up about seven doors from it. He (Franklin) came on Monday, in a hack ney chariot; he had been at his printing office the Saturday before with the manuscript, from which the bill was printed; he does not know whether on that first occasion Fletcher came in a hackney coach, but he came in a hackney coach to his printing-office about a quarter past seven in the evening; there was an elderly gentleman sitting with him in the carriage, whom he did not then know, but whom he now knows to be Mr O'Brien; he remained in the coach while Fletcher went into the printing-office, and is sure that the chariot in which he saw that person was the one which brought Fletcher; the coach came up the road from St Giles's. Witness knows a person of the name of Hockley; he was at witness's house when Franklin came there on the Monday.

The hand-bills to the "Non-represented," "the Leicester Jury," &c. were next proved.

Witness had some conversation with Franklin about this last production. He asked Fletcher of what possible use it could be to forward a paper to a Jury which, through fear of assassination, might make them acquit the defendant; and Fletcher observed, that the trial was all a sham-that the minds of the Jury were made up, and that they were determined to convict Sir Francis Burdett. The next bill which he had printed for and delivered to Fletcher, was dated about the 25th of August 1819, and he had printed four hundred of these bills. It commenced, "Evil to him who evil thinks," and it was on the subject of the Queen's plate. Witness proceeded to state, that Fletcher always took away with him the manuscript, with the exception of the one which witness preserved. Witness once objected to print certain hat labels, and Fletcher told him that he had nothing to fear, that in every thing he did he

should be sure of protection. When witness gave the last bill to him, Fletcher said, that while the Queen's business went on he should have more to do, and added, that he would, in the course of a few days, bring down copy which he wished no one to do but witness himself.

Cross-examined by Mr Scarlett. He first learned that the name of this man was Fletcher after Mr Pearson had taken him; he always thought before that period that his name was Oliver; he called him Oliver to his face up to that time; it was on the Sunday morning after he had been taken that he first learned from Pearson that his name was Franklin; he never saw him after that Sunday morning; on the 21st of July, the hackney chariot drove up to his printing-office; saw Franklin get out of it; it stopped about seven doors from his printing-office; saw Franklin get out of it, and walk to his printing-office, and afterwards returned to the carriage with a gentleman whom he had reason to believe was Mr O'Brien; had since learned where Mr O'Brien resides; went to his house one day; no one shewed him that house; he does not think Mr Pearson desired him to go there; nobody in particular ordered him to go there; does not think Mr Pearson asked him to go; he, witness, said that he should wish to see Mr O'Brien before he would positively swear to him ; never saw him before the night he came with Franklin in the hackney coach, nor since that night, until Monday evening last; went to O'Brien's with Mr Hockley, on Monday last, about half past three o'clock, and walked up and down Craven-street, until a little after five. He then saw O'Brien in a gentleman's carriage coming from the Strand towards his own house; followed the carriage and saw O'Brien get out at his own house; this was about five o'clock, and he is satisfied that it

was the same gentleman whom he had before seen in hackney chariot with Franklin.

John Jones is a bill-sticker; resides in No. 1, Gardiner's-lane, King-street, Westminster; remembers a gentleman turned of forty, who came to him in the year 1819, for the purpose of employing him to post some bills relating to the Westminster meeting; he was a ruddy-faced, jolly-looking man, not quite five feet seven; he asked him if he were a bill-sticker, and told witness that he had been recommended to him; this was on Sunday afternoon; he wanted witness to go with him that evening, and witness refused to go, as it was Sunday; he afterwards brought about 100 bills to witness, and desired him to stick them up, and he accompanied witness, who placed them up; he paid witness five shillings, and told him that he would give him more, and he afterwards received from him seven shillings; he called and again employed him; said there was nothing to fear, "that I was as safe as Lord Sidmouth." Witness on one occasion ordered his daughter to watch him, and see to what place he went.

Anne Jones is daughter of the last witness; she proved that she had, by her father's desire, watched a gentleman whom she had before seen at her father's house, and who went to No. 21, Craven-street, Strand, the house of Mr O'Brien.

John Hockley knows a person who calls himself Fletcher; remembers the chairing of Sir Francis Burdett on July 13, 1818; saw him the Saturday before the chairing of Sir F. Burdett; witness saw Fletcher that day in Tottenham-court-road, and was afterwards employed by him. Remembers the Smithfield meeting, and a few days before that meeting he again saw Fletcher in Tottenham-court-road, about eight o'clock at night; it was dark; the lamps were lighted; he saw him near

