witness for the Crown. You all know that a person so circumstanced, must, of course understand, that if he conducts himself with propriety, and tells the truth, he will receive a pardon from the Crown. I would ask you then, what motive he can possibly have to relate the case otherwise, than as it really occurred? What reason can there be why he should charge himself and his associates, with a crime of a different description, and of a blacker die than that in which they were really engaged? And will you suppose that a man without motive, without any reason that has been suggested or even hinted at by the counsel for the prisoner, would add the guilt of perjury to his other crimes, and that too for the purpose of consigning so many of his fellow-creatures to a disgraceful and ignominious death? Is it possible that you can conceive any individual, without at least some motive of interest to himself, guilty of such base and complicated wickedness? Will you not, therefore, require some very clear, distinct, and satisfactory evidence, to lead you to the conclusion of his having falsified the facts of the case, when he can derive no possible advantage from such conduct, and no motive can be assigned for so base and infamous a proceeding?

But there is another observation, which I beg leave to press strongly upon your attention. The witness has told you, that at the various meetings to which he has spoken, different individuals from time to time attended who were the associates of the prisoner at the bar he has mentioned, among others, a person of the name of Hall, who is at this moment within the reach of the prisoner; he has mentioned a person of the name of Potter, the friend of Brunt (for you recollect upon the morning after Brunt's return, when he was engaged in securing the baskets of ammunition, his apprentice Hale, was desired to carry them to Potter's house, in Snow's-fields); the witness has told you, that both Hall and Potter were at the last meeting in Fox-court; he has told you that Palin was at this meeting, another of the prisoner's associates, and Harris also has been mentioned, in whose house the prisoner was apprehended. All and each of those persons might have been called for the purpose of proving that Adams had given a false account of what passed at these meetings. If his account were really untrue, as the counsel on the other side have supposed, is it possible to give any satisfactory answer to this observation? Does it not carry conviction to your minds? Does it not prove to demonstration, that the account given by Adams, as to what passed at those meetings, is, in every particular correct? If Hall were not present, he might, as stated by Adams, have been called to prove the falsehood of the charge. If, on the contrary, he did attend, he might have been called to prove, that the account which Adams has given of what passed upon the occasion was false; the same with respect to Palin; the same with respect to Potter; the

same with respect to Harris. My learned friend has not ventured to touch upon this circumstance, because his excellent judgment assured him it was a fact so unmanageable and decisive, that it was impossible to give to it even a plausible explanation or answer.

Having then stated in what manner Adams might have been contradicted, if the story which he has related were untrue, let me now direct your attention to the manner in which his evidence has been confirmed,-not as has been suggested, merely in trivial matters, or from doubtful sources; but in the most important particulars, and from the most unsuspected and unquestionable testimony, the whole forming a body of corroborative evidence, so strong and irresistible, that no person who does not wilfully shut his eyes, and blind his understanding, to the force of truth, can, for a moment, entertain a doubt, as to the conclusion to which it inevitably leads.

You will remember that one of the first witnesses called after Adams, was a person of the name of Hale. He was apprentice to Brunt, connected with one of the prisoners, a witness above all suspicion. No questions were put to him on cross-examination, tending to raise a doubt as to the truth of his story; nothing was thrown out for the purpose of leading you to suppose, that there was any impeachment of his character. Now, I beg leave to request your attention-and long and painful as this inquiry has been, I am sure you will give it to me-while I recall to your recollection those marked circumstances of confirmation, arising in the first instance out of the testimony of Hale. He has told you that the room was hired by Ings and Brunt; that they looked at it together; and that Brunt said to Ings, "it will do, go and give her a shilling." Brunt, therefore, was concerned in hiring the room. But where there is guilt, concealment is generally attempted. What was the account Brunt gave to Mrs. Rogers? It appears she entertained some suspicion of Ings. She asked Brunt who he was. He replied "that he was a butcher by trade." "I know nothing of him," he said," except seeing him accidentally at a public-house.' gives the same account in the presence of the Bow-street officer, Taunton. Is this then correct or false? Does it not appear, by the testimony of Hale, that for good or for evil he was at the very time he was giving this account, most intimately and closely connected with Ings? He tells you again, that after the room was taken, these parties continued to meet there night after night, for the period of five weeks. He names the particular individuals who were in the habit of attending. Now is it supposed, by my learned friend, that this is inconsistent with the evidence of Mrs. Rogers? When the question was put to Mrs. Rogers, she said, "I saw Davidson and some other men once. I cannot say that they met often." But she immediately afterwards explained the reason of this. She said "she

