L

A. I faw nothing till I faw the fword hit upon Lord Thanet's back.

2. That was not Rivett?

A. Yes, it was he hit Lord Thanet upon the back with a fword-I did not know it was Rivett till afterwards,

2. Were any of the lights put out?

A. One.

2. Did you hear any expreffion about putting out the lights? A. Yes; I heard fome perfon fay, "Put out the lights."

Omrod forn, examined by Mr. Adam.

2. I have but one question to ask of you-Did you fee any body, at the time of the pronouncing of the verdict at Maidftone, in the cafe of O'Coigly and O'Connor, lay hold of Rivett, or any of the officers?

A. Yes; Rivett, Fugion, Wagstaffe, and I, were standing together; they wanted to cross the Court where Mr. O'Çon

nor was.

2. What was done to Rivett?

A. Two gentlemen in black got up and oppofed him very much; I faid to one of them, "You muft not obstruct this man; he is an officer of justice."

Robert Parker fworn, examined by Mr. Garrow.

2. Was you in Court at Maidstone when the Jury returned into Court with their verdict, in the cafe of O'Connor and others?

A. Yes.

2 Were you near the under-fheriff?

A. I was very near-behind him.

2. Nearest the great street of Maidstone, and far from O'Connor.

A. Yes.

2. Did you fee any thing happen upon that verdict being brought in?

A. Upon the verdict being brought in, he put his leg over the bar, feeling himself discharged, as he afterwards explained; a Bow-ftreet officer then ftepped up, and faid, " There was a warrant to detain him;" Mr. O'Connor then put his leg back again, and faid, "He thought he was difcharged;" and one of the Judges faid, "He was not to be discharged," or fomething of that fort; and he was quiet till fentence was over. 2. Did you fee Lord Thanet?

A. Yes; I faw him on a feat at the front of the bar-I am perfectly fure I faw Lord Thanet.

2. After fentence had paffed, did you fee the Bow-ftreet officers make any attempt to pafs the bar where Mr. O'Connor food?

A. Mr.

Q. In what fituation? and what was he doing? A. Lord Thanet evidently appeared to me to be obstructing the officers in their attempt to ftop Mr. O'Connor.

2. Did you fee any other perfon engaged in the fame attempt ?

A. Not any one whofe perfon I then knew.

2. Did you obferve any person whofe drefs was remarkable? A. I faw a gentleman in a bar gown and wig endeavouring to affift the escape of O'Connor; but at that time I did not know the perfon of the gentleman.

2. Do you fince know who that gentleman was?

A. I only know by report.

2. Did you fee any other perfon in a gown and wig acting as you have defcribed?

A. No, I did not.

2. Had you been in Court during any confiderable portion of the trial?

A. No, very little; I had been in, for five minutes at a time, perhaps three times during the trial.

2. So that you had not an opportunity of obferving that gentleman in the course of his professional duty?

4. No,

Grofs-examined by Mr, Gibbs.

2. You fay Lord Thanet appeared to you to be obftructing the officers; did you fee him do any thing?

A. I saw him refifting with his hands.

2. Pray, when was this ?-before or after the sentence? A. It began immediately after the fentence; it began upon Mr. O'Connor getting over the bar.

2. What did he do with his hands?

A. The Bow-ftreet officers pufhed forward; and against one of them it was that he was making resistance,

2. Pray, which of them?

A. I cannot tell-I do not know which-I did not know

either of them.

2. Did you fee the warrant?

A. Yes; I faw it handed over to be read.

2. Can you

tell whether it was against either of those two men, or against the messenger, that he was making that refistance?

A. I cannot.

2. What did you lee him do?

A. I recollect that gentleman was ranged with the Counfel for the prifoners; and then he turned round with his face to the bar, and was in that manner contending to refift their advancing towards the prisoner.

2. He was ftanding upon the ground, and reaching over? A. Yes.

2. Standing, as I may be standing now, fuppofing this to be the bar?

A. Yes: fuppofing you was turned round, it would be exactly fo he turned round towards the bar.

End of the Evidence for the Crown,

THE HONOURABLE THOMAS ERSKINE,

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY,

IT now becomes my duty to address you-but for three of the Defendants only: because, though nothing could poffibly have feparated their cafes in argument, yet it was thought prudent not to embarrass the mind of any one advocate with fo many facts and circumftances as the defence of all of them might eventually have involved. My Learned Friends who fit behind me, were, therefore, to have defended the other two Gentlemen; but as they have not been at all affected by any part of the evidence, it may, perhaps, be thought advifable by the Court that they should now be acquitted, left their teftimony fhould become material hereafter for those who remain under trial.

