James Sedgwick Wratten, William Lander
Arthur Graham, Samuel Smith, and John
Macnamara.

At the request of the prisoner Despard, Mr
Serjeant Best and Mr. Gurney were assigned
his counsel.

All the prisoners pleaded Not Guilty. Mr
Jekyll and Mr. Hovell were assigned counsel
to all the prisoners except Despard.

The counsel for the crown were Mr. Attorney-
General, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Serjeant
Shepherd, Mr. Plumer, Mr. Garrow, Mr.
Common Serjeant, Messrs. Wood, Fielding, and
Abbott; solicitor, Joseph White, Esq.

Macnamara was an Irish carpenter; Graham,
a slater; Wratten, a shoemaker; Broughton, a
carpenter; Wood and Francis were soldiers. It
was the old cruel story of those unhappy times.
A reckless conspiracy, fomented by spies until it
was ripe, and then crushed by a stupid but firm
minister. It was spies who had urged on all
the treasonable conversation.

Mr. Serjeant Best made a brave fight of it
for poor Despard, contending that there was no
proof of his sharing in the attempt to seduce
the army from its allegiance. "It is a rule,"
he said, "of law upon the subject of treason,
that the crime cannot be made out by mere
words, but must be evidenced by acts, deeds, or
writings, I mean to say that it is not upon the
parole testimony of witnesses only that a man
is to be convicted. But it may be said there is
a printed paper found in this case. I do not
care whether that paper be treasonable or not,
is it connected with Colonel Despard, except by
the testimony of Francis, one of the most infamous
men alive? According to the evidence, the
traitorous scheme was on the eve of being
carried into execution. The Tower was to be
seized on the 6th of September, and yet no
evidence is offered to show why this important step
was not carried out. Gentlemen, there were no
deeds of preparation; there are no writings, the
possession or knowledge of which is brought
home to Colonel Despard.

"It is a rule of evidence that the case shall
be made out by credible witnesses. I say
accomplices may be called, but their evidence
ought not to be regarded unless a complete
crime is proved by other witnesses; that is,
their evidence may be used to corroborate the
evidence of other and credible witnesses. Ask
yourselves whether one tittle of evidence to
affect the gentleman who now stands before
you has been proved in this case, except by the
evidence of accomplices. Unless his being
present at the meeting at the Oakley Arms is
sufficient to prove he is guilty, there is no
other circumstance but what comes from
accomplices. It may be said that though the
testimony of one of the four—Windsor, Francis,
Blades, and Emblin—would be insufficient, yet
the concurrent testimony of the four is
sufficient. But, gentlemen, if men conspire to
fasten a crime about the neck of others, they
will take care that all their stories agree. Show
there is ground to presume they have concerted
together for the purpose of charging an offence
against Colonel Despard which belongs wholly
to themselves, and there is an end of all their
evidence. In the sequel of what I have to say,
I think I shall prove that such a conspiracy
does exist in this case.

"The account given by them is improbable.
Fourteen or fifteen persons assemble at a
common tap-house, with no arms but tobacco-
pipes, and form a conspiracy to overturn a
government supported by the loyalty of millions.
The men who have undertaken to do this are of
the lowest order in society; they have no
foreign connexion, and they have the enormous
sum of fifteen shillings and sixpence in the
treasury. You have no evidence of even forty
men being ready at one period; yet the Tower
was to be taken, the mail-coaches stopped, the
Bank seized, and the king attacked while
surrounded by the Horse Guards. Is it likely that
Colonel Despard should have said he would
break through the Horse and Foot Guards and
do it with his own hand? I think I have
demonstrated that a more improbable scheme
never existed. I am persuaded a traitorous
scheme did exist, that some men conceived the
design of seducing the army from their
allegiance to the king, but, finding the integrity of
the soldiers an insurmountable barrier, they
felt they must devise some means of securing
themselves from the consequences of their
crime. There was but one way—and Windsor
pointed out what that was—to secure himself
by charging others. After telling Mr. Bownas
he was weary of the treason, yet still to attend
the meetings, still to do what only the most
infamous man could do; although he knew the
consequences, although he pretended to
repent, to seduce other persons into it for the
purpose of betraying them. What had these
persons to do then? That which Windsor did.
And yet it is on the testimony of such men as
Windsor and the others that you are to say
this gentleman, whom I will prove to be a man
of character, and whom you must presume
innocent till proved guilty, is guilty of a crime.

"The circumstance of Colonel Despard being
degraded from his rank as colonel after serving
his country abroad, was well known—he was
known to be an injured man. This made the
conspirators look upon him as a man upon
whose shoulders the treason could be
conveniently thrown. He was invited to their meetings,
they representing themselves as injured
soldiers. And he was induced by sympathy to
attend these meetings. It does not follow that
was therefore a traitor; every person who
attended was not a traitor; thirty were taken,
fifteen discharged. Although he was suspected
of treason in 1798, and detained in prison three
years, yet, as he was discharged, I have a right
to presume he was wholly innocent."

The witnesses to Despard's character were of
the highest distinction. Lord Nelson had not
seen him since 1780, but he then considered him
an ornament to the army, a loyal man, and a
brave officer. Sir Alured Clarke had known