Part 23

“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.

John Emblin, a watchmaker and a witness, who appeared to be of a superior understanding, deposed that he attended at the Oakley Arms on the suggestion of Lander, but disapproved of the plans. He also agreed in stating the plan of attack already mentioned, which was explained to him by Broughton, Graham, and others. Colonel Despard informed him that a very considerable force would come forward, particularly in all the great towns: and said that he had been engaged in this business for two years, and added, “I have travelled twenty miles to-day; everywhere I have been, the people are ripe and anxious for the moment of attack.” This witness deposed to the plan of shooting the horses, as well as to the remarkable expression of the colonel before mentioned; also to the conversation about seizing the Bank, when it was agreed that the Bank should be seized and the Tower taken. Various subordinate plans were also detailed by the witness; amongst others, Broughton told him, with an oath, that he was resolved to load the great gun in the park with four balls or chain-shots, and fire it at the king’s coach as he returned from the House.

Here the evidence for the Crown was closed.

Serjeant Best then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and endeavoured to show that, from the nature and spirit of our constitution, a person in his situation is entitled to peculiar favour. From the Act the 36 Geo. III., c. 7, on which the indictment was partly founded, he insisted that it is not by mere words spoken, that an accused person is to be found guilty, because a speech is subject to such serious misinterpretation. He laboured to show that words did not constitute an overt act; yet he admitted that the colonel was at some of the meetings, and that he might have spoken obnoxious words; but before he could be convicted, it was necessary to prove that he knew the meeting was of a treasonable nature. He denied that the printed card or paper was at all connected with the colonel, and cited the case of Layer and others (in the sixth vol. of the “State Trials”), to prove that the Crown did not content themselves with such trivial proofs as here adduced, and laid much stress on the circumstance of no arms having been prepared for the attack. His next object was to impeach the credibility of the witnesses, the concurrent testimony of whom was, in the present instance, of no more force than one. The great improbability of the story was his next point of argument, and he ridiculed the idea of fourteen or fifteen in a common tap-room, with no fire-arms but their tobacco-pipes, men of the lowest orders of society, who were to seize the King, the Bank, the Tower, and the members of both Houses of Parliament; in short, he considered the whole statement of the witnesses as too absurd to merit attention, and that Colonel Despard, who was a gentleman and a soldier, could not have embarked in such impracticable schemes unless he was bereft of reason. He then alluded to the past services of the colonel, who, in a joint command with Lord Nelson, had preserved one of our valuable colonies. It was known that the colonel had been suspected by Government; but though he had long been confined, there was not at that time sufficient evidence against him to go before a grand jury. He proceeded to comment on the character of the witnesses, and concluded thus:—

