a part, you might fairly believe the rest which was spoken to, though not found there. But there is not a single fragment of writing, nor a single witness who affects to have seen it; but you see a part of the paper is found afterwards in the cupboard without a blot upon it. The men had no suspicion when they set out on this plan, that they should be taken; but when they are taken, not one word of this proclamation is found upon them, and the whole proof of this most important piece of evidence which is to give a colour to all the rest, remains on the unsupported testimony of a witness such as Adams, who has described such facts of himself that I can hardly find terms to say what the man is; but I must say, and do and must ever feel, that he is one of the basest of mankind; and even in the witness box shows that he is not worthy of credit. Now, can you believe this piece of evidence upon the testimony of such a man? who is not included in the indictment, though throughout the evidence in the cause he appears to be a most active conspirator; he is at every meeting; you find him manufacturing the hand-grenades; he is the man who is charging the fusees; why is he not called? why is he not here? My learned friends must pardon me for saying, that I think every witness, who by any possibility could give confirmation to such a man as Adams, ought at least to appear in that box to be examined, and to stand the test of cross-examination; and you must suspect there is something amiss behind, when that witness is not called before you. It may be said, that though Edwards was there, and is not called, there were other conspirators present, who are not in the indictment, and whom the prisoners might have called, and who are competent witnesses. If this had been a case of mere guilt or innocence there might have been a great deal more in that argument; but, inasmuch as those witnesses cannot be called to say that they are innocent men, for if they come here they must admit that they have been guilty of great and atrocious crimes, though they might conscientiously and truly swear, that they had not been guilty of this specific crime, they would come into this court with halters about their necks, and would not be suffered to leave that witness box, but most probably would be sent from thence to Newgate. Is it likely, then, that they should be brought here by the prisoners? Let not that argument, therefore, press too heavily against the prisoners. If If, then, it be material and necessary to there was any truth in this story, there would confirm this man, are there other sources from have been matter, as I apprehend, of confirmwhich he might have been confirmed? because ation from other quarters; because, on the if there be any one man in existence, who night when these parties met in Cato-street, could have given confirmation to this man, but, to carry into execution that plan, which ĺ who is not called, you will mainly suspect, that perhaps must admit they had in contemplation; if that man was called, so far from confirming if there was any truth in the testimony of him, he must have destroyed the whole of his Adams, as to their ulterior plan, at that very testimony. There is a man in existence, we moment other parties ought to have been proknow, who could have confirmed him; there ceeding towards the Artillery-ground and is a man in existence, who has been called to Gray's-inn-lane. Now, however, the plan in confirm him, but that man is not called again; Cato-street failed; it did not fail time enough I mean a man of the name of Dwyer. There to prevent the operation of the other parties. was an attempt made, when that man was If there were any truth in the idea of this plot, called, to impeach his testimony, and I sup- there would have been some attempts in the pose you did not think his testimony upon other parts of the town. Now it appears, that that occasion was impeached, because I am every thing was quiet there, and that therefore, bound to assume, you gave credit to him. My as far as it operates at all, operates in contralearned friend, the attorney-general, seems to diction to the case of the Crown. think I am irregular in what I am stating,. that I ought not to allude to the former trial. Mr. Baron Garrow.-It is not strictly correct, but one is reluctant to interrupt a gentleman in your situation; but even if your conclusion is right, that the jury did not believe his evidence, it would be the more proper for the Crown to pause as to calling him again. Mr. Curwood. My argument is, that the jury did believe him then. But there is a man of the name of Edwards, There is, I admit, connected with this plan of assassination a great deal of conversation it not be explained according to now existing about public dissatisfaction. Can that, or can events? That this lower order of politicians had taken a scheme of arming themselves, perhaps it is impossible to deny ; but what I deny is, the inference that my learned friend, the counsel for the Crown, drew from it, that because they took to arming themselves, therefore they must of necessity have contemplated raising rebellion against the constituted au themselves, without resorting to the supposition adopted on the other side, that because they armed themselves they were of necessity contemplating war and rebellion. What fortifies me in this conjecture, and what produces the little pleasure that could affect one's mind in the contemplation of the transaction, as it is detailed to us, is this; I do not find that the witness Adams, on any one occasion, has stated expressions hostile towards