This is the whole of the evidence for the prosecution which I have felt it my duty in this case, so important to the prisoner at the bar, to state to you.

On the part of the prisoner, the first witness called was Thomas Chambers; who says, that he lives at No. 3, Heath-cock-court, in the Strand, nearly opposite the Adelphi. He is called to impeach the character and the testimony which was given by the witness Adams; and he says, "I had seen Adams in company. with Edwards about a week before the Catostreet business took place; I was by myself in my room when they came together; they made a proposal to me about the assassination of the king's ministers, and asked me to go with them; I refused; Adams said to me they were going to kill his majesty's ministers, and they would have blood and wine for supper; they came to me again on the Monday-night, (it was a wet night) before the Cato-street business; they brought a large bag and wanted to leave it. I am a boot-maker; I cannot say how long I have known Ings; I have not been in his company above two or three times. I met him near the court where I live, at a pamphlet shop, where they sell the Black Dwarf and the Medusa; the shop is kept by Watling; I know the Scotch Arms in Round-court, in the Strand; it is near my lodgings; I never saw Ings there; I had been there three times before Christmas; there was no business going on, nor any chairman; the three times I was there, I was in the tap-room; I have been at the Black Dog in Gray's-inn-lane; there was no chair there, it was in a little parlour, and I saw seven persons there; I was invited there by a man of the name of Bryant, who was going to the Cape of Good Hope; they were all strangers to me but one, and that one whom I knew was Thistlewood; I know Brunt very well, but he was not there; I will not swear I do not know Palin; I have not had any conversation with him, but I may have seen him; I was at all the meetings in Smithfield; I cannot state who carried the black flag upon that occasion, but I have carried two flags; there was inscribed on one, The Manchester Massacre;' never saw a flag, Let us die like Free men, not live like Slaves." On Hunt's entry, I carried a flag of "Trial by Jury;' I know Davidson; I have not much knowledge of Tidd, I may have seen him; I have seen Wilson; I know Harrison very well; I have not much knowledge of Bradburn; I do not know Strange, nor Gilchrist, nor Cooper; I have known Thistlewood since Mr. Hunt's triumphal entry; the proposal of assassination shocked me so, that I did not go; Bow-street was near me, but I did not myself go to Bowstreet and give any information; I do not know whether Edwards knew of my acquaintance with the other people."

Then the next witness who is called, is Mary Barker, the daughter of Tidd. She says, some powder was found at his house, and some grenades and balls; "they were brought

in the morning by a man and a boy; I know Edwards; he brought some of the grenades, Edwards was the man; they were taken away and returned; I saw Edwards on the morning of the 23rd, he came and took some of the grenades and powder away; they might be the same that were brought back on the 24th, but I do not know; there was one very large one; Adams brought it; that was not brought back again."

Upon cross-examination she says, “the box had been there two or three days; I do not know how long the grenades had been there they might have been there a fortnight; it was on the morning of Wednesday that they were taken away; the box was kept corded, it had not been opened to my knowledge.”

This is the evidence on the one side, and on the other; and it is for you to say whether, upon this evidence, the prisoner at the bar be or be not guilty of the criminality imputed to him by this indictment; one of the charges being a conspiracy to depose the king, and the other a conspiracy to levy war against the king; such as I have before stated.

You have been truly told, that the nature of this offence consists in the intention; and the intentions charged are those which I have pointed out. The overt acts themselves are but manifestations of the inward intent, and if such overt acts as are stated are estab lished by the evidence, there can be no doubt that, in point of law, the prisoner is guilty.

Now first, with respect to the purpose —It must be a public purpose: and the purpose charged is an intention to bring about a revolution in the government, to compel the king to change his measures, and to put many of those employed in the administration of the government to death, by the means that have been stated and proved. But still, if this were merely an intention to assassinate the king's ministers, and that such assassination should end with itself, however diabolical such a design would be, still having no ulterior public view, it would not be the offence imputed; but it will be for you to judge on the facts in proof, what were the motives, and what the end and object of the conspiracy in question.

