537. ROBERT JACQUES proceedingsdefend was indicted (together with John Tronson alias Smith proceedingsdefend , Richard Bailey proceedingsdefend , Elizabeth Tronson alias Smith proceedingsdefend , and Francis Shanly alias Loftus proceedingsdefend , together with divers other persons, to the jurors unknown) for that they, intending to injure and defraud John Eyles proceedingsvictim , Esq. and to obtain of him a large sum of money, on the 13th day of August last, among themselves, did unlawfully, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously combine, conspire, and agree, that the said Francis Shanly < no role > alias Loftus should execute two deeds, called warrants of attorney, in order that judgment should be signed against him, in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, and that the said Robert Jacques < no role > , together with the said John Tronson < no role > alias Smith, and Richard Bailey < no role > , did afterwards charge the said Francis Shanley < no role > in execution, in the custody of the warden of the Fleet, and that all the said defendants did afterwards, on the 23d day of the said month, contrive and effect the escape of the said Francis Shanley < no role > from the said prison, by causing him to be dressed in woman's clothes, whereby the said John Eyles < no role > became liable to pay a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of one thousand three hundred pounds, to the great damage of the said John Eyles < no role > , to the evil example of all others, and against the peace .

Counsel for the prosecution.

Mr. Silvester.

Mr. Garrow.

No counsel for the defendant.

John Tronson < no role > called on his recognizance, and not appearing, his recognizance was ordered to be estreated.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, before the case is opened I trust you will permit me to have the witnesses sent out of Court; and there is another circumstance which is unusual, that they may be sent with an officer, and no person be permitted to speak to them or give them papers.

Mr. Garrow. It is very proper on both sides, all the witnesses.

The indictment opened by Mr. Garrow.

My lord and gentlemen of the jury. This is an indictment against Robert Jacques < no role > , John Tronson < no role > otherwise James Smith, Richard Bailey < no role > , Elizabeth Tronson < no role > otherwise Smith, and several others, that they entered into a conspiracy in order to procure Francis Shanley < no role > otherwise Loftus to sign a deed, that judgment might be signed in the Court of King's Bench, and that Jacques and the other persons in further execution of their conspiracy had him charged in execution in the custody of the Warden of the Fleet ; that Jacques and the others did, by disguising Shanley otherwise Loftus, and causing him to be dressed in woman's clothes, cause his escape, in consequence of which the warden became liable to pay the money.

The case opened by Mr. Silvester, as follows:

May it please your lordship, and you gentlemen of the jury. This indictment has been stated to you, charging several persons with a conspiracy, Robert Jacques < no role > , John Tronson alias James Smith < no role > , Richard Bailey < no role > , Elizabeth Tronson < no role > , and Francis Shanley < no role > . The conspiracy is, that these persons conspired to charge the warden of the Fleet with a sum of one thousand three hundred pounds, he being answerable in case of the escape of any of his prisoners. The prosecutor is the warden of the fleet; the defendant Mr. Jacques is a person whose character perhaps you have heard of, if not you will find it recorded in the several commitments and records of the several Courts of Justice in this kingdom: the defendant, Mr. Tronson, was originally a servant, he then became apothecary, afterwards a perfumer, and last of all a quack doctor : the next defendant, Richard Bailey < no role > , is the brother-in-law of Jacques, keeping a publick house in Lime-street, a man in great distress: Elizabeth Smith < no role > otherwise Tronson is the mistress of Mr. Tronson, who I described to you before: and Francis Shanley < no role > alias Loftus is a young man, an Irishman, who having spent most of his fortune, and spent great part of his time in the several prisons of this metropolis, and the last we hear of him is in Newgate, where Tronson was confined for debt. The question is, whether they are or not concerned in one of the foulest conspiracies that ever was invented? Jacques, the prime mover and planner of the conspiracy, applied to the warden of the Fleet, that he might be admitted to the place of Clerk of the Papers, stating that there was nothing against him but his character, particularly, that there were men like him, who had been guilty of the worst offences, and had afterwards become useful officers; we have his letter to the warden, in which he writes as follows:

"Whoever you engage with let it be a man that knows the world, that he may be able to guard against the tricks which your situation subjects you to." Jacques then perfectly aware that the situation of the warden of the Fleet subjected him to many tricks and contrivances, and he being that person of experience, knew very well his power, upon which Jacques having been offended with the warden locking him up, having broke through the rules, the first thing he does is to apply to a person of the name of Abbot, to get some person who was willing to be arrested, that he might escape, and the warden be fixed with the debt; Abbot refused: the next was a man of the name of Kane, he told him it was a matter very easily managed, if he could get any one person that was willing to be arrested, that whatever was the debt they would fix the warden, and divide the money. Kane refused: the next person he applied to was Tronson; Tronson, the friend of Jacques, was applied to, to get a proper person, who from his appearance might impose on the turnkey, and escape disguised; Tronson recollecting that his friend Shanley, with whom he hadspent his time in Newgate, was of a fair complexion, small, and likely to be disguised as a woman, applied to him; he was the man fixed on to be the prime mover in this transaction, of which Jacques was the planner: the way to do it was to have two warrants of attorney, upon which Alder, the relation of Tronson's mistress, was to be the plantiff in one, that was for four hundred and fifty pounds; Tronson to carry this into execution applied on the 5th of August to Mr. Crossley, the attorney; he told him that he wished to arrest a person for a friend of his, a Mr. Alder, a gentleman who was a money broker, one of those people who lend money to distressed officers, living at Chelsea, in Sloane-street; he lent a sum of money to an extravagant young man, and they were afraid he was going to Ireland; upon which a warant of attorney was produced, and he was directed particularly, immediately to arrest Shanley; Shanley was described as a young gentleman of character and fortune, a dressy man, known by being dressed in blue and gold; upon which a particular direction was given to Mell, the officer, that this Shanley was to be arrested; he was arrested on the 15th of August, and carried down by Mell, the officer, to Simpson's house; Tronson was continually there, and it created some little suspicion in the officer, and likewise in the attorney, that the man who was so active to arrest the defendant that they should be in habits of intimacy together; but so it was; Tronson was continually with Shanley while he was there; having given this description of Alder, the plaintiff, that he was a money broker, and it turning out afterwards that Mr. Alder kept a little register-office in Fetter-lane, only having a back room, so distressed that he had not a bed to lay on, forced in the summer to work at hay making, and obliged to live for three days on the produce of a pair of nut-crackers; but says Mr. Tronson, he has offered to pay part of the money; Mr. Crossley went to the officer's, where he saw Mr. Shanley in custody; he admitted the debt was just and true: you see by this means Tronson had got Shanley into the custody of the officer; this was on the 15th of August. < no role > The next thing is, Jacques comes; and therefore it is necessary his warrant of attorney should be for a more considerable sum; he has a warrant of attorney likewise for eight hundred and sixty-nine pounds; the plaintiff upon that is Bailey, the brother-in-law of Jacques, keeping this public house in Lime-street, a distrest man, his goods having been seized, and himself ruined; Jacques writes to Price, his attorney, and sends him the warrant of attorney with this letter:

"Sir, I have sent you a warrant of attorney, which I shall be obliged to you to enter up, and take out execution on immediately; as the defendant is in custody at Simpson's, in Brook-street, and I am told he will settle the matter, you may depend on this being a straight forward business; you see I have not taken the warrant in my own name, nor never will any more; but you will see by the indorsement on the back, that it is in trust for me; if you have any offer of settlement you may take half down, and a warrant of attorney for the remainder, but not otherwise; I have sent two guineas per bearer, for money out of purse: you need only lodge the writ in the Sheriffs-office: in the other writ you sent me there is a mistake, therefore I shall not serve it till I see you. I am, Sir, your humble servant, Robert Jacques < no role > . - Pray send me an answer by the bearer. The witness to the warrant of attorney is my brother." So that the supposed plaintiff is my brother-in-law, the supposed witness is my brother Jacques, but I, Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > , am the real plaintiff in the business. Having thus got him arrested, and charged in the office of the sheriff, the next thing is to get him into the Fleet; how is that to be done? Jacques knew that is to be done by habeas corpus; who should be the attorney? there are a number of attornies, and we will open the book and see how many there are of one name; it turns out there are two Mr. Martins; Martin is the man;there are but two Martins, and they will not know which of the two it was; now it turns out to be neither of them, for they are both here; so that from the beginning to the end it is a complete fabrication; now the next thing was how to get him out of the Fleet; that was to be done; because unless that could be done it would not do, the warden would not be charged with the debt. - On Saturday, the 22d I think he was brought to the Fleet: on the Sunday they dined together; the company consisted of Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > , and his lady, Mr. John Jacques < no role > , and his wife, who from her size and appearance might very well pass for a man, and Mr. Shanley being from his appearance pass for a woman, the transition was easy; Mr. Robert Hopper < no role > , and his wife, Mr. Shanly, and Mr. Tronson; Mrs. Hopper and Mr. Hopper coming in about four o'clock on the Sunday; Mr. John Jacques < no role > , with his lady Mrs. Jacques: they transferred their appearances, Mr. Shanly placed his blue and gold coat round his waist, to make some hips, and with a gown of Mrs. Jacques's he walked out; Mrs. John Jacques < no role > was left in company with Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > : Mr. Shanley went out of the gate between eight and nine in the evening, in the very same gown, in the very same dress and appearance that Mrs. John Jacques < no role > came in about four; they led a child out with them. Unfortunately Clipson the turnkey (now whether Jacques knew this before) had been sent for to his mother, in the country, and therefore the door was only kept by an under turnkey; he had not the least suspicion; was not on his guard: the next day it was found that Mr. Shanley had escaped out of prison, and he was traced by some means or other to the lodgings of Mr. Tronson, in Sloane-street; they took coach directly, and went there; Mrs. John Jacques < no role > sent for her clothes, and they were returned; the next thing was to get Shanley out of the kingdom; because if he was here he might be taken by an escape warrant, and the whole would be discovered; he therefore the next day took a post chaise and went to Dover, and in company with Mr. Shakeshaft, a person he met with on the road, took boat, and went to Calais. They went to Tronson's the 29th: Tronson's lodgings was in the most miserable situation, scarce a table or a chair: Clipson charged him immediately with having aided and assisted in the escape; Tronson was exceedingly angry at it, and being told that he should be charged with a conspiracy, said, he did not care, that as to going to the Fleet again, he never would put his foot there again, for now he had got his friend out that was all he wished; he had had his ends, therefore he did not care a penny about it. Gentlemen, upon this, Tronson wrote a letter, and sent it to a friend of his, of the name of Alder, who was the plaintiff in that business; now in that letter he writes in these words:

"Dear Frank, I have this moment received yours; and have only time to inform you that there has been six men here searching for you this moment. Matters are arrived to such a height, that I can neither call on Jacques, nor can he send to me at present, therefore I must request you will defer drawing, till you hear from me again. Rely upon it, I shall either call or send to him as soon as I can with safety. They have threatened to indict us all for a conspiracy. I must once more request you will live as saving as you can: God bless you. Yours sincerely, James Smith < no role > ." Here Tronson takes the name of Smith, and writes to his friend, Frank Shanley < no role > , at France.

"You must direct no more at Chelsea, as follows: Mr. Smith, 97, Fetter-lane, Holborn," (that being the place where this man, Alder, had a place for a register-office.)

"I hope you will have the goodness to excuse this scrawl, for by G - d, nothing but Botany-bay stares us in the face. Do not doctor me over any more in your letters." This letter is directed to

"Monsieur Monsieur Loftus, Calais,

"France." This letter was afterwards produced; and by that means it was found that Shanley was in France, under the name ofLoftus. Many letters afterwards passed from one to the other, from Shanley to Tronson, and from Tronson to Shanley; those directed from Shanley, were directed to Mr. Smith, Fetter-lane; those from Tronson, were directed to Mr. Loftus, in France. The next correspondence, is a letter from Jacques; and I will just read one of them to you, (for there are more than one); for Jacques who not only is a very good manager, but a very good actor, not only can plan, but can execute very well, either in his own hand, or in a feigned hand sometimes, which this day will be proved to you; for some of those letters are in a feigned hand; but his tricks are so well known, that it will be proved to be his own hand writing.