Several obfervations were made by the Attorney-General, in his fhort and difpaffionate addrefs to you, well worthy of your attention. He told you, that he could not conceive a greater offence against the juftice of any country, nor indeed against the very character of Juftice itself, than an attempt to confound and overbear its Judges and Minifters in the administration of

Law,

Law. I admit it freely. The undisturbed and unruffled courfe of Justice is the universal source of human fecurity. Statesmen have, in all ages, diftracted Governments by their ambition: parties will always create animofities, and sometimes confufion, by their difcordant interefts; tumults will occafionally arise out of the best of human paffions, in the best-ordered States: but where an enlightened and faithful administration of juftice exists in any country, that country may be faid to be fecure."

It has pleased God to give us a long reign of that fecurity in England. Indeed, if I were to be afked what it is which peculiarly diftinguishes this nation from the other nations of the world, I should say that it is in her Courts she fits above them; that it is to her judicial fyftem fhe owes the stability of all her other institutions: her inhabitants have for ages lived contented under her laws, because they have lived in fafety.

Gentlemen, the Attorney-General had certainly no occafion to enter into any explanation of his own conduct in the course of this profecution: it was never my purpose to impeach it. The queftion is not, whether he is justified in having arraigned the Defendants? but, whether, upon the whole evidence, they are guilty, or not guilty? I fay, upon the whole evidence; becaufe, to fecure myself an impartial hearing, I think it my duty to tell you, in this early part of my addrefs to you, that I mean to call witneffes in their defence. You have heard attentively the accufing teftimony: AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. It is not two days ago that, in a similar stage of an important trial, the Noble Judge upon the Bench took occafion to remark to a Jury, that this was fo facred a maxim of Justice, that we were frequently reminded of it by feeing it infcribed upon the very walls of our Courts.

It has been alfo truly obferved to you (as the obfervation applies to the first of the Defendants upon the Record, my noble friend and client, Sackville, Earl of Thanet), that the charge against him is of a moft deep and ferious complexion. I think fo too. He is a man of illuftrious rank-a hereditary Judge and Legiflator of the kingdom; and a judgment, therefore, against him, is of far greater confequence than to a mere private man. It is a great impeachment of fuch a perfon, that he infringes the Constitution of his country, of which he is a dignifed guardian; that he disturbs the execution of thofe laws of which he is a high magiftrate; and that, forgetting the duty annexed to his exalted ftation, the duty of giving the example to the people of order and obedience, he excites them to tumult, and violates even the fanctuary of Juftice with misrule and violence. Mr. Ferguffon, though inferior in rank to the Noble Earl, ftands eventually in a fituation, perhaps, of ftill greater delicacy, and is involved in deeper confequences. The fon of a late eminent Lawyer in the other part of the Ifland, who

I need hardly fpeak of them: because, though their names have of courfe been reiterated in the queftions put to the witneffes, nothing approaching to criminal conduct has been established against them. We are here, therefore, upon a mere question of fact. You cannot but have observed, that the AttorneyGeneral and myself, inftead of maintaining oppofite doctrines, perfectly agree upon the principles which ought to govern your' decifion. The fingle object of inquiry is, the truth of this Record. Is the charge proved to your fatisfaction? or, rather, will it be fo proved when the whole caufe has been heard? In adverting to what the charge is, I need not have recourfe to the abstract I had made of the Information. The fubftance and common fenfe of it is this: -that Mr. Arthur O'Connor had been brought, by legal procefs, into the custody of the Sheriff of Kent; that a Special Commiffion had affembled at Maidstone, to try him and others for High Treafon; that, upon the opening of the Commiffion, he had again been committed by the Court to the fame cuftody; that he was afterwards again brought up to the bar, and found not guilty; and that, after he was fo acquitted, but before he was in ftrict form discharged by the order of the Court, the Defendants confpired together, and attempted to rescue him. This is the effence of the charge: -the disturbance of the Court, and the affaults ftated in the different counts of the Information, are only the overt acts charged to have been done, in pursuance of this purpose, to refcue the prifoner. The criminal purpose to rescue Mr. O'Connor, is the fact, therefore, of which you must be convinced, to juftify the verdict which the Crown has called upon you to pro

nounce.

Before I proceed to addrefs myfelf to you upon the evidence, I will do that which muft make it manifeft that it is not my wish to confound your understandings in the investigation of facts; for I will begin by relieving your attentions from the confideration of all circumftances that are neither difputed, nor fairly difputable, either as they are the result of what you have heard already, or as I think they must remain when the whole cafe is before you. I admit, then, that Mr. O'Connor, when he heard the verdict of the Jury in his favour, was difpofed to leave the Court. The prefumption, indeed, as it arises out of univerfal practice, as well as out of the law that warrants it, is, that he, as well as others, thought that the verdict of Not

Guilty