To begin with the evidence of Adams. If you believe him, there can be no possible doubt in the case; for he proves the origin and progress of different meetings, from time to time, at which this scheme was formed and matured, up to the moment when it was preparing to be carried into execution. But you have been told, and truly, that Adams is an accomplice; that he is a man, upon his own confession, as guilty as those against whom he appears to give evidence; and so undoubtedly he must be taken to be. But it is not to be expected in cases of this sort that an accomplice can ever be an innocent person: the very nature of his situation imports, that he himself is connected in guilt with those whom he stands forward to accuse; and if the doctrines which we have heard this day could be adopted, it would

never be possible to call an accomplice, because his testimony would be got rid of by the single observation that he was an accomplice, that is, a guilty man himself. At the same time you have been truly told, that though in point of law an accomplice is a witness competent to be received, and therefore one who in point of law it is competent to a jury to believe, yet in the practical application of the rule, juries ought not to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless his testimony receives proper and reasonable confirmation. Upon this part of the case, I have heard the law not intentionally but grossly mis-stated; the rule is, that an accomplice must be confirmed-confirmed in some particulars, but not confirmed in all; for you have been truly told, that if this last were the rule, it would be unnecessary to call an accomplice; because if the other persons could confirm him in all, by proving the same facts themselves, their evidence would supersede the necessity of his evidence, and therefore it is not necessary to confirm an accomplice in all particulars, the rule being, that it is necessary only to confirm him to such an extent as that upon the facts stated by other witnesses, the jury may see that he is worthy of belief. Now is this, or is it not, the case of Adams?

Gentlemen, to take first the testimony of the three witnesses, to whom I have referred the maid servant who let the lodgings-Mrs. Rogers, to whom the house belonged-and Hale, who was the apprentice of Brunt. What is proved by all these three witnesses? You will judge, whether it be or be not the strongest possible confirmation of the evidence of an accomplice, which perhaps it is capable of receiving. Adams had told you that a back room was taken in Fox-court, Gray's-inn-lane; that it was taken by Brunt for Ings, who was described to be a butcher out of employ; and it is distinctly proved-confirming in that particular every part of Adams's testimony-that the room was taken for Ings, that the meetings were held in this room, that he continued there up to the night of the meeting in Cato-street, that he never returned there after that night, and that Brunt, another of the party, went out at the same time, returned the same evening, and conducted himself in the manner you have beard. All these essential and leading features of Adams's evidence, are confirmed by the testimony of these accredited witnesses. And not only this, but on that very evening you find that Brunt came home, and told his wife that it was all up; that the police officers had found their way into the loft; that he himself had escaped only with his life; and then, shortly after, came in another man, who also had been present, and who stated, he had received a blow. The apprentice, Hale, upon whose character no imputation is attempted to be cast, proves the poles, the bags, pikes, and pistolsall these deadly preparations going on from time to time in the apartment of Ings, in the house from which Ings and Brunt sallied forth

on the night in question. Ings never did return to it; and Brunt returned and behaved himself in this way. The next morning the officers found Brunt packing into two baskets, to be conveyed away, all the different arms and ammunition, which have been produced before you; therefore, if the case rested upon the testimony of Adams only, is this such confirmation of the truth of the story told to you by him, as to make him a witness worthy of your belief? So I state the question, leaving it to you to answer it to yourselves.

Independent of this, there is the testimony of Monument, with regard to whom, if it rested merely on his testimony, it might be said, that one accomplice cannot be confirmed by another; but unfortunately it does not, for his brother, who is not implicated, proves Thistlewood and Brunt coming to the house. He confirms every part of the testimony of Adams as to this part of the case; and in addition to this, you have the evidence of another witness, and that a person who stands in a very different situation-the evidence of Hiden. He, up to a certain time, had engaged in the transac tion in question; but such was his remorse of conscience, so completely did he sicken in mind as this night approached, that you find that before the parties assembled in Catostreet, he did that which he could not have done unless, as I stated before, he had possessed the spirit of prophecy;-he actually, in order to prevent the mischief intended, went to lord Castlereagh's, and afterwards to lord Har rowhy's, and delivered the letter, a forewarning to prevent what would otherwise have taken place. Whether he be, therefore, an accomplice up to a certain stage, or not, it is immaterial to examine; he was not an accomplice at the time he did that, which tended to defeat the plan proposed.

Nor does it rest on the testimony of Adams so confirmed, or Monument so confirmed, or the fact of the delivery of the letter, but you will judge whether this story is not also confirmed by all that took place on the night in question in Cato-street. There you find, as sembled in the stable and in a room spread over with armsa hay-loft I might almost say converted into an arsenal-a number, and of the number was Ings the prisoner, of persons drawn up, as it were in military array, on the point of sallying forth, he was seized-he es caped; he was pursued he turned round and fired a pistol; and on being asked by one of the officers, what he meant by shooting at him an innocent man, he said, to kill you, and I wish I had done it-I am sorry to add, but it is my painful duty to draw your attention to the evidence, that a sword was taken from a man not known at the moment by the person who took it to be Ings, but proved to be him by two other witnesses; and when he was seized, there was found on his person a sheath or case fitted to the knife of which you have heard, and under his coat and over his shoulders were found those two bags of which Adans had

spoken; the bags in which the avowed intention was to carry away the heads of some of the murdered party.