"Dear Sir, if this meets you, our friend Tom ( Thomas Hopper < no role > ) will have seen you, and informed you, that villain, Clipson, the turn-key, set off for Calais this morning to you, to get you to do some wicked act against your friends; they all rely upon you with the greatest confidence. You will have heard that some of your letters fell into the enemies hands, in consequence of a traitor; but all will yet be well, so you are safe, and out of Old England. October 16th, 1789," directed to

"Monsieur Monsieur Loftus, Calais." Then there is another letter to his friend Tom, which says,

"Dear Tom, if this should meet you, it is just to inform you that Clipson set off for Calais, to endeavour to find the same person you went in search of, to persuade him into something: I think some step might be taken to punish the villain; you have nothing to fear from us. every thing here goes on to your satisfaction; particulars I cannot relate. I wrote to L - s" that is Loftus.

"Yours sincerely, you know who." This is Mr. Jacques's letter likewise. Now, Gentlemen, these letters, you will say how came we into the possession of them? because application being made to the Secretary of State's office, these letters were intercepted. Mr. Jacques < no role > I see had not heard of this before; he now hears of it; and he will see the letters produced, and proved to be his hand writing. Gentlemen, the information he gave, was perfectly true and correct; for having learned that this man was in France, that Shanley was in France by the name of Loftus, on the road he met with Mr. Thomas Hopper < no role > , who went by the name of Johnson, and said he was clerk to Lady Loftus, in France. Clipson came and found at the French hotel there, Mr. Shanley under the name of Loftus; Shanley being accused of this, went before a magistrate, and has made a full and clear discovery of the whole transaction; he has discovered how the plot was laid by Jacques; he has discovered how he escaped out of prison; and he in short has related every fact, and how he escaped. Gentlemen, that will be read in evidence before you; for he is one of the defendants in this very conspiracy; you will therefore have not only what has passed between Tronson, who is not here (though he ought to be here, having given notice of his trial) but you will have what passed between Shanley and the persons concerned, during the transaction of the persons being in pursuit of Shanley. Jacques was not idle: Tronson was not asleep: it was necessary, if possible, to recover the money; and therefore instructions were to be given by Tronson to Mr. Crossley, to sue the warden for the debt due to Alder; and Jacques applied to his attorney, Mr. Price, to sue the warden for the debt, due under the warrant of attorney. Gentlemen, this scheme would have taken place; the actions would have gone on; but the iniquity was so full, the acts came out so strong, that the attornies who were applied to, gave up their papers, and gave every information in their power. Gentlemen, Tronson having applied very frequently to Mr. Crossley, giving intimation to a lady, a Miss Brooks, who lived in London, that he had escaped, telling her to come abroad to him, desiring Mr. Crossley to proceed on it; by way of imposing on Mr. Crossly, to bring the action, clothes were sent by Tronson to Mr. Alder, for the purpose of dressing himself up to go to Mr. Crossley, to desire him to go on with theaction. Alder was out; he had been passing the day with Tronson; he returned, and complained of being ill (for he began to be shocked at the idea of the iniquity); he soon died; he died, and then application was made to the widow, with an offer to her, if she would stand in the shoes of her husband, they offered her two hundred pounds; the clothes which he had to dress himself in were returned to Tronson. Jacques within a very few days after the escape, he was the first person to carry the intelligence; to the sure he was the person that knew it better than any body; he applies to Price, and desired him to proceed to recover the money, which was eight hundred and sixty pounds, anxious to get it on, thinking if he could get the money, he should be able to put it into his own pocket, or share it among them. Gentlemen, in this state of the case, it will appear to you clearly, that these two warrants of attorney are fabricated: the witness to one, is a Mr. Brown, who will not appear to prove his signature. The situation of Alder was such, that he could not lend Shanley a farthing. In regard to Jacques's warrant of attorney, he confesses it was his own; he writes to his attorney; it is his own, though taken in the name of his brother; and the witness, his brother, John Jacques < no role > , who I believe he will not call, I wish to see him here; I wish to examine him. Then as to Mr. Bailey; Bailey is a brother-in-law of Jacques; so distressed, that he borrowed money before he went to the public house in Lime-street; so distressed, that he borrowed it of his brewer and of his distiller; and before he borrowed that money, he assigned all his effects over to Jacques his brother; this is the man he made use of as the plaintiff in the charge; and Mr. Bailey being applied to for money, says, why says he, I shall not be able to pay you now; but the moment we can recover some money from the warden, I shall be able to pay some of my debts; so that he is to have some share in the concerns. Gentlemen, these are the facts I am instructed to lay before you: I have endeavoured to state them to you as shortly as I possibly could; because a case like this requires no comment; it requires a mere narrative of facts in the plainest way it possibly can; and I am sure if I prove them in evidence, there cannot be a doubt in the mind of any man that hears me, that a fouler conspiracy could not enter the mind of man. Jacques knew perfectly well from his situation, that the warden of the Fleet was answerable for the persons in custody; he knew very well the warden was answerable for the escape; the only question therefore was, how he was to get this money in his pocket; that was to get fictitious plaintiffs and fictitious defendants; and to get a man that would look like a woman, and dress him in the habits of a woman, and impose upon the poor turnkey. Gentlemen, a fouler conspiracy I believe never came before this court, and any jury. I have not opened a circumstance which I am not instructed I shall prove: these facts in my mind are irresistable; they prove the connection between Jacques and Tronson; they prove the connection between Jacques and Shanley; they prove that Shanley was sent to France after the escape had been contrived. Gentlemen, so accustomed is Mr. Jacques to prisons of this kind, so hardened in iniquity, that he has not done it for the first time; but this is a common trick. Gentlemen, I do not wish that the character of Jacques, infamous as it is, should have any weight on your minds at all; judge him on the facts I have opened to you; and if he is as guilty as I am instructed he is, you will have no difficulty in pronouncing your verdict. As to Tronson, his character is not so black as Jacques's; but black enough of conscience, Shanley, if he is a gentleman, has disgraced himself, by associating himself with these people: as to Bailey, a relation of Jacques's, I shall say nothing of. I sit down perfectly satisfied, that I shall prove such facts, such connections, between the parties, as not to leave the least doubt in the mind of any man, but that they are all guilty of this charge; and it is high time that justice should overtake these delinquents.

