of that witness as to the printing of several of the bills which he had received from Fletcher.

Charles Pearson, examined by Mr. Pearson. I am the attorney in this case. In consequence of information which I received, I watched the house of Seale on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of October, during the whole of those days. On the first three, I saw nothing particular. On the 4th, which was on Wednesday, I had walked by, and, on my return passed the house again, I found that the person whom I now say is Fletcher had gone into Seale's in the mean time. He was now coming out with a paper parcel in his hand. It was about 8 inches long, and 4 thick. I immediately recognised him from the description I had already received of his person and dress. This was about half-past 2 in the afternoon. I traced him from thence down to 21, Craven-street, Strand, to Mr. O'Bryen's house. He had still the parcel with him. I saw him immediately after through the window, talking to Mr. O'Bryen in the parlour. I went into a neighbouring house and watched him from the window, but somehow I lost him for that day. I went again to Seale's house on the 5th, in company with Mr. Wilde (not the barrister of that name), and again saw Fletcher come out with a parcel of the same description as on the day preceding. He was pointed out to me by Hockley and Seale. Mr. Pearson then described the route which Fletcher took in a hackneycoach down to Craven-street to Mr. O'Bryen's house. He went in and remained for some time.

He came out without the parcel. Mr. O'Bryen had come out a short time before him, and went away in a coach. Mr. Pearson followed him (Fletcher), and traced him to a subscription house in St. James's, from which he came out; and witness at last lost sight of him near Charingcross. Next day Mr. Pearson made inquiries at Maida-hill, and found that a person named Franklin lived there. He applied at Bow-street on the Saturday, and got a warrant to arrest him. He applied that evening at Mr. O'Bryen's, but did not find him. He did not search the house then. Next morning, he continued, I went to Clarendonplace, Maida-hill, accompanied by Vickery, the officer. I sent up word to Mr. Franklin, that a person, a neighbour of his, wished to see him. I sent an assumed name; the name I assumed turned out to be that of one of the Bow-street officers, but I did not know it then. While the servant went up, I admitted Vickery: I afterwards went up, and asked him if his name was Franklin; he said yes. I then told him that I had an officer below, and that he must consider himself in custody. We conveyed him to Bow-street, where we left him in company with two officers, and since then I have not seen him, though I have made every inquiry. On the Monday, about one o'clock, I went to the house of Mr. O'Bryen, accompanied by Vickery; we were refused admittance. Vickery stated the object for which we called, and threatened to break open the door if we were not admitted.

At last we took the opportunity of a gentleman coming, and we got in. We saw Mr. D. O'Bryen: and Vickery stated the object for which he came. Mr. O'Bryen expressed great readiness for Vickery to search the house. was searched, without effect. While Vickery was searching the cellars, Mr. O'Bryen came to me, who remained in the passage, and demanded why we searched his house. I said, for Mr. Franklin. He asked what for; and I told him for publishing seditious libels in the name of the queen's plate committee. Mr. O'Bryen said, "I don't know such a man." I remarked that could not be; for that I myself saw him speaking to him on the Thursday before. He then denied knowing the man more vehemently than before; accompanied with threats against us for searching his house. I stated that the Mr. Franklin we sought for was the gentleman who lived at Maida-hill; whose son was an officer in the guards. I also described the dress in which I had seen him speaking to Mr. O'Bryen on Thursday. He replied, with still greater warmth, "I know of no such man." The rest of the time we remained was filled up with threats on Mr. O'Bryen's part, to prosecute for searching his house. Our business being now accomplished, we left the place. When we apprehended Mr. Fletcher, I told him what he was charged with.

Witness was here asked what Mr. Fletcher said in consequence. Witness answered-" Having assumed a name, Mr. Fletcher mistook me for quite a different

Mr. Pearson declined to press the question.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney." The warrant we had when we went to Mr. O'Bryen's house was not a search warrant. A subscription has been entered into by some gentlemen for carrying on this trial; but I am not at all concerned. I have not received some hundreds of pounds from them. I believe I have received about 60%. for paying the expenses, which I was out of pocket."

Edward Spragg, a young lad, was next examined." I was servant to Mr. O'Bryen from the 25th of August, 1820, to the 2nd of January, 1821. I know a gentleman named Forbes, who used to visit my master. I have since been told by Mr. O'Bryen, that his name was Fletcher. I do not exactly recollect when he told me so, but it was since Mr. Pearson and Vickery were at the house. I saw Mr. Forbes very frequently at the house. Sometimes he dined there; sometimes he wrote a few lines, and sometimes he was engaged in conversation with my master. Upon

some

of these occasions my master was also engaged in writing. On no occasion did I see any person named Forbes but this gentleman. I saw two gentlemen named Fletcher whom he