Now this is truly, in all its circumstances, a case of a most extraordinary nature. It is admitted, that all these persons were met (not it is argued for a treasonable purpose) but with an intention to proceed to a cabinet dinner, to assassinate all the ministers assembled there; to what motive can this be referred? Was it private malice? Was it personal revenge merely? The lots of the prisoners at the bar were cast too widely asunder from those of the objects of their vengeance, to permit us to account for their plan on any grounds of private or personal difference. Is it possible to suppose, that the object was to commit a murder merely, and stop there? Of this you will judge, looking to the nature of the preparations made; not merely daggers concealed, but long staves for pikes; not merely cartridges for pistols; but cartridges of a size to charge artillery; grenades sufficiently strong in their construction, to be equal to the power of a nine-inch shell-the number of arms-the quantity of ammunition-the military dépôtthe fire balls, and the surveys made.-Connecting this with what relates to the Mansion-house and the Bank-the provisional governmentand the expectation that the people would rise and join-it is for you, gentlemen, to judge, whether this was merely to lead to and end in the assassination of the king's ministers; or, whether there was not an ulterior purpose of insurrection and revolution, to which the assassination was but preparatory and subser

vient.

But it has been said, is it probable that persons comparatively so few in number should suppose themselves able to accomplish such a mighty purpose as to bring about a revolution in the government of the country? I cannot tell what in their estimation might be probable; but this is a most uncertain test by which to judge; for if I had been told there could be found five-and-twenty men the face of the earth, and still more (and I grieve to say) five-and-twenty men of the country to which we have the happiness to belong, who could have combined to commit such a dreadful deed of barbarity and blood, I should have said, till they had been detected in the way in which these persons have been

on

detected, it is utterly impossible! It never did happen-it never can! I cannot believe on any testimony that it is intended. But how fallacious would have been such reasoning is proved too clearly by the fact! And the fact established, the next step I fear is of no difficulty whatever. For that public revolution could only have been intended by such means, is as difficult to disbelieve as it was difficult to believe in the means till established. Besides, upon the evidence, it will be for you to say, whether extensive co-operation was not the support and consequence to what they looked, as proved expressly not only by the measures but by the different declarations given in evidence.

The prisoner has called witnesses to impeach the testimony of Adams, of whose evidence you will judge. You have heard his defence, which I need not repeat to you, and in which he has desired you, before you dis pose of his case, fully to examine all the cir cumstances, and well to weigh the verdict you may pronounce. In that prayer I most readily join. Weigh well the evidence! Deliberate thoroughly on the result! And if in conclu sion you can have any doubt of the facts which constitute the overt acts charged, or the purpose alleged as connected with them; if you think that, however horrible, this was an intended assassination, and nothing more; that the conspirators were to go into the house, commit the murder, and then separate, and that with that separation all operations were to cease-if this should be your opinion-in the honest exercise of your judgment apply it to the case, and acquit the prisoner. But, on the other hand, if it be impossible fairly to form such a judgment, then you will perform that duty which in the name of that Being referred to more than once in the course of these pro

ceedings, you have been sworn well and truly to discharge, and pronounce the prisoner guilty because you believe him to be so. Finally, if you have any doubt, give him the benefit of it, and nobody will rejoice more than I shall, if you can, with satisfaction to your consciences, pronounce him not guilty.

The Jury withdrew at twenty-five minutes past eight, and returned in twenty-five minutes, finding the prisoner GUILTY ON the first and third counts,

SESSIONS HOUSE, OLD BAILEY,

MONDAY, APRIL 24th, 1820.

Present

Mr. Barclay was sworn.

Edward Hughes, gentleman, excused on account of illness.

Edward Grant, cow-keeper, excused on account of illness.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Richardson.
The Common Sergeant,

And others his Majesty's Justices, &c.

[The Prisoner was set to the Bar.]

The Jury Panel was called over, commencing with No. 219.

Richard Emery, cooper, challenged by the Crown.

Stephen Gaurd, bricklayer, challenged by the Crown.