STEPHEN PRICE < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, if there should be any objection arise in point of law, to any of the witnesses, as I have no counsel, I hope your lordship will be so good to attend to it. Mr. Price is stated to have acted as my attorney.

Mr. Garrow. Look at this instrument, and tell me whether you have ever seen it before, and received it? - This warrant of attorney was sent to me; I cannot tell who brought it; it was sent to enter up an execution.

Did that letter come with it? - Yes, it did.

Did you in consequence of it, enter up any judgment on that warrant of attorney? - I did.

When? - I cannot tell.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, as the letters are produced, may I be permitted to look at them. (Shewn to him.)

Mr. Garrow to Price. Is that your judgment paper? - The judgment was entered up the 20th of August, 1789.

How soon did you enter it up, after you had orders to do so? - The same day.

Do you know when Francis Shanley < no role > , the defendant in that action, was committed to the Fleet Prison? - He was charged in custody of the sheriff that day; but I do not know any thing of his commitment; he had been in custody before.

How soon after that did you receive any information that he was not in custody? - I heard a rumour.

Court. You must not tell us any thing of what you heard, as his attorney.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I do not object to any questions of that sort? - I was sent for by Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > , to inform me that there was a rumour in the Fleet; (I rather believe it was by his brother John) that Shanley had disappeared, and therefore I was to call on the warden to produce the person.

In consequence of that, did you make any demand of the warden to produce his prisoner? - I did; I gave him this notice, to produce him on the 28th of August.

Did the same person who brought you the message of the rumour, bring you before the letter of attorney? - I cannot say that.

Did you bring any action afterwards against the warden for an escape? - I did not.

Had you any orders to do it? - I do not know that I was directed to do it; I believe, to the best of my recollection, I was applied to, to do it; and as there was a rumour, at least, I desired to postpone it, if not to decline it.

Are you acquainted with Jacques's hand writing? - I have seen a good deal of his hand writing.

Have you ever seen him write? - I have.

Look at this, and tell me whether you believe this to be Mr. Jacques's hand writing? - I do.

Mr. Garrow. This is a letter signed Robert Jacques < no role > , to the warden, 24th of November, 1788.

(Read.)

"To John Eyles < no role > , Esq."

"Sir, in answer to yours, of Saturday last; I admit saying if we differed in opinion, respecting our matter, that I would submit such difference to your friend, Mr. Alexander; but am surprised he has determined without hearing me on the subject; I cannot think an opinion given that way conclusive. In respect to the law expences incurred, I must leave to you, and decline giving my advice in future, though I would do all I could for Mr. Eyles; and I am satisfied that Rainbot is no more capable of conducting the office, than Mr. Molloy. If you will submit the management of the office to me, I will be answerable for every expence, except the prisoners without the walls; I will likewise find you an attorney of character to do this business: there is but one objection to me; I mean my character; I admit that has been much injured by general reports, but not by those who really know me: I am satisfied the courts will not disapprove, so that I conduct myself to their satisfaction:some of the judges are satisfied that I am an injured man; but it is unnecessary for me to say more, till I know whether you are at liberty to treat with me; but it is unnecessary for me to say more: I answer it is as hard a case upon me, as upon yourself; because, taking it in the worst sense, it is no fault of mine from the beginning, which I think to be able to explain to the satisfaction of every impartial man; and I think your placing me in that situation, will enable me to be of service to you. Whoever you engage with, let it be a man that knows the world, that he may be able to guard against the tricks which your situation exposes you to. I am, with the greatest respect, and best wishes, your obliged and obedient servant, Robert Jacques < no role > ."

Mr. Jacques. My lord, may I be permitted to call for the correspondence that has passed between Eyles and me? because if all the letters were read, they would explain one another.

Do you know what Molloy was? - Clerk of the papers in the Fleet.

Do you know what Rainbot was? - No, I do not.

Mr. Jacques. I will admit that they were both clerks of the papers; and that the office which I proposed to succeed to, was that office; but it was in consequence of a prior correspondence, which you must see by that letter.

(Cross-examined by Mr. Jacques.)

Mr. Price, you say that you heard of the escape of Shanley? - Generally.

Did you hear it from rumour first, or did you hear it from me? - I heard it from several people, merely general rumour.

How long was it after the escape, that you can swear to of your own knowledge, that you heard it from me? - It was within eight days.

Did you hear from me by any writing, or any thing that you knew could come from me, except when you received that letter? - You wrote to me to demand the prisoner.

Did you ever hear from me, so that you knew the message came from me, before that time? - Not before: when I went to the Fleet, they were not explicit.

Did I ever give you any direction whatever to bring any action against the warden?

Mr. Garrow. I caution you that I shall enquire into the whole of the transactions.

Mr. Jacques to Price. Did I ever see you on the business? - I believe there must have been another note; there was nothing of any consequence: his brother called upon me, and spoke to me.

Court. The general privilege is this: an attorney is not permitted to tell the secrets of his client.

(Read.)

"To Mr. Stephen Price < no role > , attorney at law," (no date; it came with the warrant of attorney)

"Northumberland-street, Strand."