He

could give no account of it, because she was seldom at home." Here then is Hale, an unsuspected witness, the apprentice of one of the parties, stating upon his oath, that these meetings were held every night, and attended by the prisoners. Does not this then confirm, in a most important point, the evidence of Adams? For what purpose did they meet? Was there any object of business or amusement in which they were engaged, to account for this circumstance? Has any attempt been made to explain it by evidence, or even by statement? Up to this moment has any motive, consistent with the innocence of the prisoners, been assigned for these meetings? It was an unfurnished room, containing nothing but a single chair, Ings having stated at the time when he hired it, that he should bring in furniture, but which he never attempted to do. I repeat it then, do not these circumstances spoken to by Hale, confirm in the strongest manner the testimony of Adams?

Mark another fact. Adams tells you, that arms were from time to time collected in this room, and afterwards carried to the dépôt; he particularly speaks to a number of pike staves brought there for the purpose of having ferrules put on them. This is the account given by Adams; and here I beg you will recollect that Adams is in custody, and has had no opportunity of communicating with Hale. He is at large, no charge has been preferred, or was ever thought of being preferred against him. He tells you, that one day the door being accidentally open, he observed a number of these pike-staves, to the amount of about twenty in the corner of the room. How does he describe their appearance? They were like branches recently cut from trees. You have seen them corresponding with the description which he has given. Hale confirms Adams; and the fact is established, that this was one of the places made use of for collecting arms. There is another circumstance connected with these pike-staves, to which I beg to direct your attention. It was stated by Adams, that Bradburn was employed to put on the ferrules, and that it was done in the room. What in this respect is the testimony of Hale? He says, "about the time I observed the pike-staves, I heard a hammering and sawing repeatedly in the evening." Could Adams have anticipated this? These circumstances, at first view apparently trifling, become of infinite importance, in considering the credit due to the narrative of Adams; for it is impossible that they could have been invented or arranged for the occa

sion.

But there are other circumstances of a character still more marked and decisive. You remember that Adams stated, that on the Saturday, these parties had become impatient. It had been originally intended to make an attack upon the house of one of the ministers, when the cabinet were all assembled at dinner. The death of the king had interrupted these entertainments. There was no oppor

tunity of carrying the project into effect; and Brunt afterwards stated, in the presence of one of the witnesses (Monument), that the death of the king had altered their plans. Now, to advert to the testimony of Adams. On the Saturday, having become impatient, the pri soner said, " we must have a meeting to-morrow; we must form a committee, and consider what can be done." This was immediately previous to the 23rd of February. You are told by Adams, that a committee was accordingly formed on the Sunday morning; that it consisted of more than the usual number of persons, and sat for a considerable time in deliberation upon the project which they had in view. What is the evidence of Hale? He also tells you that there was a meeting on the Sunday morning, and that it was of a different character from the previous meetings. It was attended by a larger number of persons, and they appeared to be more closely engaged in consultation together. I do not read the evidence as I go along; I wish as much as possible to relieve you from unnecessary repetition; but if you will hear and attend to these observations, and bear them in mind when the evidence is recapitulated by the learned judge, I will pledge myself, that you will not, in any instance, find them built upon any mis-representation or mis-statement. Should, however, any error occur, I am persuaded, that you, the prisoner at the bar, and all who hear me, will be satisfied, that in a case of this descrip tion, it must, on my part be wholly unintentional.

Nothing further decurs in the testimony of Hale, until the day when the project was to be executed. Adams tells you, that about four or five o'clock on that day, he was in Brunt's room; that Strange and another man, whom he did not know, came in and fitted flints into five or six pistols; and that Brunt being ap prehensive that they were overlooked by persons on the opposite side of the way, desired them to go immediately into the back room. Hale states the same facts almost in the same terms. In this particular also he confirms the testimony that has been given by Adams.

It is suggested to me that something occurred-but perhaps I am a little out of course in adverting to it now in the adjoining room when Dwyer was there; and that it was contended by the counsel for the prisoner, that Adams did not agree with Dwyer in his account of that part of the transaction. But you will recollect that Adams told you he did not go to the room on the 23rd of February, till late in the day, till three or four o'clock in the afternoon, and you remember Dwyer quitted the room by one, so that it was impossible that what was said in the presence of Dwyer could have been heard by Adams.

But to revert to the evidence of Hale, you will no doubt recollect another remarkable circumstance of confirmation to which I am about to direct your attention. Thistlewood was desirous of preparing a proclamation not

his endeavours to carry it into effect? And so it was evidently understood by Monument.

