Towards the close of the year 1802 the feeble Peace of Amiens was evidently on the eve of ending, and Europe was in feverish excitement. The first Consul, Napoleon Bonaparte, fast approached the zenith of his power: already had the “gloom of his glory” arisen “and o’ershadowed the earth with his fame.” Unlike his illustrious nephew, Napoleon III., he could not understand England, nor England him, and so the war between them was about to be revived more deadly and determined than before. England feared not (when did England ever fear?), but the British people were everywhere in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, natural upon the momentous preparations for the renewed struggle. Continual alarms of internal treachery magnified into giant cases of treason, and exaggerated demonstrations of loyalty were the order of the day. This political condition must be fully understood to make us now-a-days comprehend the extraordinary sensation caused by the following criminal attempt of a half-crazy officer and a parcel of pauper miscreants, truly one of the most miserable affairs that perhaps ever occupied a Royal Commission sitting on a trial for high treason. The chief conspirator, Despard, who had been a thorough gentleman and a soldier, and who had Nelson himself to give him a character, must, from what he supposed was the neglect, but what was no more probably than the procrastination of Government, have lost his wits and have become a dangerous lunatic, more fit for a madhouse than the gallows.

One can hardly refrain from a smile on reading the following amplification of Lord Ellenborough, when passing sentence upon such poor and incapable conspirators:—“The object,” said his lordship, “of the conspiracy, in which you have borne your several very active and criminal parts, has been to overthrow and demolish the fundamental laws and established government of your country; to seize upon and destroy the sacred person of our revered and justly beloved sovereign; to murder and destroy the various members of his royal house; to extinguish and annihilate the other branches of the legislature of this realm.” Yet the learned and able judge did no more than speak the sentiments and suspicions of the period. It was, indeed, the then excitement of the public, and nowise any intrinsic importance, that has made this crime of Despard historical. I here give it somewhat fully because the interest really lies in details revealing the minuteness of the capabilities of the prisoners, and the magnitude of the proceedings against them.