"Sir, I have sent you a warrant of attorney, which I shall be obliged to you to enter up, and take out execution on immediately, as the defendant is in custody at Simpson's in Brook-street; and I am told he will settle the matter he is in for, and be out immediately; therefore do it immediately, and I have no doubt he will settle this: you may depend upon it that it is a straightforward business: you see I have not taken the warrant in my own name, nor never will any more; but you will see by the indorsement on the back, that it is in trust for me: if you have any offer of settlement, you may take half down, and a warrant of attorney for the remainder, but no otherwise: I have sent you two guineas per bearer, for money out of purse. You need only lodge the writ at the sheriff's office: in the other writ you sent me, there is a mistake, therefore I shall not serve it till I see you. I am, Sir, your humble servant, Robert Jacques < no role > . Pray send me an answer by the bearer. The witness to the warrant of attorney is my brother."

Mr. Garrow. Do you know Bailey? - I do not.

Do you know what relation he is to Jacques? - I have heard he is his brother-in-law.

Mr. Jacques. I admit he is my brother-in-law.

Price. I was asked to bring an action; but it was not brought; it was mentioned to me by Mr. John Jacques < no role > .

Mr. Garrow. Do you know of any instructions given by Jacques, or any proceedings by Jacques, against the warden, for that escape of Shanley?

Mr. Jacques. You recollect seeing me at Westminster-hall, a long time after, on a habeas-corpus? - I did see you in court.

Do you recollect the conversation that passed between us at that time: do you recollect my saying that I was afraid there was some trick in getting Shanley out; and who it was I suspected had been guilty of that trick? - You did mention that there had been a trick; but I cannot say who you suspected.

Did not I tell you then, that I was perfectly unacquainted with it? - You certainly did.

Court. What you said is not evidence for yourself.

(The warrant of attorney read.)

"To Francis Edwards < no role > and George Search < no role > , attornies of the Court of King's Bench, &c. 1720 l. on a mutuatus from Richard Bailey < no role > . Judgment not to be entered up till the 10th of August next. Witness, John Jacques < no role > . (Indorsed.) This warrant of attorney is given to the within named Richard Bailey < no role > , in trust for Robert Jacques < no role > ."

Mr. Jacques. I submit to your lordship, that they ought first to prove that the warrant of attorney is executed.

Court. No, that is not their case.

Mr. Garrow. I am very ready to admit what I believe, that it is a forgery.

- SHEPHERD sworn.

Mr. Crossley is at Doctor's Commons; I received these papers from Mr. Crossley about a quarter of an hour since; they are the same papers, and in the same state I received them from him.

Mr. Garrow. Go and find Mr. Crossley.

WILLIAM ELDERTON < no role > sworn.

I am clerk to Mr. I'Anson. I examined this office copy of the judgment, in the case of Alder and Shanley, with the original record in the Treasury Chamber; both ways with the original.

Look at this, and tell us whether you examined that? - Yes.

Mr. Jacques. Can I compare these judgments with the record?

Court. Yes, if you please.

Mr. Garrow. We have not set out the judgments.

"Trinity Term, 29th year, &c. roll 998. Middlesex to wit, Francis Shanley < no role > , &c. 950 l. 10 s."

Jacques. It is stated in the indictment, nine hundred and fifty pounds twelve shillings.

Court. That is a material variance.

Mr. Garrow. That will be no objection to the third count, which is on Bailey's judgment only: read that.

"One thousand 720 l. of lawful money of Great Britain, &c."

Mr. Jacques. I beg pardon; it is stated seventeen hundred and twenty.

Court. No, it is one thousand 720.

Court to Counsel. You must confine your evidence to that count only: the whole of the conduct of the parties which applies to this case, is proper evidence; but, inasmuch as you have failed with respect to the other judgment, I think nothing that applies to the debt of Alder, ought to be given in evidence; for if there was no charge in the indictment, but the debt of Alder, you would stop here.

GEORGE CROSSLEY < no role > sworn.

Mr. Garrow. Who did you receive that warrant of attorney from? - John Tronson < no role > .

Who is Mr. John Tronson < no role > ? - I understand he is a surgeon.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, this is the warrant of attorney to Alder; may they be permitted to go into that?

Court. Certainly not.

Mr. Garrow. I beg your lordship's pardon: the fact, that we have entered up judgment for nine hundred and fifty pounds twelve shillings, undoubtedly is not proved; but you observe that there is on the third count, a charge that those persons did such and such acts; there are other counts which charge generally, that they procured him to be charged in execution; that they procured him to escape, that the warden might be charged: I agree we are cut out of the fact, that there was a judgment of Alder, for nine hundred and fifty pounds ten shillings. Suppose they had contrived twenty other warrants of attorney, but not entered them up, might we not give evidence that Jacques and Tronson, and several other parties, did, as a part of that general conspiracy, contrive so many warrants of attorney to be entered into; I am therefore shewing other acts which are not stated on this record.

Court. I see no general count: your indictment consists of six counts; each of them is founded on a judgment; and the last count, which is not general, contains an account of a debt of nine hundred and fifty pounds twelve shillings, which is not proved: there is no general count.

Mr. Garrow. My lord, I submit that I may go into every thing but the judgment itself, which I have failed in proving: that it is a distinct allegation; that there was a warrant of attorney, and several other acts were done.

Court. In the indictment you first state the warrant of attorney; and then you say on that he took out judgment; and then he sued out a writ; as far as you fail in one, you fail in the whole; I think you cannot prove it.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I submit, as it is so combined and so connected in one judgment with the other; it states in the first instance, that Shanley was arrested on that judgment of Alder; and being so arrested, it caused him to be detained on the execution at the suit of Bailey; all the counts state it in that way.

Court. As they state it, there are some charges on that of Bailey.

Mr. Jacques. Yes, my lord; but it states all the way through, that is in order to defraud the warden; that he was arrested on the suit of Alder, on that judgment; and that I detained him.

(Court reads the indictment.)

In the third count, they say nothing of any conspiracy on account of the action brought by Alder.

Mr. Silvester. No, nor in the fifth count; you must confine yourself to that.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Crossley. Are you acquainted with Tronson, one of the defendants in this cause? - I have known him about two or three years.