It is impossible not to call to one's recollection in this inquiry, the former station in life of the prisoner Thistlewood. He has been an officer, I believe, in his majesty's service; he has moved in the situation and rank of a gentleman; and yet you find him with his previous habits descending so low as to become the intimate companion and associate of journeymen mechanics, and of others in the humblest condition of society, associating with them daily, holding consultations with them in a small unfurnished back-room, in an obscure court, inhabited by the most obscure individuals. Is there not some extraordinary mystery in this association? Would he have stooped to this indignity, unless he had had some great object in view, which he was desirous of accomplishing, and which he could only accomplish by their means? Is not this conduct on the part of the prisoner a circumstance that must weigh greatly in your deliberations upon this case, and the nature of the enterprise in which he was engaged?

But to return to the evidence of Monument. He proceeds to Cato-street, and upon his arrival there the whole plan is developed to him. But it is suggested by the counsel for the prisoner, that as far as relates to Catostreet, there is some discrepancy between the evidence of Adams and Monument. The former stated the number in the room to be twenty; and when Monument was there Thistlewood observed, that the number was twenty-five. But how does this upon a little inquiry turn out? When Adams arrived, all the party had not assembled; Tidd and Monument, and probably some others, came in afterwards; and it is further to be observed, that the men were not actually counted, there being nothing but the mere declaration of Thistlewood that they amounted to twenty-five. These then are the supposed contradictions, which, for want of better matter, are relied upon for the purpose of endeavouring to persuade you that the evidence of Adams, or Monument, or of both of them, is not worthy of credit.

Some other differences of a trivial nature have also been insisted upon, between the account given by Adams and the statement of the officers, as to what passed after the latter had arrived at the stable. But can you suppose for a moment, from this circumstance, that Adams was not present at that meeting? Who does not know, that in a scene of confusion of this description, when the mind is agitated, and every thing is in a state of disorder and tumult, the account given by those who are present, and eye-witnesses of the facts, will always be at variance in some particulars from each other? One man recollects one circumstance, and another person will observe and recollect another; and it is a common observation in courts of justice, and I refer to it, because observations would not be re

peated until they become trite and hacknied, unless they were founded in truth,—that when two men describe the same transaction, if they describe it precisely in the same way, it leads to a suspicion of their veracity, and of previous arrangement and concert; for it is inconsistent with the nature of the human mind, that they should, in a confused and complicated transaction, agree in all the minute particulars of their story. And I therefore repeat, that not the slightest inference can be raised in favour of the prisoner from any supposed difference between the statement of the officers and that of Adams, as to what took place at the moment of ascending the ladder. Ruthven, the first who mounted the ladder, did not hear any person call out from below; Adams, on the contrary, said, somebody called out, "Look_above there," as the officers approached; Ruthven did not remember this, nor Ellis-therefore my learned friend says, there is some contradiction, and you ought not to believe that Adams was present. But you will recollect, that Westcoatt said he heard these expressions used; and I mention this circumstance to confirm my position, and to show, that honest men, acting with the best possible intentions, when giving an account of the same transaction, will often, in many particulars, differ from each other. Ruthven tells you that he called out, "Seize their arms, we are officers!" now whether he said any thing about a warrant or not, I will not take upon myself to assert; but another officer says, the word warrant was used. Really, when such circumstances are relied on by my learned friend, you must, out of respect to his judgment and talents, feel that he is under the necessity of resorting to them, and of catching even at straws, because he has nothing more substantial upon which to rest his defence.

I beg leave now to advert to a witness of considerable importance in this case, I mean Dwyer. Some attempt has been made to impeach his credit. Dwyer told you, he had lived thirteen years with the same master, Mr. Smith. That account is not contradicted. A person of whom you knew nothing, of whose credit you have no means of judging, comes here for the purpose of telling you, that the conduct of Dwyer, upon some former occasion, about two months ago, was infamous; and that therefore he would not believe him upon his oath. Dwyer denies the fact alleged against him. Who is this witness that presents himself before you? A labouring mechanic: we know nothing further of him. Can any reason be assigned, why you should place more reliance upon his testimony than on Dwyer himself, who has lived and worked for thirteen years with the same master. But observe the conduct of this witness, who comes to impeach the credit of another. He tells you that a base and infamous proposition was made to him by Dwyer, and he acceded to it. It is true, that according to his own statement he afterwards withdrew, but he still continued