He further

broken notes, &c. asked witness, whether he could keep a secret? To which he replied, that he never abused any confidence that was reposed in him. O'Connor then asked him, if he had not been security for the gaoler of Trim, and whether he was not, in consequence, likely to be a sufferer by the escape of Heavy and Savage? Witness replied, he was security. O'Connor then said, that he had reason to know that Savage was lurking about Dangan, and that he would put witness in the way of securing him. On being asked whether any oath was proposed to him by O'Connor, he said there was not. O'Connor had a red book in his hand at the time of asking him whether he could keep a secret, but proposed no oath. O'Connor had asked him what he would advise him to do with the bags, and witness answered, to send them to the postmaster of Summerhill.

On his cross-examination, this witness stated, that he considered the secret he had to keep was, that Mr. O'Connor had interfered in procuring the re-taking of Savage. He further asserted, that he took Mr. O'Connor's interposition on this occasion to be an act of kindness, and intended to show his gratitude to the witness, and his brother-in-law, the gaoler, for acts of civility received, while he (Mr. O'Connor) was confined in Trim gaol for an assault, for which he had been convicted.

Mr. Lube was next called.Being asked had he given any advice to Owens on the subject of the present prosecution, said, that any professionally private communion he had with Owens he was

not at liberty to disclose, meaning, as we suppose, in his capacity as a clergyman; that Owens had asked him (Mr. Lube) "if it would be criminal in him (Owens) to make a discovery in order to save his own life, for that proposals had been made to him to that effect?" that he (Mr. Lube) asked Owens, had he any discovery of importance to make? that Owens answered in the affirmative; that he (Mr. Lube) immediately laid a solemn injunction on Owens, not to name the parties to him (Mr. Lube), inasmuch and for that it did not belong to him to be made acquainted with it; but added, that if he (Owens) knew of any gang of robbers who were disturbing the peace of the country, he (Owens) would "do well" to "divulge it," and that, provided he adhered to truth," he (Mr. Lube) saw nothing criminal in it.

[This conversation, Mr. Lube said, took place in the presence of a third person, one Reynolds; and after, as we have above stated, proposals had been made to Owens to save his life.]

Mr. Lube, having been asked how long he had been attending Owens after his conviction, before the above conversation took place, replied, about three weeks ; and to a question, did Owens at that time entertain any hopes of a reprieve? replied, he did not; nor did he (Mr. Lube) hold out any hopes to him.

Question by Mr. M'Nally.-Did witness believe it was with a view to save his life that Owens gave the information? Mr. Lube said, he' verily believed it was.'

Robert Gilbert, a Dublin police officer, stated that he arrested Mr. O'Connor,

O'Connor, at Palace Anne, in the county of Cork, the house of Mr. Barnard, a magistrate of that county. He shewed the warrant to Barnard. When Mr. O'C. saw it, he said it was illegal, inasmuch as the word "felonious" was not in it. He believed Mr. O'C. made that observation for the purpose of showing the offence with which he was charged was bailable. Witness thought it was bailable. He did not know against whom he had the warrant, until he went to Cork, and thought, when he saw Mr. O'Connor, and the respectable house he was in, he might have made a mistake as to the person. On asking Mr. O C. whether he was of Dangan, he answered he was.

On his cross-examination this witness admitted Mr. O'C. was repeatedly out of his custody. He thought that if Mr. O'C. had resisted he would have been unable to bring him to Dublin, though he was determined, if there had been any serious opposition, to have shot Mr. O'C. While Mr. O'C. had been out of witness's custody, he was in that of a Captain White Witness was asked whether he had not brought handcuffs with him from Dublin, and was not of opinion that he would render himself agreeable to persons in power if he had treated his prisoner with indiguity. He answered, that bringing the handcuffs was accidental, as when he left town he knew not whom he was going to arrest. He received no instructions respecting treatment when he set out.

The case on behalf of the Crown having closed, Mr. M'Nally, as counsel for M'Keon, said it was

not necessary for him to call single witness.

Mr. Wallace, as leading counsel for Mr. O'Connor, said he would pursue the same course as Mr, M'Nally, if life only was at stake; but here, the honour of a gentleman, which was more dear than life itself, was at stake, and for that purpose alone he would call witnesses, by whom Mr. O'Connor's character would be 80 purged, that malice itself dare not raise its shaft against him.