Mr Seale's printing-office; he was in a carriage, which came from St Giles's ;. it stopped before it reached Seale's; he saw Fletcher get out; before this he had seen Fletcher by day-light; he went into Seale's house; there was a gentleman in powdered hair in the carriage; he had seen that gentleman on Monday last in Craven-street; that gentleman was Mr O'Brien; he saw Fletcher coming out of Seale's; the chariot was then standing as it was left, the horses were turned down towards Charing-cross; they had been turned towards Charing-cross, he thinks, after Fletcher came out of the carriage. When Fletcher came out he went on to a distance from the carriage, on the opposite side nearer to Charing-cross, to a tobacconist's. Fletcher got into it, and witness got behind the carriage and went with it to Charing-cross. The chariot drew up there, and Franklin and the gentleman whom he had seen before got out of it. He saw them both distinctly. When they got out of the chariot they called another coach, and Fletcher went down to Parliament-street, and the other gentleman went up towards the Strand. Fletcher moved a large brown paper parcel, which he had carried from Seale's, to the coach; and he afterwards removed it to the coach which took him to Parliament-street. The carriage stopped at the Parliament Coffee-house, about two doors from Charles-street. Fletcher got out there, and turned down Charles-street. Witness followed him to Downing-street, and Fletcher entered a house about the middle of Downing-street. He remained there for an hour, and witness did not see him come out. When he returned he got into this coach, which drove to Northumberland-street, Strand. It rained very hard that day. He got out at Northumberland-court, went through it into Craven-street; he had that parcel with him, and went in

to No. 21, Craven-street, the house of Mr O'Brien; it was about twelve when he went to O'Brien's; he knocked and drew his stick along the rails, and a servant came into the area and asked who was there? and he said, "Betsy, let me in." The servant came, opened the door, let him in.

Cross-examined.-Witness was very wet, and at Charing-cross he got behind the second coach; he got to Northumberland-street about ten minutes after twelve; he knew it was after twelve, for it was half past twelve when he got home. He saw the strange gentleman with the powdered head on Monday last, but he had not seen him more than twice; he went to see him on Monday last, because Mr Pearson told him to see the gentleman again. It was about eleven o'clock on Monday, in the Strand, while riding in a coach, that Pearson told both witness and Seale to go and see if they should know the gentleman again. He was going into his house when they saw him. Mr Pearson told him that the cause was to be tried on Wednesday.

Sarah Haddan lived in the service of Mr O'Brien, entered his service Jan. 26, 1820, and left it the 2d of Janu ary, 1821. Witness knows Mr Forbes, whom Mr O'Brien considered as a friend of his, as one of his own family. Mr Forbes came frequently to her master's house; knows that Mr Forbes was called Mr Franklin by Mr O'Brien, and never by any other name than Forbes or Franklin, but he had sons who visited there, and who were called Fletcher. Witness remembers Mr Pearson inquiring often for Franklin some time in October last, at her master's house; her master was at dinner when Mr Pearson called, and witness having seen him, he told her that he expected no such person as Franklin there on that day; Mrs O'Brien frequently questioned her as to the appearance of the gentleman who called, and witness

said that it was dusk and she could not see him, but she thought he had the appearance of a gentleman; witness remembered that after this occurred she went to bed one Sunday night at twelve o'clock, having left a clean hearth and a good fire; no paper had been burnt there during the evening, and no one but Mr O'Brien was up when she went to bed; she found in the morning a quantity of burnt paper; it was entire ly consumed, and there was not remaining a bit larger than half-a-crown; her master's family at that time consisted but of her master, a boy, and herself; she has never had a difference with her master, and has left his service.

Cross-examined by Mr Scarlett.O'Brien stopped her wages, and she went to Mr Harmer's office for the purpose of taking steps to recover them, and there she found Mr Pearson; she has employed Mr Harmer to recover her wages, and she believes that Mr O'Brien has paid her all the wages he would pay her. The gentlemanly-looking man who came gave his name as Johnston, and that gentleman was Mr Pearson.

William Turner was journeyman to Arthur Seale for nearly two years, and assisted in printing several of the bills which were already given in evidence.

Charles Pearson, attorney, having deposed as to the Queen's Plate Committee, he spoke of the advertisement, purporting to proceed from the Queen's Plate Committee, and watched some person, whom he could now say was Fletcher, from Seale's to Mr O'Brien's; he had then a parcel with him; saw him afterwards in conversation with Mr O'Brien, in his parlour; O'Brien came out a little before, and Franklin proceeded to asubscription-house in St James's-street; witness followed him from thence, and lost him at Charingcross; he applied afterwards at Bowstreet fora warrant against him, and went

to Maida-hill to a house which he heard was Franklin's. Went with Vickery on the Monday following to Mr O'Brien's, and having obtained admittance after some difficulty, Vickery proceeded to search the house, while witness remained in the hall, and during that time Mr O'Brien frequently protested with great warmth that he knew nothing of Franklin, though witness had told him that he had seen him in company with Mr O'Brien on the Thursday before.

Mr Scarlett addressed the Court for the defendant, and said, in his opinion, no evidence against his client was pro duced, and he really had some curiosity to know on what grounds the Grand Jury had found a bill against Mr O'Brien. One of the great objects of those seditious placards was to libel the Whigs, and Mr O'Brien was, therefore, anxious to call those noble individuals, who were Whigs still, as to whether they believed Mr O'Brien capable of abusing those noble persons, as he was stated to have done.