the person of the king; this, at least, is a feature of the case very distinguishable from the cases which happened in the year 1794. I dare say many of you recollect the proceedings of the reforming societies of that day, when not only our sacred sovereign, but the very kingly office itself were spoken of in terms which made one shudder. And I am most happy to lay my finger on any thing which can relieve the general gloom of this case. In no part of this transaction, as it is stated to us, is there evidence that a malignant expression was used against the king's person; and if I might here deviate to state a private feeling of my own, I feel it with particular satisfaction, for I am one of those who think we ought never to name our king and our sovereign, either publicly or privately, without respect and veneration. I do not deal in the language of adulation, gentlemen; I am one of those who think the name of the king ought never to be mentioned without respect; and I do not say so from motives of flattery, but from what I consider sound constitutional principles. Because that does not restrain me or any man from boldly and fearlessly canvassing the acts of any administration, and expressing freely my opinion of their results; for the acts of an administration are to be condemned if bad, not as being the personal acts of the king, but as the acts of men who, by bad advice, mislead their sovereign; and I have therefore a right to oppose the acts of any administration boldly and freely, so it be done with decent language and temperate conduct, and I do not, in so doing, fail in the least in that reverence and respect due from every subject to the royal person and authority. thorities of the country. In other times, and under other circumstances, perhaps, it might have been a strong argument that it was so intended; but look only to recent events, and see whether in those recent events you do not find a key to the whole transaction. I have alluded before, and must of necessity allude again to a late public transaction (for where the course pursued by the counsel for the Crown is the same, my track to follow them must be the same also), though it might be tedious to the same persons to hear the same things repeated again and again, yet it becomes a duty, and some of you have not heard what others have. Then let me call your attention to the event at Manchester; where an immense population, as it now appears, unarmed, were attacked by an armed force. In speaking of this event, I am most anxious to say nothing that should intimate an opinion from myself either on the one side or the other; here I wish to discard, and I hope you will do the same, any political feeling I may have respecting men who are entitled to be defended and judged of according to the strict letter of the law, without any regard to their actual or supposed political conduct. But most certain it is, that by one set of men that attack was considered a necessary act of duty; another set of men, who were favourers of government in the main too, thought it an act of oppression on the people; while another party did not hesitate to call it the massacre at Manchester; and as they considered it an attempt, on the part of government, to prevent the exercise of the legal right of Englishmen to assemble and discuss their grievances, and to put a stop to that which we consider as one of the best constitutional safe-guards (I say nothing, gentlemen, who are right, or who are wrong), but this I know, it was felt or said by many, that, inasmuch as people could not assemble unarmed with safety, many of the demagogues took advantage of that feeling, and held out to the people that it was necessary they should arm themselves to attend those meetings which they considered as legal assemblies; and that explains what Thistlewood said to Monument, "All my people are arming themselves;" he does not go on to tell him we are all arming ourselves for the purpose of raising rebellion against the government; but taking the current feeling of the day among certain people of the country, it is this; "notwithstanding the attempts to prevent our public meetings, we will continue to meet, to discuss our grievances; and as we may be attacked by an armed force, we will arm to repel force by force." I do not say that it was not a desperate resistance of the law, but be it so. If any of you think it was, still that will not warrant you in coming to the conclusion, that the men who so acted are guilty of high treason in levying war against the government. This transaction will furnish you with a clue to a great deal of the conduct of these persons; it will furnish you with the reason why these men were arming In the variety of evidence which has been given to you on this occasion, perhaps you will pardon me if I pause for a moment to see what further observation may present itself on dif ferent parts of it. One observation strikes me at this moment, that a witness, such as Adams, at least, should be consistent in his testimony. But I cannot fail of observing, and it appears upon his cross-examination, therefore I may observe upon it here, that on every trial he has varied something, and added something new; now a man who came in the first instance to tell you a story so much in detail, ought not to have added other material facts. But I cannot fail to observe that as the case of every separate prisoner has come forward, he has found out some new fact pressing proportionably harder upon that particular prisoner. This at least is a suspicious feature in his evidence, and will not render it more worthy