Francis Burdett O'Connor, Esq. was then called. The two blunderbusses above spoken of were produced; he stated that he had found them in a rabbit-hole in the demesne of Dangan, in the November following the mail robbery; they were then in their present state, without locks. He brought them to a house occupied by his brother and two sisters, Subsequently his brother removed to a new house, and these blunderbusses, were brought away, he supposed by the workmen, with other lumber out of the storeroom in which they were originally deposited, and put into the room where his brother slept, in the new house, and laid against the fire place. He was present when the plundered mail-bags were discovered in the wood of Dangan, and information of the circumstance was sent to the postoffice.

There was no cross-examination of this witness.

soners were persons of good character, but had changed his opipion of them.

Mr. Bernard M'Guire, attorney, corroborated Mr. M'Nally's testimony.

John Pratt Winter, Esq. a magistrate of the county of Meath, stated, that on his return from the fair of Ballinasloe, after the mail robbery, he had used active endeavours to discover the perpetrators of the deed. He received information that M'Keon was concerned, on which he proceeded to the house of Mr. O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor immediately went with him in search of M'Keon, and having found him where he was superintending some work, they closely examined him, and proceeded to his house, and made diligent search, without being able to discover any thing that could tend to show he (M'Keon) was in the smallest degree concerned in the outrage. Mr. O'Connor afterwards called on him, and offered to give all the aid in his power in bringing the robbers to justice, though he seldom interfered in matters of the kind.

Michael Parry, Esq. agent to Mr. O'Connor, deposed, that on the 2d of November, 1811, he had remitted to Mr. O'C. 47931.; that on the 17th of August, 1812, he remitted him. 14001.; and that, on the 27th of September, 1812, he sent him 500l. for the purpose of purchasing cattle at the fair of Ballinasloe. He had enclosed the 500l. in a letter to Mr. O'C., and had written to the Bank of Ireland, making them acquainted with the circumstance, and desiring them not to pay the notes to any order but that of Mr. O'Con

nor. His letter to Mr. O'C. was then in Court, and he said he would, if permitted, refer to it. The letter was handed to him, and he read from it a mention of the enclosure of the money. Since the commencement of his intercourse with Mr. O'Connor, their money-dealings amounted to 25,000l., and that at the time of the alleged robbery he would have transmitted him 2000l. if he wanted it. In the course of his dealings he never met with a more honourable or upright man. Witness further stated, that the amount of Mr. O'Connor's rental in Cork was 1800l. per annum.

Jeremiah Keller, Esq. barrister at law, stated he had known Mr. O'Connor for a great number of years, during which they had been intimate friends. Mr. O'Connor was formerly of the Munster bar. Speaking generally of his character, he conceived it to be excellent. He would mention an instance of his disinterestedness and generosity. He had married a lady in early life without a fortune, notwithstanding which he had made a most liberal settlement

upon her. Witness knew him afterwards to support the lady's father in a creditable style, which he continued to do until his death. He thought it next to an impossibility that he would be guilty of such an act as had been imputed to him.

Sir Francis Burdett said, he was acquainted with Mr. O'Connor since 1796, about the period he (Sir F.) had returned to England. He always entertained the highest opinion of his honour and principles. On being asked whether he had any money transactions with

Mr.

Mr. O'Connor, he answered it was unpleasant to allude to such matters, but as it was conceived to be useful to Mr. O'Connor's defence, he would mention, that embarrassments, which he need not particularize, had rendered different small advances to Mr. O'Connor necessary, and of which he, Sir Francis, had never made any memorandum. A circumstance having, at one time, occurred, which he would not then explain, he had written to Mr. O'Connor to place 400l. to his credit at his banker's. Mr. O'Connor in answer wrote to him, saying he had not a demand for 400l. but 1000l., and enclosed him his bond for that amount. On witness's next meeting him, he told Mr. O'C. he had entirely misunderstood his intentions, and returning the bond, desired him to pay the money at his convenience. Witness said he was once before in Ireland for a short time, and that his present visit was for the purpose of serving Mr. O'C. as far as he was able. He was then asked from what he had known of Mr. O'Connor, and calling him as he did his friend, what were his feelings on hearing of the charge of felony which had been preferred against him. Sir Francis replied with great emphasis, "I thought I should have sunk into the earth." Counsel observed that it was well known the witness was a gentleman of large fortune, and asked him whether or not he would have advanced him money if he had applied to him, at the period of the imputed offence? Sir Francis replied, "I know not the sum of money that I would not have

placed at his disposal if he had applied to me."