The ancient and honourable family of Despard is to this day of high standing and respectability in Ireland. The first of the Despards who settled there was a commissioner sent by Queen Elizabeth for partitioning the Irish lands. This Commissioner Despard and his father had fled from France in 1572 to escape the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Their descendant, William Despard, Esq., of Cranagh, in the Queen’s County, was M.P. for Bantry. His third son, William Despard, Esq., of Killaghy, in the County of Tipperary, M.P. for Thomastown, married Frances, daughter and coheir of Daniel Green, Esq., of Killaghy Castle, County Tipperary, and was father (with other issue) of an eldest son, William, his successor, and a second son, Francis Green. The eldest son became William Despard, Esq., of Coubrane and Cartoun, Queen’s County, and Killaghy Castle, County Tipperary, and married, May, 1732, Jane, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Walsh, Rector of Blessington and had (with another who died young) six sons, viz.:—1. William, who married and left a family; 2. Philip, Captain 7th Fusiliers, who married and left a family; 3. Green, Captain R.N., who died unmarried; 4. John, a Lieut.-General in the Army, who married Harriet Anne, daughter of Thomas Hesketh, Esq., and granddaughter of Sir Robert Hesketh, Bart., and had an only child, Harriet Dorothea, wife of the late Vice-Admiral Henry Francis Greville, C.B., kinsman of the Earl of Warwick: she left, with other issue, a son, the present Major-General H. L. F. Greville, R.A.; 5. Andrew, a colonel in the army, who died in 1840, aged 90; and 6. Edward Marcus, the unfortunate subject of this trial. Edward Marcus Despard was born in 1750, and as the above genealogical account shows, was the youngest of six brothers, all of whom, except the eldest, had served their country either in the army or navy. In 1766, he entered the army as an ensign, in the 5th regiment; in the same regiment he served as a lieutenant, and passing into the 79th he was successively lieutenant, quartermaster, captain-lieutenant, and captain. From his superior officers he received many marks of approbation, particularly from General Calcraft, of the 50th, General Meadows, and the Duke of Northumberland. He had been for twenty years detached from any particular corps, and entrusted with important offices. In 1779 he was appointed chief engineer to the St. Juan expedition, and conducted himself so as to obtain distinction and official praise. He also received the thanks of the Council and Assembly of Jamaica for the construction of public works there, and was in consequence appointed by the Governor of Jamaica to be Commander-in-Chief of the Island of Rattan and its dependencies, and of the troops there, and to rank as lieutenant-colonel and field engineer; and he commanded as such on the Spanish main, in Rattan, and on the Musquito shore, and the Bay of Honduras. After this, at Cape Graciosa Dios, he put himself at the head of the inhabitants, who voluntarily solicited him to take the command, and took from the Spaniards Black River, the principal settlement of the coast. For this he received the thanks of the Governor, Council, and Assembly of Jamaica, and of the King himself. In 1783 he was promoted to the rank of colonel. In 1784 he was appointed first commissioner for settling and receiving the territory ceded to Britain, by the sixth article of the definitive treaty of peace with Spain, in 1783. He so well discharged his duty as a colonel that he was appointed superintendent of his Majesty’s affairs on the coast of Honduras, which office he held much to the advantage of the Crown of England, for he got from that of Spain some very important privileges. The clashing interests, however, of the inhabitants of the coast produced much discontent, and the colonel was, by a party of them, accused wrongly, as it turned out, to his Majesty’s ministers, of various misdemeanours. He therefore came home, and demanded that his conduct should be investigated; but after two years’ constant attendance on all the departments of Government, he was at last told by the ministers that there was no charge against him worthy of investigation, and that his Majesty had thought proper to abolish the office of Superintendent at Honduras, otherwise he should have been reinstated in it; but he was then, and on every occasion, assured that his services should not be forgotten, but in due time meet their reward. Well it would have been for the colonel if he had rested satisfied with this intimation and waited quietly for the promised employment; but official delay, the circumlocution of a busy time, and the apparent spurns of his merit, which he took too impatiently, seem to have somewhat turned his brains. The colonel got irritated by continual disappointments, and began to vent his indignation in a public and unguarded manner.^[20] He consequently was looked on in the light of a suspicious character, and was arrested and held for some time, in harsh confinement, in Coldbath-fields gaol, under the Act the 38 George III., c. 36 (continued by subsequent acts), which empowered “His Majesty to secure and detain such persons as his Majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and Government.” Imprisonment increased rather than amended the rancour and restlessness of Despard’s temper, and on his liberation he was little better than a lunatic: he had become a wild revolutionist, and, what was a strong sign of his mental aberration, an infidel. He daily grew more and more malignant against Government. Thus inflamed, he endeavoured to inflame others, and at length brought upon himself, and those poor ignorant wretches who were seduced by his arguments, disgrace and death. A madder or more miserable conspiracy than his never was hatched. It was revealed to the public in the following manner:—On the 16th of November, 1802, in consequence of a search warrant, a numerous body of the police-officers went to the Oakley Arms, Oakley-street, Lambeth, where they apprehended Colonel Despard, and near forty labouring men and soldiers, many of them Irish. Next morning they were all brought up before the magistrates in the Union Hall. The result of the examination was, that Colonel Despard was committed to the county gaol, and afterwards to Newgate; twelve of his low associates (six of whom were soldiers) were sent to Tothill-fields Bridewell, and twenty to the New Prison, Clerkenwell. Ten other persons who had been found in a different room, and who appeared to have no concern with the colonel’s party, were instantly discharged.

The colonel during all the preliminary examinations was invariably silent.

The Privy Council, the more effectually to try the prisoners, issued a special commission.

On the 21st of January, 1803, the special commission was opened at the Sessions House at Newington. The judges present were:—The Right Hon. Sir Edward Law, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench; the Hon. Sir Alexander Thomson, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer; the Hon. Sir Simon Le Blanc, one of the Justices of the Court of King’s Bench; and the Hon. Sir Alan Chambre, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas.