What was he when you first became acquainted with him? - I understood him to be a surgeon.

Where did he live? - I cannot be very accurate; but I think it was some where by Red-lion-square, in some street; but I never was at his house.

Do you know a person of the name of Shanley? - I never saw him but once; that was when he was in custody at Simpson's in Brook-street.

Who went with you to that house, at any time while Shanley was in custody? - Nobody, to my knowledge; I never saw him but once.

Did Tronson go with you? - No.

Did you ever hear from Tronson, or from Robert Jacques < no role > , when Shanley went to the Fleet? - I did not know any thing of that, till I saw the papers of the escape.

Had you any conversation with Tronson or Robert Jacques < no role > , or Bailey, on the subject? - I never saw Bailey; and I never spoke to Jacques more than this; I called once upon him at the Fleet; and he denied any knowledge of the debt of Shanley to Alder; I told him if it was done with anyfelonious intent, that I thought he had acted in such an improper manner; he positively denied it, and said if he had he would not have applied to me; I told him if I had the least suspicion I would lay a detainer against him for a very considerable sum he owed me.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I submit no conversation of Tronson's can be given against me: is not the conversation of Tronson connected with Alder's judgment.

Mr. Garrow. Do you know any thing from Tronson about the escape.

Court. What any one of the persons did is evidence, supposing they should make out a strong case against you, unless they can prove the others concerned, they must fail.

Mr. Garrow to the officer. How did you swear the jury? - On the defendant only.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, is any conversation of Tronson's to be given in evidence against me, or any conversation of Shanley's.

Court. So far in order to prove that they were concerned in the conspiracy; but unless they bring it home to you, you are not to be convicted of the conspiracy; I had a case last week at Westminster, whether the declaration of a person that was dead was to be received; and I was of opinion it should, for they could not have proceeded without it.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Crossley. Did you ever proceed against the warden for the escape of Shanley? - No, Sir.

Was you even applied to by any body to proceed? - Tronson told me he understood that Shanley had escaped, and that Alder was to call upon me; I never took any step in the world; I saw the handbills that were put up, and I did not think it prudent to have any thing to do with it.

You do not know of your own knowledge what became of Shanley? - No, Sir.

Did you know Alder? - I never saw him in my life.

Do you know Tronson's hand writing? - I have not knowledge enough of his hand to form an opinion.

Mr. Jacques. When you called upon me in the Fleet prison respecting some other business, and this business was mentioned, it was Alder's judgment that I told you I knew nothing of? - Certainly; what I spoke of was Alder's judgment; there was nothing said about the other.

THOMAS MELL < no role > sworn.

Mr. Silvester. You are an officer of the sheriff of Middlesex? - Yes.

Did you arrest Shanley? - Yes.

Have you your writ here? - No; I did not know it was necessary to bring it.

When did you arrest him? - August the 21st.

Where did you arrest him? - In London-street.

Did any thing pass when you arrested him? - Nothing at all.

Where did you find him? - Standing at the door: when I told him my business he came away; he came away very peaceably, and very pleasantly, without saying any thing.

Where did you take him to? - Mr. Simpson's, in Brook-street.

Mr. Jacques. Your Lordship will see that this is the arrest at the suite of Alder.

Court. That is nothing at all then.

NICHOLAS NIXON < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I submit they cannot prove the habeas corpus till they have proved the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum.

Mr. Garrow. We mean to prove the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum by the habeas corpus.

Mr. Garrow to Mr. Price. Have you got the writ? - I delivered the writ to the sheriff.

Mr. Silvester to Nixon. You are clerk of the papers of the Fleet prison? - Yes.

Do you remember a man of the name of Shanley being in the Fleet prison; I do not ask in whose suit, or for what purpose he came there? - I can tell you by the book; it was the 22d of August, 1789.

How long did he continue in custodythere? - He continued till the following day, on the 23d.

Only one night? - Only one night.

Do you know any thing of your own knowledge of the fact of his escape, or the mode of it? - I do not; I only know that in fact he did escape.

Was Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > at that time in the Fleet? - Yes.

How long had he been in the walls of the Fleet? - He was last committed the 11th of June, 1788; but when he was taken into the walls, out of the rules, I cannot say.

Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Jacques? - Yes.

Do you know a man of the name of Hopper? - Yes, Sir; I believe he was a prisoner at the time that Shanley was a prisoner.

Look at these two letters, and tell me whether you believe these two to be the hand writing of Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > ? - I believe this letter to be the hand-writing of Mr. Jacques; it is a feigned hand; I have inspected them a good deal; I have compared the other with some of his writing, and I believe the superscription is his at any rate; and the word October corresponds a good deal.

On the whole do you verily believe them to be his writing, though in a feigned hand? - I never saw any feigned hand before; the letter C on the superscription corresponds so much with his hand writing, that I believe it to be his hand-writing.

How were those letters procured? - They were intercepted by authority.

Court. Do you speak from your own knowledge, or merely from the comparison of hands? - From both; before ever I compared them, I said I believed they were Mr. Jacques's writing.

Mr. Jacques. It is very fortunate for me that there are bankers, and gentlemen in Court that know my hand-writing very well.

The letter read, addressed to

"Monsieur Monsieur Loftus," signed

"A Friend."

"October 16th, 1789.

"Dear Sir, if this meet you" -

Mr. Jacques. I beg your pardon; do you mean to take that as proof of my hand-writing?

Court. Certainly.

Mr. Jacques. How often have you seen me write? - Three or four times.

On what occasion? - In the office; once particularly.

Have I ever been on good terms with you? - I do not know that you have been on any bad terms with me, for you have corresponded with me; I have had a great deal of your writing in the office on various occasions, and you have always avowed them to be your writing; notes to the warden, and one thing or another; and you have always avowed them to be your hand writing; I have seen you write, but I cannot tell on what occasion: I have seen you write in the office; you came so frequently into the office.

Was any of that writing like this letter? - I cannot say it was; it is a feigned hand.

Did you ever see me write any thing like it? - No; certainly I have not; you wrote your usual hand.