John Apple, drug-grinder, excused on account of illness.

Thomas Brayne, mason, challenged by the prisoner

William Butler Baker, challenged by the Crown.

William Benn, farmer, challenged by the Crown.

John Roper, gentleman, fined for non-attend

ance.

William Norton, sawyer, challenged by the prisoner.

William Blasson, gentleman, challenged by the Crown.

Alexander Barclay, gentleman, and grocer.

Mr. Barclay. My lord, I feel so completely influenced by the facts that came before me on the former trial,+that I really do not feel myself a competent judge.

Crown.

Joseph Sheffield, esq. and ironmonger, challenged by the prisoner.

Thomas Goodchild, esq. sworn.

Joseph Haynes, bricklayer, challenged by the Crown.

Robert Stephenson, anchorsmith, challenged by the Crown.

Mr. Stephenson.-I am sorry to be under' the necessity of appealing to your lordship, but I should think, having been challenged twice I may claim a right to withdraw altogether.

Lord Chief Baron.-Certainly not.

Mr. Stephenson.-I have always applied myself strictly to do my duty, as I have been taught from my infancy, but I conceive I am trifled with.

Mr. Solicitor-General.-It is no reproach to any gentleman that he is challenged, either on the one side or the other, and ought not to be

so considered.

Lord Chief Baron.-No, certainly not. Richard Blunt, gentleman, challenged by the prisoner.

Isaac Gunn, baker, challenged by the Crown.
William Churchill, gentleman, and wine-mer-
chant, challenged by the Crown.
Thomas Suffield Aldersey, esquire, sworn.

the parties object.

Mr. Curwood.-We prefer him, my lord, because he will be able to see the difference.

prisoner.

under these circumstances.

James Herbert, carpenter, sworn.

in point of law.

See the preceding and following Cases. He was one of the Jury on the trial of Arthur Thistlewood.

Josiah Bartholomew, watchmaker, challenged by the prisoner.

Now, and in the case of Arthur Thistlewood.

count of illness.

Joseph Clements, market-gardener, excused on account of illness.

John Fowler, iron-plate worker, sworn.
Samuel Rhodes, esq. and cow-keeper, challenged
by the prisoner.

William Gibbs Roberts, cooper, sworn.
Richard Smith, esq. challenged by the Crown.
Joseph Pendered, iron-plate worker, challenged
by the Crown.

Thomas Garrett, shipwright, challenged by the
Crown.

Matthew Ashton, coach-master, challenged by the prisoner.

Richard Hutchett, esq. and farmer, challenged by the prisoner.

John Dickenson, builder, sworn.

William Bushby, esq. fined for non-attendance. Thomas Austin, esq. excused on account of illness.

John Dobson, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Thomas Dicks, silversmith, challenged by the

Crown.

Thomas Wood, painter, challenged by the pri

soner.

James Gates, joiner, challenged by the Crown. Robert Wells, farmer, challenged by the Crown. Edward Bracebridge, watchmaker, challenged by the Crown.

Crown.

Thomas Partridge, farmer, challenged by the prisoner.

George Henn, ship-chandler, challenged by the Crown.

Thomas Harby, esq. and rope-maker, challenged by the prisoner.

William Jarrett, watch-engraver, challenged by the prisoner.

Samuel Wimbush, horse-dealer, fined for nonattendance.

John Bunting, gentleman and tailor, challenged by the Crown.

William Dawes, farmer, challenged by the Crown.

William Cooper, gentleman, challenged by the prisoner.

Robert Greaves, gentleman, excused on account of illness.

Christopher Dowson, ship-builder, challenged by the Crown.

William James Farmer, baker, challenged by the prisoner.

David Newman, farmer, challenged by the Crown.

George Thorpe, clock-case maker, challenged by the Crown.

Henry Seaborn, cooper, excused on account of illness.

Francis Sherborn, esq. and farmer, challenged by the prisoner.

Edward Simpson, shipwright, challenged by the prisoner.

William Davies, shopkeeper, challenged by the Crown.

Richard Franks, esq. and silk-mercer, challenged by the Crown.

John Smith, undertaker, sworn. Thomas Langley, ship-chandler, challenged by the Crown.

George Priest, esq. challenged by the prisoner. Samuel Wilson, gentleman and merchant,

Mr. Curwood.-I have no cause to shew, my challenges are exhausted.

Mr. Attorney General.-The prisoner shall not suffer inconvenience from that circum

stance.