On the same day the Grand Jury met, among whom were Lord Leslie, foreman, Viscount Cranley, Lord William Russell, Sir Mark Parsons, and four other baronets. The names of Sir Mark Parsons and Lord William Russell awake in themselves criminal recollections, for Sir Mark’s father was hanged for felony in 1760, and Lord William was murdered by Courvoisier in 1840. This Grand Jury returned a true bill against Edward Marcus Despard, 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, for high treason.

The court then adjourned to the 5th of February following, when it again met at the same place, the Sessions House, Newington; and, on the same judges taking their seats, Edward Marcus Despard, 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 were set to the bar, and, being arraigned, severally pleaded “Not guilty.” Despard had already had assigned to him for counsel Serjeant Best and Mr. Gurney. On the request of the other prisoners, Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Howell were assigned their counsel.

The prisoners’ counsel having signified that they should separate in their challenges of the jury, the Attorney-General stated that he should proceed first on the trial of Colonel Despard. The court then adjourned to the following Monday, the 7th February, when it met again, and the trial of Despard began before the same judges.

The counsel for the Crown were:—The Attorney-General, the Hon. Spencer Percival, afterwards First Lord of the Treasury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Manners Sutton, afterwards Lord Manners and Lord Chancellor of Ireland; Serjeant Shepherd, afterwards Sir Samuel Shepherd, Attorney-General, and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer of Scotland; Mr. Plumer, afterwards Sir Thomas Plumer, Solicitor General, and successively Vice-Chancellor of England and Master of the Rolls; Mr. Garrow, afterwards Sir William Garrow, Attorney-General, and a Baron of the Exchequer; the Common Serjeant; Mr. Wood, afterwards Sir George Wood, a Baron of the Exchequer; Mr. Fielding, afterwards a police-magistrate; Mr. Abbott, afterwards Sir Charles Abbott, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, and Baron Tenterden. The solicitor for the Crown was Joseph White, Esq., Solicitor for the Affairs of his Majesty’s Treasury. The counsel for Colonel Despard were Serjeant Best, afterwards Sir William Draper Best, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and Baron Wynford; and Mr. Gurney, afterwards Sir John Gurney, a Baron of the Exchequer. The solicitor for Despard’s defence was Mr. Palmer, of Barnard’s Inn.

The indictment was opened by Mr. Abbott.

The Attorney-General, in addressing the jury, began by enforcing the necessity of a patient attention to his statement and a due consideration of the evidence. “No one,” he said, “would deny that, if there has been a plot to overturn the Constitution and destroy our Sovereign, the base conspirator should suffer his merited punishment, but the nature of the charge should not operate to his disadvantage; the grand principle of our law ought rather to be confirmed, ‘that every man should be considered innocent till he is found guilty.’” The Attorney-General then adverted to the nature of the crime of treason, and expressed his expectation that, if the charge were substantiated, the jury would pronounce the prisoner guilty without the least hesitation; and, after many remarks to show that there was not the least ground for suspecting the prosecution to have been brought forward from any party motive or prejudice on the side of Government, he concluded his preliminary remarks with observing, that from the clearness of the evidence, the trial could not be long. He then proceeded to state the counts in the indictment, which were three in number, and charged the acts to have been done with the intention of compassing the death of the king, imprisoning his person, and dethroning him. To prove the criminal intention, an overt act is necessary, and in this indictment eight overt acts were stated, which were divided into two classes: the four first charged the seduction of his Majesty’s troops, for the purpose of assassinating and imprisoning him; and the remainder, plans for the accomplishing of these purposes. After fully stating the law respecting treason and conspiracy, the Attorney-General read over the names of the persons included in the indictment, and observed that ten of them, besides the prisoner, were apprehended at the Oakley Arms on the 16th November. It appeared that, in the last spring, a detachment of Guards returned from Chatham, and shortly afterwards a conspiracy was formed for overturning the Government; a society was established for the extension of liberty, of which two men, named Francis and Wood, were very active members; they frequently attempted to seduce soldiers into the association, and sometimes with success. Francis administered unlawful oaths to those that yielded, and among others were two named Blaine and Windsor, giving them two or three copies of the oath that they might be enabled to make proselytes in their turn. Windsor soon after becoming dissatisfied gave information to a Mr. Bownas, and showed him a copy of the oath. This gentleman invited him to continue a member of the association, that he might learn whether there were any persons of consequence engaged in it. The prisoner at the bar tendered this oath; it was found in the possession of Broughton, Smith, and others. It was printed on the cards in these words:—“Constitution! the independence of Great Britain and Ireland! an equalisation of civil, political, and religious rights! an ample provision for the families of the heroes who shall fall in the contest! a liberal reward for distinguished merit! These are the objects for which we contend, and to obtain these objects we swear to be united.”