The learned judge (Daly) addressed a few words to the jury. He said there was certainly legal evidence to go to the jury; but, in the course of his experience, he never knew a charge so strongly rebutted as that which it was produced to sustain. If the jury felt any reasonable doubts, he would recapitulate the evidence; but if they thought with him, it was unnecessary for him to do so.

The foreman of the jury replied, that himself and his brethren were all of his lordship's opinion.

The verdict of acquittal was immediately pronounced; it excited the extremest joy-the manifestations of it in the court were of an unusual kind, the waving of hats, handkerchiefs, and sticks. The effect without was instantaneous. The town caught the enthusiasm of the auditory within, and shouts of joy interrupted, for a considerable time, the closing of this very interesting scene.

OLD BAILEY, JULY 7.

Child Stealing.-Harriet Molineux Hamilton was indicted for feloniously and maliciously taking, stealing, and carrying away a certain male child of the age of six months, the son of Henry Porter, with intent to deprive the said Henry Porter of the custody of the said child. In other counts the prisoner was charged with stealing certain wearing apparel of the said child, the property of the said Henry Porter.

The prisoner was brought into court at about 10 o'clock, extremely well dressed. At her de

sire the witnesses were ordered out of court. The following were the winesses examined :

Louisa Wood, a child of 14 years of age, lived with the prosecutor, a butcher, residing in Quebec Street, Portman Square, as servant girl. On Friday, the 6th of June last, she had the care of a little boy of six months old, and at about half-past five in the evening of that day went out to take a walk with it. While opposite Lady Montague's house in Portman Square, in company with two other girls, who also had children under their care, the prisoner came up, and said to witness, "What a pretty child you have there." The prisoner gave the two girls in company with witness a penny each, telling them at the same time to go and take a walk. They did go, and as soon as they were gone the prisoner said to witness, "I want to speak to you," and added, "will you go an errand for me?" Witness asked how far she wanted her to go, and she replied, "I want you to go to No. 21, Lower Berkeley Street, and I will hold the child for you in the mean time." Witness said “No, no, I will take the child with me;" but, however, was afterwards induced to give the child to the prisoner. As directed, witness then went to Lower Berkeley Street, but find. ing only 19 houses in the street, she inmediately returned. Previous to going to Berkeley Street, the prisoner gave her sixpence, and had given her sixpence before that. She told witness to go to a young woman in Berkeley Street, to tell her to come directly. On returning to Portman Square, she

found the prisoner and the child were gone.

John Armrod, a waterman at the stand of hackney coaches in Paddington Street, deposed, that a little before seven o'clock the prisoner came to the stand with a child in her arms, and took a chariot, driven by a person of the name of Woolhead.

Thomas Woolhead was the owner and driver of a chariot ; and on the 6th of June last was on the Paddington-street stand. About seven o'clock the prisoner came with a child in her arms, and got into his coach. After having told him to drive to Piccadilly, she ordered him to go to Charingcross, and to drive fast. Witness heard the child cry while on the way to Charing-cross, and upon looking back into the coach saw distinctly the prisoner, changing the child's clothes; she put a clean frock and cap upon it. When he got to Charing-cross, and having opened the coach door, the prisoner said, Coachman, I won't stop here; go on over Westminster-bridge." Witness followed her directions, and when he arrived at Vauxhall, where the roads part, said, "Madamı, which way am I to go:" she told him to drive to the Elephant and Castle, and at the same time told him to drive gently, as she said the shaking of the coach frightened the child. Witness went past the Elephant and Castle, expecting further orders. Presently the prisoner looked out of the window, and asked, "Where is this Elephant and Castle, coachinan?'' Witness said, that he had come past it; and, upon the prisoner