tleman need have been ashamed of his acquaintance. But could the jury infer Mr. O'Bryen's guilt from this circumstance? How had the evidence connected Mr. O'Bryen with the atrocious conduct of Franklin? What had he done? Had he been seen giving any of those bills to any of the printers? Had he been heard saying any one word which could in any manner prove a knowledge on his part, of what Franklin had been doing? The only thing on which the supposed guilty connexion of Mr. O'Bryen rested, was that which he did not for a moment deny that he had been on terms of close intimacy with, and had given him shelter in his house, and received him in his family. But as to the hackney-coach in which Mr. O'Bryen was said to have gone with Fletcher, he (Mr. Scarlett) had received instructions most positively to deny that he had done so. He never was in a hackney-coach with him; he had known him under circumstances of better fortune; he knew that he had been in embarrassed circumstances, and he gave him that shelter in his house, which did credit to his feelings as a

man.

Mr. Scarlett then proceeded into a minute examination of the evidence, and commented with much force on what he contended were strong contradictions in the evidence of Seale and Hockley-and particularly in Hockley's account of the hour

at

which he arrived at Mr. O'Bryen's house, when he followed the hackney-coach in July. He also contended, that the circumstance of Mr. O'Bryen's having discharged both his servants on the 2nd of January last,

was a proof of conscious innocence. If he knew that there was any thing objectionable in his conduct of which they had a knowledge, was it to be believed, that he would have discharged them at a time when he must have known that their testimony against him would be sought for with avidity? As to his little knowledge of the circumstances of Fletcher's conduct, it was proved that he was ignorant of them, for the servant girl swore that they waited dinner for two hours on the Sunday he had been taken into custody. The circumstance of the burning of the papers was too trivial to be dwelt upon for a moment, and the servant herself never made any inquiry about it. The change of name, of which Mr. O'Bryen had a knowledge, was, he contended, still less to be relied upon as any proof of guilt on his part. But it was said, that Mr. O'Bryen had denied knowing such a man as Mr. Franklin. What could be more natural? He had seen a policeofficer inquiring for a person who was charged with such a serious offence, and it was very natural for him to say that he knew no such person-that was, that he had no acquaintance with any man capable of such conduct. It was, however, charged that one of those seditious placards was found in Mr. O'Bryen's room. What proof was that? or if it was to be considered one, was it of such a nature as would be sufficient to convict the most respectable and innocent individuals? He had no doubt that his learned friend, who addressed the jury, had some of those placards in his possession; but

nobody would, for a moment, suppose that that was evidence of any participation in them. "I had some of them in my room (continued Mr. Scarlett), and, God knows, I had no hand in, or knowledge of, their composition." The whole of the case sought to be established against Mr. O'Bryen was circumstantial, and of course he would admit that such evidence would be sufficient, if it were connected. But it was absolutely necessary, that that connexion should be full and unbroken. Was it the case here? Were not the circumstances alleged in contradiction to each other? But there was one circumstance, which it was almost impossible to believe. One of the placards produced, contained a gross attack on the character of that great statesman, the late Mr. Fox. Now, the jury would have it in evidence, that Mr. O'Bryen had, for a long time, been intimately connected with Mr. Fox, and honoured with his friendship. He had been, and still was, on terms of intimate acquaintance with many eminent men, friends of that great man. Was it then to be supposed that he would have written or sanctioned an attack on his memory? He would now call several honourable and noble persons, who would give Mr. O'Bryen a character. From them the jury would hear, whether they considered Mr. O'Bryen capable of writing such libels as had been given in evidence. He then called

His grace the duke of Bedford, who was examined by Mr. Bolland. How long has your grace known Mr. O'Bryen?-I think

my first acquaintance with Mr. O'Bryen was in the year 1784.

What is your grace's belief of him with respect to the libels which you have heard read?—I should imagine that Mr. O'Bryen was not capable of publishing such papers, from my recollection of those he was connected with, and from what I heard of him formerly.

Examined by Mr. Pearson.Will your grace allow me to ask whether your acquaintance with Mr. O'Bryen has continued up to the present time ?-It has not.

Up to what period did your intimacy with him continue ?—I have had very little acquaintance with Mr. O'Bryen since the year 1806.

Will your grace allow me to ask, whether any thing has oc curred since that time calculated to lessen your good opinion of Mr. O'Bryen?

Mr. Scarlett objected to this question-not that he had any fear, that the answer could be such as would affect his client, but he thought it a bad precedent, and he thought it was almost new to cross-examine any witness, who came to speak to character only.

Mr. Pearson said, he would wave the question; but he first begged to remind his learned friend, that it was quite competent to him to cross-examine any witness on the subject of character.

The Lord Chief Justice concurred in this. Counsel had certainly a right to put the question.

Mr. Pearson resumed the examination. Am I to understand, that up to the year 1806 your grace knew Mr. O'Bryen as be