What leads you then to believe this is my writing? - Because the C is so much like yours, that I believe it to be your hand-writing.

My lord, is that proved sufficiently?

Court. It is that proof upon which the letter must be read; you are at liberty afterwards to call witnesses to prove it is not your hand-writing.

Mr. Jacques. What was you before you was clerk of the papers? - I was clerk of the papers at the New Goal, in the Borough.

How long, Sir? - Near four years.

Was not you during that four years a prisoner? - No, Sir.

Not any part of the time; was you never a prisoner in the New Gaol? - Yes.

How long? - I believe two years.

What was you a prisoner for? - Debt.

Was you ever a prisoner in any othergoal? - Yes; about fourteen years ago I was a prisoner in the King's Bench a small time.

Was you ever a prisoner in any other gaol? - Not that I know of.

Cannot you recollect; do you mean to swear positively that you never was? - I can scarcely remember, but it is a long while ago; I was once a prisoner in Tothill-fields Bridewell for one night or two.

For what? - I was a prisoner there; a man had taken me up because I owed him twenty or thirty pounds for stockings, under a suspicion that I had defrauded him of so much money.

Be so good to inform me of his name? - His name is Clay.

How long was you there? - It might be a few days; it might be a week; I do not know.

Will you swear it was not a month? - Yes; I will swear it was not a month.

I shall take your answer: never more than a week? - I cannot say.

Will you swear it was not more than a fortnight? - That I cannot say neither; I can say it was not a month.

Had you any hearing on that business? - Yes.

Before whom? - Before Sir Sampson Wright, and he discharged me; I did nothing to deserve such confinement.

Did you ever pay for these stockings? - I am sure I cannot say; I do not know that I did; there was a bill given for them.

You had been pretty much used to be giving bills? - No, Sir; I never gave any bills.

Never? - Yes; but not my own.

Now will you undertake to swear that you never was in any other goal, but the King's Bench, New Gaol, and Tothill-fields Bridewell? - Yes, Sir, I will.

Mr. Garrow. In common with Mr. Jacques's misfortunes you was in goal for debt? - Yes.

You was not tried for forgery? - No.

You was not prosecuted for this supposed fraud neither? - No.

WILLIAM CLIPSON < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Have you not been in Court during this trial? - No, Sir; I have not.

Nor during the examination of any witness? - No, Sir.

Nor have not heard what passed? - No, Sir.

Mr. Garrow. Do you give any security to the warden? - I do.

Mr. Jacques. I ought to have asked that question too. My lord, this is an indictment charging me with intent to defraud the warden, and to effect the escape of a prisoner; Clipson giving security to the warden, is certainly liable to the payment of that debt; if Eyles should be liable to the payment of it, and whether if I should be convicted on this indictment it does not evade the payment of it.

Court. No; what is done on this indictment will be no evidence on any action, it can only apply to his competency.

Mr. Garrow. I understand you are one of the turnkeys of the Fleet prison? - I am.

How long have you been so? - Twelve months the 29th of last January.

Do you know Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > ? - I do; he was within the rules some time; he was taken within the walls the 17th of June, 1789 by me; I went and took him in by order of the warden.

After Jacques was taken within the walls did you ever hear any expressions of his with respect to the warden, previous to the time that Shanley became a prisoner? - Yes, several; I have heard him say several times that he would never leave the warden till he was the total ruin of him.

He was taken within the walls against his consent? - He was.

I believe in consequence of it, subsequent to that, the warden paid a considerable sum of money, several hundred pounds, for the escape of Jacques? - He did.

Has he been in any cause a witness? - Yes.

Do you know when a person of the name of Shanley came to be a prisoner inFleet? - The 22d of August last; I fetched him from Serjeants Inn myself; I believe it was about one o'clock; Jacques was a prisone inside at the time.

On the 23d of August where was you? - I went that day to see my mother at Leatherhead, in Surry: I usually am at one gate, but have two under turnkeys: I returned the next afternoon, the 24th about three or four in the afternoon.

Did you find Shanley there? - No; he had escaped.

What did you do in consequence of the escape of Shanley? - I immediately sent one of the under turnkeys to Dover; I went to several places; at last I went to Chelsea, to Tronson's house, on Saturday the 29th of August.

Had you any escape warrant with you? - I had.

Tell us whether you saw Tronson, and whether any thing passed between Tronson and you on that subject? - There was a field leading to the back part of the house; when I knocked at the door Tronson was some time before he opened the door; I told him I insisted on searching his house, and produced the escape warrant; he swore I should not; I found nobody but him: I said, you was one of the gentlemen that was in the Fleet last Sunday; he said, yes, he was; he had got his friend out, and did not want to go there any more.

Was Sunday the day that Shanley escaped? - It was.

Court. Did any body else escape then? - No.

Mr. Garrow. Did you know Tronson before that? - I had seen him come backwards and forwards to Jacques; I did not know his name.

What more did he say relating to Shanley? - Nothing more that I recollect.

What more did you do in consequence of this escape? - I went to a number of places, and made a number of enquiries, at last a woman of the name of Bew gave me some information: I went to the Post-office, and enquired if there was any letter come from France to No. 97, Fetter-lane, directed to Mr. Smith.

Who lived at that house in Fetter-lane? - Alder.

Did the Post-man in consequence of any application deliver any letter to you? - Yes; he delivered one, and one I went and got from his mantle-place, which he had left at home.

These letters were directed to Smith? - They were.

Look at these, and tell me whether these are the letters that fell into your hands? - This letter with Botany Bay at the bottom fell into my hands by Mrs. Bew's means.

Whose hand writing is this? - This is Tronson's.

Have you seen him write? - Yes, I have seen him write.

Did he acknowledge the letter you received to be his hand writing, or treat them as his? - He acknowledged these to be his hand writing, besides which I am positive it is his writing.

(Read.)

"To Monsieur a Monsieur Loftus, Hotel de Cour de Londres, Callis, France, 29th of August, 1789, signed James Smith < no role > ."