The form of the oath was:—“In the awful presence of Almighty God, I, A. B., do voluntarily declare that I will endeavour to the utmost of my power to obtain the objects of this union—namely, to recover those rights which the Supreme Being in His infinite bounty has given to all men; that neither hopes nor fears, rewards nor punishments, shall induce me to give any information, directly or indirectly, concerning the business, or of any members of this or of any similar society, so help me God!”

The Attorney-General then commented on different passages contained in this oath, and endeavoured to show that it could only bear a treasonable interpretation. Proceeding in his statement, he observed that, about the middle of summer, the conspirators began to think it might be dangerous for them always to meet at the same place. To avoid suspicion, they therefore went to various public-houses in Windmill-street, Oxford-street, St. Giles’s, Hatton Garden, Whitechapel, in the Borough, about the Tower, and to the Oakley Arms in Lambeth. To these meetings they invited soldiers, and treated them; toasts were given to answer the objects of the association, such as “the Cause of Liberty,” “Extension of Rights,” “the Model of France,” &c. They now increased greatly in audacity, and were betrayed by their confidence into the greatest extravagances; some of them proposed a day for attacking the Tower, and the great blow was to have been struck on the 16th November, the day on which the king first intended to go to Parliament.

“I shall hasten,” continued the Attorney-General, “in the statement of my evidence, to the later scenes of this conspiracy; because, during the early part of it, excepting in the instances of endeavouring to administer these unlawful oaths, the evidence will not bring Despard very forward in the conspiracy. But when it appeared to approach a little more to its maturity, the colonel appears a more conspicuous character. The events of the last week previous to his arrest will furnish me, I think, with no less than four opportunities of showing him connected with these conspirators, in most treasonable communication upon the design. On the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday on which they were arrested, on the 9th November, he was at the same Oakley Arms, in company with some of the same traitors in whose company he was found on the 16th. Broughton is a name I particularly recollect, who, I think, was the person that invited the witness whom I shall call to prove his having been there, and represented that the time was now approaching when it was intended that a great stroke should be struck. You may recollect that his Majesty had intended to meet his Parliament, the last sessions, a week sooner than he actually did. It was intended that he should have met Parliament on the 16th instead of the 23rd; and on the 16th it was the intention of these conspirators, supposing his Majesty had on that day gone down to the House, to have carried into effect this plan of destroying him. On the night of the 9th of November, I shall show the prisoner to have been present amongst these conspirators. I shall prove him likewise to have been present at a meeting that will be very particularly deserving of your attention on the Friday. The same Broughton will be proved to have prevailed upon two persons, whom I shall call to you as witnesses—Windsor was one of them, and Emblin another—to go on the Friday to the Flying Horse, at Newington, Broughton telling them that if they went, they would meet a nice man there, and find that things were in a fine train. They accordingly went, and the nice man whom they found, and to whom they were there introduced, was Colonel Despard, the prisoner at the bar....