“I am persuaded, that at this late hour of the night, fatigued as I necessarily must be in passing through so arduous a service, some observations must have escaped me, and those which have occurred to me I have not pressed with that force which the occasion demands at my hands, but I have one consolation in the assistance of my learned friend, who will soon follow me, and supply my defects; or even if he should fail in doing that, we have this further consolation, that everything that can be urged in favour of the prisoner will be stated by the noble and learned judge. Any defect of mine he will supply, any inaccuracy he will correct. I have only to remind you, that you are sitting in a British court of justice. It is one of the maxims of the country in which we live—that maxim upon which everything dear and valuable depends—that you are to administer justice in mercy. You are sitting in a court of justice, which is a member of the government of a free people; you will remember that it is one of the principles of freedom, that men are not to be compelled to an adherence to the government by terror, but to be attached to its laws by love. I am perfectly persuaded, therefore, that if you should agree with me presently in saying this case is not made out, and it is not to be made out by conjecture, you are not to condemn unless all idea of innocence be completely extinguished by the weight of the evidence that has been produced upon the cause,—I say, if you should agree with me in saying you do not see satisfactory grounds for delivering over this gentleman to that horrid death to which you assign him if you pronounce him guilty, a verdict of acquittal will have a greater effect than a verdict of guilty. Gentlemen, I say we are attached to our constitution and laws by love, and are not bound to adhere to them by fear; that love must necessarily be increased by such a circumstance as this, that after so many hours of trial, by so respectable a jury, men of consideration and consequence in the country, this gentleman, after the attack which has been made upon him, is delivered from it by your verdict. I am persuaded that, if there are any deluded persons in this country who fancy we have not attained that degree of perfect freedom which is capable of being attained, though I should hope what has lately passed would operate completely to remove that delusion, nothing will so completely satisfy them of their mistake as a verdict pronounced by you of not guilty, to-night. They will know, that when a subject is attacked by a prosecution not made out by fair and clear evidence, he is sure of protection in the uprightness and integrity of the judge, and the mercy of the jury who try the cause. They will learn that true freedom consists in the just and humane administration of law, and will observe and cherish the laws they find to be so administered. I at one time intended to offer evidence in contradiction of these witnesses, but if I have shown them accomplices, and that the case is only proved by their evidence, I have shown them unworthy of contradiction, and the attempt could only serve to increase the fatigue you have already undergone; but I shall offer most material evidence: I shall offer evidence of the character of this gentleman. If courts of justice are intended to correct the morals and confirm the virtuous inclination of those who attend them—which is one great object of their institution—they cannot do it more effectually than by paying attention to the evidence of good character; it is telling a man that if, by the tenor of his life, he shall acquire a good character, it shall afford him a shield in a court of justice in the day of trial. The evidence of character must have effect in another point of view. The Attorney-General has said every man is to be supposed innocent till proved guilty. It is much less likely that a man who has maintained a good character should become on a sudden the vilest of men, _nemo repente fit turpissimus_, than that one who has appeared less correct should become criminal. I say, if this gentleman has borne a good character, which I shall show he has, that the case attempted to be made out against him is most improbable. One would almost believe that the stream should set back upon the fountain, than that a man who has deserved well of his country should concur with such miserable persons as you have heard to-day, in one of the most miserable conspiracies for treason that I ever heard of. I have too good an opinion of the loyalty of the country to give credit to this story. If the case is made out, it is a most detestable and abominable treason. If the case is made out, no man but would with satisfaction see the sentence of the law executed; but remember the maxim of the Attorney-General, that, in proportion as the crime is enormous, so ought the proof to be clear. Gentlemen, I beg your pardon for troubling you at such a length at this time of night.”

Serjeant Best, confining his evidence for the prisoner to witnesses for character, called, as a leading witness, no less a personage than Vice-Admiral Horatio, Lord Viscount Nelson, K.B., who was examined by Mr. Gurney as follows:—

How long has your lordship known Colonel Despard?—It is twenty-three years since I saw him; I became acquainted with him in the year 1779, at Jamaica. He was, at that time, lieutenant in what were called the Liverpool Blues. From his abilities as an engineer, I know he was expected to be appointed——

Lord Ellenborough.—I am sorry to be obliged to interrupt your lordship; but we cannot hear what I dare say your lordship would give with great effect, the history of this gentleman’s military life, but you will state what has been his general character?

To this Lord Nelson answered:—We went on the Spanish Main together; we slept many nights together in our clothes upon the ground; we have measured the heights of the enemy’s wall together. In all that period of time, no man could have shown more zealous attachment to his sovereign and his country than Colonel Despard did. I formed the highest opinion of him, at that time, as a man and an officer, seeing him so willing in the service of his sovereign. Having lost sight of him for the last twenty-three years, if I had been asked my opinion of him, I should have said, “If he is alive, he is certainly one of the brightest ornaments of the British Army.”

Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson was thus cross-examined by Mr. Attorney-General:—

What your lordship has been stating was in the years 1779 and 1780?—Yes.

Have you had much intercourse with Colonel Despard since that time?—I have never seen him since the 29th of April, 1780.

Then as to his loyalty for the last twenty-three years of his life your lordship knows nothing?—Nothing.

Two other distinguished witnesses spoke in favour of the character of the Colonel—viz., Sir Edward Clark, at one time Governor of Jamaica, who had known the Colonel for many years up to 1790, and Sir Evan Nepean, Bart., Secretary to the Admiralty, who had been intimate with him from 1784 until almost up to the time of the trial. “I had,” said Sir Evan, “so high an opinion of him, that I invited him to my house. I considered him a loyal man.”

Mr. Gurney spoke to evidence in behalf of the prisoner, and endeavoured to invalidate the testimony of the witnesses; his peroration was eloquent.