of credit at your hands. With respect to the confirmation he has received at the hands of witnesses whom you cannot suspect, that confirmation does not go to the point of treason: recollect, the treason is the motive of their assemblies, and is to be inferred from what passed in their deliberations; that rests wholly upon himself; no other witness speaks to that matter. The first head of confirmation which is given is, that they took a room (two or three witnesses are called who concur in that respect) at the back of Brunt's, and had frequent assemblies there; that is a fact not denied; but it is not their meeting in that room, it is what were their deliberations when they were so met, which you are to consider. To illustrate this; suppose in any one of the clubs (the shoemaker's club for instance, which has been talked of) Mr. Monument had come forward, and stated, that in this shoemaker's club there were treasonable conversations carried on, and that some person had come and proved that all those parties met in this room; he is confirmed as to their being there; but are you therefore to believe a most wicked witness, when he invents all sorts of stories as to the conversations in that room? Then there is another piece of confirmation, that certain persons were watching about lord Harrowby's door; that is, I admit, a confirmation of part of his story, but to what extent? it is a confirmation of the story, that they had in design this desperate assassination plot, but it is not a confirmation that they meant to levy war against his majesty; that does not stand confirmed; so that all the confirmation coming from unsuspected sources goes to the extent of an assassination plot, but not a conspiracy to levy war against the constituted authorities of the country. It has struck me in re-considering this very important case, that I may have overlooked (what if I have overlooked must be ever matter of deep regret to me) a very important consideration of the evidence, which, if I am right in my present view of it, ought not only to serve the present prisoners, but ought to have served those who have gone before them; the English law in its great regard to the subject's safety, with respect to the crime of treason, has said, no man shall be held guilty of treason, without being convicted by the testimony of two witnesses; and here, for a moment, I would beg his lordship's attention: there must be two witnesses to a substantive treason. I do not mean to contend there must be two witnesses to each overt act, but there may be one witness to one overt act, and another witness to another overt act, of the same species of treason. Then let us look at the substantive treasons stated in this indictment, and at the overt acts there charged in support of them, and see if there be two witnesses to a substantive treason, or if any two of the overt acts be proved by any witness, except Adams. The indictment (and you will consider it with great attention) states eleven overt acts; they are differently stated in three of the counts of the indictment; but I believe they are in substance all the same. When I have gone through the overt acts in the first count of the indictment, you will consider whether you find two witnesses speaking distinctly to the same thing. The first count, as you know, turns upon whether they intended to levy war or not; and the first overt act stated is, that they met, and assembled, and conspired and consulted, to devise, arrange and mature plans and means to subvert and destroy the government and constitution of the realm. Now, the fact of their meeting is proved by several witnesses. That I admit; but it is not simply the fact of their meeting, upon which this is to depend, it is with what intent they met. Who proves that they met with an intent to overturn the constitution? Adams. Who else proves it? who says any thing more of the deliberations than Adams? no one: therefore it rests solely on the testimony of Adams-that is the first overt act. The second overt act is pretty nearly the same in substance; that they did meet and conspire to stir up, raise, make and levy insurrection, rebellion and war.Mind, it is not the fact of their meeting which is the overt act, but it is the intention with which they met which is to be proved. Who proves the intention with which they met but one witness? Look through the series of witnesses called, and see whether you find another witness who proves the intention with which they met. The third overt act is, that they met with a design to assassinate divers of the privy council of our lord the king; that I admit is proved by more than one witnessdistinctly proved; but you are next to ask yourselves, whether the overt act, when it is proved, furnishes an inference as a necessary consequence, that the overt act proves the levying of war and rebellion. I have an admission of the learned counsel, that to assassinate the whole privy council does not of itself amount to high treason. Mr. Baron Garrow.-I understood Mr. Gur ey to admit, that a conspiracy to murder a privy councillor is not high treason; but I never heard him admit, that an overt act (proved over and over again) to murder his majesty's ministers, is not to go to the jury for them to infer, whether that was with an ultimate design of deposing the king and levying war against the king. I do not wish to interfere with your argument, but I think you have misunderstood the admission. Mr. Curwood.-Mr. Gurney admitted, as the law is, that to conspire to murder, or even actually to murder, the whole privy council, is' not of itself a substantive treason. Mr. Baron Garrow.