“That meeting lasted about two hours; and the plan of carrying this treason into execution was the main subject of conversation. The mode in which the Tower was watched and guarded was one topic of conversation, with a view to see what facilities or difficulties might attend an attack upon that place. The principal thing, however, which will require your consideration, was the plan of intercepting the king in his way down to the Parliament House; this was discussed. The difficulties attending it—the mode in which these difficulties were to be met with and got rid of—were parts of the conversation supported by different persons. I think it was Broughton who suggested that one good way would be to shoot the horses of the coach, and then the coach would necessarily stop; upon which it was observed by one of them that the Life Guards who were surrounding the coach would cut down any man who attempted to approach it; and on this occasion the prisoner at the bar made use of expressions which will be particularly spoken to, and will be particularly worthy of your attention. Upon its being stated that the Life Guards would resist any attempt that should be made upon the coach, and cut down any man who should approach it, and on its being asked who would be found to do it, he said that if no one else would do it, he would do it himself, accompanying it with an expression strongly demonstrative of the turn and frame of his mind at the moment, and of the desperate extent to which he meant to carry his treason; accompanying his expression by no less remarkable words than these: “I have well weighed the matter, and my heart is callous.” Gentlemen, this cannot be equivocal; callous, indeed, must be the heart which meditated the plan that I charge against him; and the expression could hardly be used with reference to any other.”

The Attorney-General then observed, that Government was well aware of the proceedings of these people, but would not interfere while danger was at a distance; however, when the schemes were nearly completed, about thirty prisoners were arrested at the Oakley Arms, and a sufficient body of evidence collected to prove them guilty. The conspirators consisted of the lowest order of the people, as journeymen, day-labourers, and common soldiers, with the exception, however, of the prisoner at the bar. Several were discharged; and Windsor, the evidence, came after the arrest, and offered to deliver himself up and communicate all information in his power: on his testimony several others were taken into custody. These were the principal points in the speech of the Attorney-General; but he continued for some time to expatiate on the probable system of defence for the prisoners, which he conceived would be principally an attack on the credibility of the witnesses: he contended that an accomplice is competent; observed that there could not be a doubt of the guilt of some of the prisoners; and that the papers were sufficient to prove the conspiracy, independent of oral testimony. He concluded thus:—

“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.”

The whole of this sentence, which, as the punishment of treason, disgraced our law even to a late period (until altered by the 54 George III., c. 146), was too disgusting and cruel to be completely carried out. The warrant which directed the execution of the unfortunate Despard and his associates remitted the disembowelling and quartering. This warrant was sent to the keeper of the new (Horsemonger Lane) gaol in the Borough at six o’clock on Saturday evening, Feb. 19, and included seven prisoners; three—Newman, Tyndall, and Lander—having been respited. As soon as the warrant, which ordered the execution for the following Monday, was received, it was communicated to the unhappy persons by the keeper of the prison, Mr. Ives, with as much tenderness and humanity as the awful nature of the case required. Colonel Despard observed that the time was short; yet he had not had from the first any strong expectation that the recommendation of the jury would be effectual. The mediation of Lord Nelson and a petition to the Crown were tried; but Colonel Despard was convinced, according to report, that they would be unavailing. Soon after the arrival of the warrant all papers, and everything he possessed, were immediately taken from the colonel. The colonel’s devoted wife, a lady of Honduras, whom he had married while in his command there, was fearfully affected when she first heard his doom was sealed, but afterwards recovered her fortitude. The colonel and Mrs. Despard supported themselves with great firmness at parting on the Saturday; and when she got into the coach that drove her away she waved her handkerchief out of the window. The other prisoners bore their sad lot with equal fortitude, but conducted themselves with less solemnity than the colonel. Their wives and near relatives were allowed to take a farewell of them on the same day; and the scene was truly distressing.