“Before I sit down,” said he, “I must entreat your serious attention to one observation more. There have been many cases in the history of the criminal jurisprudence of this country, which should impress caution on the minds of jurymen: many in cases of other crimes; many in cases of treason. How many innocent men have died in consequence of the credulity of jurors? I will refer you only to the supposed Popish plot in the reign of Charles II., for which as many men as are indicted here suffered unjustly; the juries by which they were tried being deceived by the hard swearing of witnesses, not more infamous than those whom you have heard to-day: and yet those juries were countenanced by the whole nation, the two Houses of Parliament leading the way. So firm and general was the belief of that plot, that to dispute or doubt its existence was deemed a mark of disaffection to the Protestant cause. In a short time the veil was torn off: the perjury, which had triumphed, was discovered to be perjury, but it was too late; the dead could not be recalled from the grave; and the jurors who had sent them there were left to the bitter reflections of their consciences,—to the unavailing lamentation of their credulity. But, though these persons died _unjustly_, I trust they did not die _in vain_. Their innocent blood speaks aloud to you not to follow the fatal example of your predecessors; not to lend, as they did, too easy faith to the testimony of wicked men. May you attend to the warning voice, and pronounce a verdict of acquittal, of which, I trust, you will never have reason to repent.”

Colonel Despard declined saying anything in his own behalf.

The Solicitor-General replied on the part of the Crown, after which Lord Ellenborough summed up, and stated the nature of overt acts; he read, _verbatim_, the whole of the evidence, commenting, as he proceeded, on the most striking parts.

The jury withdrew at about twenty minutes after two o’clock on the Tuesday morning to consider their verdict; they returned into court in about twenty-five minutes with a verdict finding the prisoner—Guilty.

The foreman added, “My lord, we most earnestly recommend the prisoner to mercy on account of the high testimonials to his former good character and eminent services.”

At three o’clock the court adjourned to nine o’clock on Wednesday morning, when it again met, and the trial of 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, commenced and lasted till near eight o’clock the next morning, when the jury found John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, and John Macnamara, guilty.

After which Edward Marcus Despard, John Wood, Thomas Broughton, John Francis, Thomas Newman, Daniel Tyndall, James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander, Arthur Graham, and John Macnamara, were set to the bar.

Lord Ellenborough then passed sentence of death upon the prisoners in a rather high-flown speech. After describing in the strongest manner the enormity of the crime of which they had been convicted, and observing that such vile purposes, however zealously begun, generally terminated in schemes of treachery against each other, he then proceeded:—

“With respect to the wicked contrivers of abortive treason now before me, it only remains for me to acquit myself of my last official duty. As for you, Colonel Despard, born, as you were, to better hopes, and educated to nobler ends and purposes; accustomed as you have hitherto been to a different life and manners, and pursuing with your former illustrious companions, who have appeared on your trial, the paths of virtuous and loyal ambition,—it is with the most sensible pain I view the contrast formed by your present degraded condition, and I will not now point out how much these considerations enhance the nature of your crime. I entreat of you, by those hopes of mercy which are closed in this world, to revive in your mind a purpose to subdue that callous insensibility of heart, of which, in an ill-fated hour, you have boasted, and regain that sanative affection of the mind which may prepare your soul for that salvation which, by the infinite mercy of God, I beseech of that God you may obtain. As to you (naming the other convicts), sad victims of his seduction and example, and of your own wicked purposes; you who fall a melancholy, but, I trust, an instructive, sacrifice, to deter others from the commission of similar crimes, may you apply the little time you have to live in the repentant contemplation of another world. Warned by your example, may the ignorant and unthinking avoid those crimes which bring you to a shameful and untimely end! May they learn duly to estimate the humble but secure blessings of industry—blessings which, in an evil hour, you have cast from you! The same recommendation offered to the leader of your crimes, to prepare for the awful and near termination of your existence, I earnestly impress upon you; and I repeat for you my ardent invocation of mercy in a future state which the interest of your fellow-creatures will not suffer to be extended to you here. The only thing now remaining for me is the painful task of pronouncing against you, and each of you, the awful sentence which the law denounces against your crime, which is, that you, and each of you, (here his lordship named the prisoners severally) be taken to the place from whence you came, and from thence you are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; for, while you are still living, your bodies are to be taken down, your bowels torn out, and burnt before your faces; your heads are to be then cut off, and your bodies divided each into four quarters, to be at the king’s disposal; and may the Almighty God have mercy on your souls.”