The Duke of Bedford first knew Mr O'Brien in 1784; from what he knew of Mr O'Brien formerly, he could not think him capable of writing such seditious placards, for such foul purposes as those of riot and disorder.

Lord Holland. Has known Mr O'Brien since he was a boy; formerly he often saw him; from all he ever knew of Mr O'Brien, he thought him the last man who would write any thing libellous of Mr Fox.

Lord Erskine knew Mr O'Brien about ten years after 1778, when he was called to the Bar; he has seen Mr O'Brien lately, and he owed it to Mr O'Brien to say, he once had a difference with him, and that on that occasion he behaved as a man of honour; that in creased his repute, in his Lordship's opinion.

Sir James Mackintosh knew Mr O'. Brien from about 1791 to 1804; since that time his acquaintance was not as

great with him as before; since 1812 he has not seen him often; from what he knew of Mr O'Brien, most certain. ly he should not think him likely to write a libel on Mr Fox.

At twenty minutes before nine, the Lord Chief Justice proceeded to recapitulate the evidence, and stated to the Jury, as his opinion, that no distinct evidence of participation in the guilty designs of Franklin or Fletcher was traced to Mr O'Brien.

The Jury consulted about five minutes, and, without leaving the box, pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LORD MAYOR, RELATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.

Mansion-House, June 18.

Mr Sheriff Parkins presented an information from Joseph Tyler, bookseller, Wych Street, (against whom a bill preferred by the Association had been thrown out by the Grand Jury) against Charles Murray, as member of an Association of an illegal nature, coming under the Act for the more effectual suppression of societies, established for seditious and treasonable purposes, and for preventing treasonable and seditious practices. The Lord Mayor appointed a future day for deciding whether or not he would receive the information.

June 27.

Mr Thackeray opened the case upon the part of the informant, by observing, that he thought little more was necessary for him to do, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, than to call evidence in support of the averments in the information. The words of the Act, in his judgment, were so

sufficiently clear, as not to need a lengthened speech to shew their application to the present defendant; but, as certain objections might be raised as to the operation of the Act, and it might be contended to extend only to societies for a seditious or disloyal purpose, it would be proper he should make a few remarks, to shew that this Association was strictly within the operation of the statute. He disclaimed, for himself and his friend, Mr Parkins, all personal motives of hostility to the defendant, or any of the members of the Association, many of whom he knew to be highly respect. able, and with some of whom he was bound by the ties of relationship. He declared himself equally hostile with the members of the Association to disloyalty and sedition, and considered no evils more destructive to the peace and happiness of the community. His only object, and that of his friend, was to put a stop to the proceedings of an Association, which they considered to be contrary to law. It might be argued, that the societies, which it was the object of this statute to suppress, were enumerated in the Act, and therefore it would be absurd to endeavour to include, as under the operation of the Act, this Association, established for purposes avowedly of a very different nature and tendency; but he would contend, that it would have been very unwise in the legislature not to have foreseen, and they did foresee, that other societies might be established with plausible names, and apparently with praiseworthy views, whose proceedings it might be necessary to guard against or control, besides those enumerated in the preamble of the Act. It ought not, therefore, to be inferred, that the whole object of the statute was set forth in the preamble; that it never was so intended was clear, for, in former times, acts were passed with out any preamble at all. In his opi

nion, the preamble of this Act had reference only to the first section, and that the enactments were general, affecting all societies within the descriptive words of the Act. The only exception he could discover, was in favour of freemasons' lodges; but even in their case, the lodge must be registered; and would it be said, that a society, with the great name of Lord Wellington enrolled among its members, ought not also to be registered? Did it not imply, that there was something suspicious in its nature, although it had assumed a plausible designation?

The learned gentleman here quoted the address of the Association, and contended that it amounted to a declaration within the meaning of the Act. It announced the existence of the evil, and the remedy necessary to be appli ed, and formed a combination for the purpose of suppressing and preventing the mischiefs complained of, by uniting to oppose the seditious; and also. resolved upon a system of correspondence with those living at a distance. The Society of Quakers were indeed exempted from the Act; but this would not exempt the Noble Duke, unless he who never quaked before should be made a Quaker, by his apprehensions of the penalties of this Act. The Association itself denies that it is established for moral purposes: Societies for those purposes, they declare, are already established; and if their object be really to put down libellous and indecent publications, why, he would ask, have they not prosecuted on both sides? Why had they not prosecuted for libels against the Queen, and why had not such caricatures met their vengeance? One libeller of the Queen had, indeed, been proceeded against, the Rev. Mr Blacow, but that was not the act of this Association. They sought out the poor starving bookseller, who might be ignorant of what he sold,