At daylight on Sunday morning, the drop, scaffold, and gallows, on which they were to be executed were erected oh the top of the gaol. The Bow Street patrol and many other peace officers were on duty all day and night, and the military near London were drawn up close to the prison. Mrs. Despard took final leave of her husband at three in the afternoon, yet came again at five o’clock, but it was thought advisable to spare the colonel the pang of a second parting, and she was, therefore, not admitted into his cell. She evinced some indignation, and expressed a strong opinion with respect to the cause for which her husband was to suffer. After she had left the colonel at three o’clock, he walked up and down his cell for some time, seemingly more agitated than he had been at the actual moment of taking leave of her. Between six and seven in the evening he threw himself on the bed, and fell into a short sleep. At eight he awoke and addressed one of the officers of the prison, who was with him, in these words:—“Me—they shall receive no information from me; no, not for all the gifts, the gold, and jewels, in the possession of the Crown!” He then composed himself, and remained silent. Seven shells or coffins to receive the bodies, were brought into the prison, and also two large bags filled with sawdust, and the block on which they were to be beheaded. At four o’clock the next morning, February 21, the drum beat at the Horse Guards as a signal for the troops to assemble. In fact, the military force present on the occasion, like every other proceeding of Government in this affair, was most imposing. At six o’clock the Life-guards arrived, and took their station at the end of the different roads at the Obelisk, in St. George’s Fields; whilst all the officers from Bow Street, Queen’s Square, Marlborough Street, Hatton Garden, Worship Street, Whitechapel, Shadwell, and other localities attended. There were parties of the Life-guards riding up and down the roads. At half-past six the prison bell rang—the signal for unlocking the cells. At seven o’clock five of the men—Broughton, Francis, Graham, Wood, and Wratten—went into the chapel, with the Rev. Mr. Winkworth. Macnamara, being of another persuasion, and Despard, being in his craziness an infidel, did not join them. The five attended to the prayers with great earnestness, but at the same time without seeming to lose that firmness they had displayed since their trial. Before they received the sacrament, four of them confessed they had done wrong, but not to the extent charged against them by the evidence. The fifth, Graham, said he was innocent of the charges brought against him, but had attended two meetings at the instigation of Francis. For some time the clergyman refused to administer the sacrament to Francis, because he persisted in declaring he had been guilty of no crime. The clergyman said to him, “You admit you attended the meetings.” He replied, “Yes.” “You knew they were for the purpose of overturning the constitution of the country. I by no means wish you to enter into particulars, I only wish you to acknowledge generally.” Francis answered, “I admit I have done wrong in attending those meetings.” The clergyman then asked each of them how they found themselves? Francis, Wood, Broughton, and Wratten said, “They were never happier in their lives.” Graham remained silent. The sacrament was administered to them all.

Colonel Despard and Macnamara were then brought down from their cells, their irons knocked off, and their arms bound with ropes. The sheriff asked Colonel Despard if he could render him any service. The colonel thanked him, and replied that he could not. Upon the colonel coming out, he shook hands very cordially with his solicitor, and returned him many thanks for his kind attention; then, observing the sledge and apparatus, he smilingly cried out, “Ha! ha! what nonsensical mummery is this?” Notice being given that all was ready, the colonel, who stood the first, retired behind, and mentioned to Francis, who was making way for him, to go before him. The hurdle, being a body of a small cart, on which two trusses of clean straw were laid, was drawn by two horses.

When the melancholy procession began, which was at half-past eight o’clock precisely, Macnamara was the first that came out. Colonel Despard was the last that appeared. He was dressed in a blue double-breasted coat, with gilt buttons; cream-coloured waistcoat, with narrow gold-lace binding; a flannel inside vest, with scarlet top turned over; grey breeches, long boots, and a brown surtout. He stepped into the hurdle with much fortitude, having an executioner on the right and on the left, and on the same seat, with drawn cutlasses. He was thus conducted to the outer lodge, whence he ascended the staircase leading to the place of execution.

As soon as the prisoners were placed on the hurdle, St. George’s bell tolled for some time. They were preceded by the Sheriff, Sir R. Ford, the Protestant clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Winkworth, and a Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Griffith, who attended Macnamara, who was a Catholic. The coffins, or shells, which had been previously placed in a room under the scaffold, were then brought up and put on the platform on which the drop was erected; the bags of sawdust to catch the blood when the heads were severed from the bodies were laid beside them. The block was near the scaffold; there were about a hundred spectators on the platform, among whom were some persons of distinction; the greatest order was observed. Macnamara was the first on the platform, and when the cord was placed round his neck he exclaimed, “Lord Jesus, have mercy upon me! O Lord, look down with pity upon me!” The populace were much struck by his appearance. Graham came second: he looked pale and ghastly, but spoke not. Wratten was the third: he ascended the scaffold with much firmness. Broughton, the fourth, joined in prayer with much earnestness. Wood was the fifth, and Francis the sixth. They were all equally composed.