-No man will understand, and especially when it is in the hands of the counsel for the prisoners, that there is the least impatience on the part of the Court; but when you stated broadly, that you had an admission, I thought it right to call your attention to it, for the purpose of seeing whether there was such an admission. I hope you will not consider my interruption as inconvenient or improper. Mr. Curwood.-On no occasion would I consider the interruption of his lordship as unkind; I have on too many occasions to thank him for great urbanity. I did not state, that it was not evidence from which you might infer another object, but I contend, that that being proved, you were not precluded from exercising your own judgment; that you were not bound up from considering, whether they had or not another object in view. The learned counsel for the Crown admitted, that of itself it was not high treason; and my argument is, that it not being high treason of itself you were not of necessity to suppose it was to be followed by high treason; you may, in your judgment, think it is good evidence-that there is something else to follow; or you may say, on the other hand, that there is no evidence that any thing was to follow. I put it merely as an argument to your understandings, and not as conclusive evidence. The next overt act is varying only the terms of it; that they did procure divers arms and weapons to assassinate divers of the privy council; to which the same argument applies. I admit the fact; but I say, that having admitted the fact, it does not of necessity follow, that they had any other object in view. Then, the seventh is, that they conspired to seize cannon with an intention to arm themselves, and other false traitors, to levy and make war. You must take the whole of it together, not merely the conspiring to seize cannon, but for that particular purpose of levying war against the king. Why, perhaps they had no such purpose to levy war against the king; still it reverts back to the testimony of Adams the only witness who speaks to the purpose of their minds. The next overt act is, that of conspiring to set fire to certain buildings; that I admit has been proved, but I deny the consequence. I say, they might conspire to set fire to buildings, but whether for the purpose of plunder, or for the purposes of levying war, is a matter for you to decide upon; and that does not yet appear in evidence, except on the testimony of Adams. Then comes the overt act, that they published divers proclamations; but there is not a tittle of evidence except that they published one, and that from the mouth of Adams. Then the next is, that they published a specific proclamation. Mr. Baron Garrow.-Is it publishing, or preparing? Mr. Curwood.-I beg your lordship's pardon, it is preparing. Then comes this specific proclamation. Now, I have argued before, that that proclamation is not at all in existence; it is a mere invention of Adams; but even supposing that he speaks truth upon this occasion, what else is there to confirm him? it rests solely upon the testimony of Adams. Then comes the rest-an insurrection actually to levy war, that is, in fact, if I may so call it, a sweeping overt act; and the argument I have had the honour to address to you before, equally applies to this. That is the whole question, whether there was, or not, any design to levy war against his majesty. Now, I believe I have submitted at least the leading points of the evidence to your consid eration. I have not attempted to dilate much upon it, because in the exercise of the duty men, I have thought it best to convey my that I have to perform to these unfortunate meaning in as few words as I possibly could. I have not attempted any thing like declamation; I have confined myself to such arguments as have presented themselves to my mind, praying you to take into your consideration many others that must present themselves to brevity I have not confused what I meant to say. your own; but, as I said before, I trust by my If I have had the good fortune to state intel ligibly those arguments I have presented, I can only conclude by imploring you to lay out of your minds all which has passed on former occasions, weigh deliberately and seriously before you condemn men to death upon the testimony of such an infamous witness as this man appears to be. At least be satisfied that what I was going to pray, I know you will he is confirmed by unsuspected testimony; and grant-Those amongst you who have proshould, on a calm and dispassionate review of nounced verdicts on former juries, if you the testimony of this man, see reason to alter your former opinions, have the manly fortitude to do it; and do not, because without impeachment to yourselves in another view of the evidence you have come to another conclusion, think that conclusion binding upon you now. This is all I ask, and this I know you will readily grant. EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONERS. Mary Barker sworn.-Examined by You are the daughter of Tidd, who now stands at the bar ?-I am. Do you know a man of the name of Edwards?—Yes. Do you know a man of the name of Adams? -Yes. Did Edwards ever leave any thing at your father's lodgings, or house?-Yes, he did. How long before this dreadful affair in Catostreet?-About a fortnight, I think. What did he leave there?-He left things, that I since have heard were grenades, and likewise powder. Do you remember the grenades by their shape ?-They were in a kind of cannister. Was one of them considerably larger than the others? Yes. |