Colonel Despard ascended the scaffold with great firmness, and his countenance underwent not the slightest change while the dread ceremony of fastening the rope round his neck and placing the cap on his head was performing; he even assisted the executioner in adjusting the rope: he looked at the multitude assembled with perfect calmness. The Protestant clergyman, who came upon the scaffold after the prisoners were tied up, spoke to him a few words as he passed; the Colonel bowed and thanked him. The ceremony of fastening the prisoners being finished, the colonel advanced as near as he could to the edge of the scaffold, and made the following speech to the multitude:—

“Fellow Citizens,—I come here, as you see, after having served my country—faithfully, honourably, and usefully served it for thirty years and upwards—to suffer death upon a scaffold for a crime of which I protest I am not guilty. I solemnly declare that I am no more guilty of it than any of you who may be now hearing me. But though his Majesty’s ministers know as well as I do that I am not guilty, yet they avail themselves of a legal pretext to destroy a man because he has been a friend to truth, to liberty, and justice.”

There was a considerable huzza from part of the populace the nearest to him, but who, from the height of the scaffold from the ground, could not, for a certainty, distinctly hear what was said. The colonel proceeded:

“Because he has been a friend to the poor and distressed. But, citizens, I hope and trust, notwithstanding my fate, and the fate of those who no doubt will soon follow me, that the principles of freedom, of humanity, and of justice, will finally triumph over falsehood, tyranny, and delusion, and every principle hostile to the interests of the human race. And now, having said this, I have little more to add——”

The colonel’s voice seemed to falter here; he paused a moment, as if he had meant to say something more, and had forgotten it. He then concluded in the following manner:—

“I have little more to add, except to wish you all health, happiness, and freedom, which I have endeavoured, as far as was in my power, to procure for you, and for mankind in general.”

The colonel spoke in a firm and audible tone of voice: he left off sooner than was expected. There was no public expression, either of approbation or disapprobation, given when he had concluded his address. As soon as the colonel ceased speaking, the Protestant clergyman prayed with five of the prisoners, and the Catholic priest with Macnamara. However, to the very last, Colonel Despard obstinately refused all clerical assistance, nor would he even join in the Lord’s Prayer. The executioner pulled the caps over the faces of the unhappy persons, and descended the scaffold. Most of them exclaimed, “Lord Jesus, receive our souls!” At seven minutes before nine o’clock the signal was given, the platform dropped, and they were all launched into eternity. After hanging about half an hour till they were quite dead, they were cut down. Colonel Despard was first cut down, his body placed upon the sawdust, and his head upon a block; after his coat and waistcoat had been taken off, his head was severed from his body by persons engaged for the purpose. The executioner then took the head by the hair, and carrying it to the edge of the parapet on the right hand, and on the left, held it up at each edge to the view of the populace, and exclaimed each time, “This is the head of a traitor, Edward Marcus Despard.”

Despard’s remains were then put into the shell that had been prepared for them. The other prisoners were also cut down, their heads severed from their bodies, and exhibited to the populace with the exclamation of “This is the head of another traitor,” adding the name. The bodies were, like Despard’s, put into their respective shells, and delivered to their friends for interment.

The execution was over by ten o’clock, and the populace soon after dispersed quietly. The remains of the six common men were deposited in one grave in the vault under the Rev. Mr. Harper’s chapel, in the London Road, St. George’s Fields. The body of Colonel Despard was taken from Mount-street, Lambeth, on the 1st of March, in a hearse drawn by four horses, followed by three mourning coaches, with four gentlemen in each, and was interred in the cemetery belonging to the parish of St. Faith, on the south side of St. Paul’s Cathedral. A great crowd collected, and the City Marshal, with a guard, was present, lest there should be any disturbance; but all went off peaceably.

The Times of Monday, Feb. 28, 1803, thus refers to the burying of Despard’s remains:—“The interment of Colonel Despard to-morrow will depend upon the arrival of his son, who has been sent for to France to be present on the occasion. This young gentleman is of respectable character, and has been in Paris about three months, with his wife. He was an ensign in Ireland, and was left a comfortable maintenance by his grandfather.”

The melancholy state of infidelity exhibited by Colonel Despard on the scaffold formed a theme for the pulpit. I find, among the reviews in the Gentleman’s Magazine, of 1804, the following notice:—“A Sermon on the depravity of the Human Heart, exemplified, generally, in the conduct of the Jews, and particularly in that of Lieutenant-Colonel Despard, previous to his execution; preached at St. George’s, Hanover Square, Feb. 27, 1803, by the Rev. William Leigh, LL.D., morning preacher at the aforesaid church, and rector of Little Plumstead, Norfolk.” In this sermon occur the following passages:—

“The depravity of the human heart, from the creation to the present moment, is the strongest proof of the freedom of human agency and the origin of evil. Good and evil are set before man, and his choice is uninfluenced, and free. ‘But, alas! how vain is the strength of man! How imperfect are his best resolutions! How prevalent his inclinations to commit sin! and how sturdy his self-justification after he has committed it!... It is the miserable pride of modern reformers, to be equally independent of God and of man; to live without fear, and to die without compunction. The circumstances which marked the last moments of Colonel Despard, his refusal of the sacrament, his rejection of all spiritual consolation, and that of his dying with a lie in his mouth, are such as must fill every religious mind with lamentation and horror.’”

The trial of Colonel Despard presents coincidences with that of Governor Wall, that preceded it. Both Wall and Despard were men of family, and both came from nearly the same part of Ireland; both, by their own merit, rose to be colonels and governors of colonies, and both were eventually hanged in London—the one in the spring of 1802, and the other in the spring of 1803, and formed melancholy but happily very rare instances of military officers of rank suffering, for disgraceful offences, the extreme penalty of the law.

Another coincidence may be mentioned. The Hon. Spencer Percival, who was the Attorney-General at this trial, fell, in a few years afterwards, the victim of an assassin, Bellingham, who was a kind of lunatic like Despard, and had a similar real or ideal cause of grievance—viz., inattention of the Government to the application or complaint he was making.

The learned and popular writer whom I have already quoted, Mr. Timbs, F.S.A., in his “Curiosities of London,” thus points out, near the now-called Victoria Theatre, the scene of Despard’s conspiracy: “In Oakley Street, at the Oakley Arms, November 16, 1802, Colonel Edward Marcus Despard and thirty-two other persons were apprehended on a charge of high treason; and in February following, the colonel, with nine of his associates, were tried by a special commission at the Surrey Sessions House: and being all found guilty, seven, including Despard, were executed February 21, on the top of Horsemonger Lane Gaol.” Mr. Timbs further shows the spot to have been part of, or proximate to, the notorious “Pedlar’s Acre” scene of many a misdeed and crime.

To the honour of the Despard family, it may be mentioned that its loyalty was no wise diminished by this, to say the least of it, when one considers the obvious state of his mind and the absurdity of his treason, very severe measure of justice dealt out to the unhappy colonel. His relatives continued to act gallantly and devotedly in the service of their country. Of the sons of his brother, Captain Philip Despard, one, at the age of thirty-one, Lieut.-Colonel William Despard, 7th Fusiliers, fell at the Pyrenees in the Peninsular War; and another, Henry Despard, rose by his own merit to be a general in the army and colonel of the 99th Regiment. Killaghy, the seat of the Despards, in the County Tipperary, was sold by William Despard (father of the colonel of the trial) to his brother, Francis Green Despard, Esq., and the property descended eventually to Francis’s great granddaughter, Catherine Despard, wife of William Wright, Esq., who assumed by royal licence, in 1838, the surname and arms of Despard.