"Dear Frank, I have this moment received yours, and have got time only to inform you that there has been six men here searching for you this moment. Matters is arrived to such a height that I can neither call on Jacques, nor can he send to me at present, therefore I must request you will refer drawing till you hear from me again; rely upon it, I shall either call or send to him as soon as I can, consistant with safety: they have threatened to indict us all for a conspiracy: I must once more request you will live as frugal as possible till you hear from me; God bless you; depend upon it you shall not be neglected; I this moment wish with all my heart and soul wish I had nothing to do with it: believe me to be, with every sentiment of friendship, yours sincerely, JamesSmith. - You must direct no more at Chelsea (as follows) Mr. Smith, No. 97, Fetter-lane, Holborn. - I am sure you will have the goodness, considering the disagreeable predicament I am in, to excuse this scrawl, for by G - d nothing but Bottany Bay stairs us in the face; you have been advertized, and a reward offered; my opinion is, any other situation on the continent would be better; do not doctor me over any more in your letters."

Mr. Garrow to Clipson. Tronson was a surgeon? - He was.

Give us the first letter that you got.

Mr. Jacques. May I produce the advertisement; I beg to know by whose order that was put in, because it says that they knew that Shanley went out in woman's clothes? - I carried this advertisement myself.

Mr. Garrow. How came you to describe him in the advertisement, that he went out in woman's clothes? - Because I was told so by Mrs. Bew.

Mr. Jacques. Then my lord, it happens that he is described to have gone out in men's clothes; you see how the witness swears in what he gives as evidence.

Mr. Garrow. You carried that advertisement such as it was, yourself? - I did.

Who prepared it? - Mr. Nixon: this letter signed Francis Loftus < no role > is the hand writing of Francis Shanley < no role > ; I saw him write in France, I took over the copies, and he acknowledged that such letters were his hand writing.

(Read.)

"Directed Mr. Smith, No. 97, Fetter Lane, Holborn, London." With a Dover post mark.

"Dear Doctor, I cannot conceive the reason you have omitted writing to me now very near three posts; I do not think it fair, for if you recollect, your promise was to write every post, and let me know how matters were going on; you have never in any letter given me a brief account of matters since my arrival here; now let me request that you will write by return of post; for if you do not, I must direct my letters elsewhere, as I must think all my letters miscarry; I have drawn for ten pounds, which I hope you will be ready for, as any misconduct in munny matters here would be the means of undoving every thing that I have been at the trouble and expence of doing; I had not written above three hours, when I mentioned going up the country, until I was advised by a more able statesman to stop where I am, for many reasons; not that he knows any thing of my affairs, but thinks it of a different nature; except the bill, as soon as possible; for I want cash d - mnably, for the fricaw cost some cash to my friend for their goodness, one of the aggressors are to be whipped through the town next Saturday: adieu my dear friend, ever yours, truly yours, F. Loftus. My love to all, &c. &c. &c. Pray write by return of post. Hotil de la Coeur de Londres, Calies, October 1st. 1789."

Clipson. This next letter I got by standing at the door; I received it from the postman, paying him ten pence for it.

Court. Who lived at No. 97? - Alder did live there.

Mr. Garrow. Did any person of the name of Smith live there that time? - No, Sir.

(Read.)

"Directed to Mr. Smith, No. 97, Fetter Lane, Holborn, London. With a Dover post mark.

I received your very extraordinary letter ten days after I had drawn; you informed me you had removed, but never tell me where to draw, nor any one thing of the matter: now Sir, I did not expect any such tratement from you, for I must be under the necessity of of telling you, you have not acted by me properly, for the moment the bill comes back to Calias, I shall be arrested, and all trough you G - d dam behaviour; I tell you again, it is shuffling; go instantly on receipt of this, to the man you paid the bill before to; and above all things preventthe bill from bee sent back; I would not wish it for one hundred pounds, I have not words to express how much I am hurt at it, and all your dam'd neglect; I assure you Doctor, it does not look well, nor neither do I like it; for God sake tell me in the next where you are, and whare you are, and where I am to direact my bills. Now I suppose you think yourself very knowing, because you mooved unknown to me, and at the same time you are a dam'd fool; let me know again where I am to direact my bills; you have put me in a violent passion I assure, let you intrate you to prevent the bills return; I shall give you every account in the next, with a proviso that you answer this properly: look up to me for a pattern, for if you act as fathful as I have done, all parties will be satisfied: write direactly; do not think I shall ever moove unknown to you, my mind is at this moment on the wreack; I assure you I am. Adiu, yours truly F. Loftus. Calies, October 3d, 1789. Write a better hand next time."

Clipson. The next, my lord, is a letter intercepted by order of Mr. Nepean; this last letter is Shanley's hand-writing in the name of Loftus; (no date, directed to Mr. Smith, No. 97, Fetter-Lane, Holborn. The post mark Dover; October 14th.)

"Callis, eight o'clock, Sunday-night."

"Dear Doctor, all this morning did I sit at my window with a pleasing expectation of receiving a letter from you; but to my grate heart felt mortification, he passed my hotel without calling, (namely the postman passed); now for God's sake write, or you will lade me to something that is very desperate; and God knows I do not wish that; for I think all my time is made of desperate adventuers: I hope you have done as I told you, relative my bill; so my good friend, if you do not write in answer to this, it shall be the last you shall receive; but mark the end, you shall think to be in a strange country without money, is very pleasing; however shall only love it to you to picture to yourself my situation, and for one moment put yourself in my place; now all I have to say is this, pitty a heart that was made for courage and honour, and at this moment suffers many, many, many matters that you may be perfectly a stranger to; now all I have to give, is my blessing, so God bless you and yours, and may you never know the sorrows I now feel; indeed they are far from being small; may all your past grief be turn to soft content and rosy joy - is the wish of yours, F. Loftus. Attend the place where this letter goes every day, for there is not a moment but something may occur that may want advice. Adieu."

Mr. Garrow to Clipson. In consequence of this letter, did you at any time go to France? - I did.

When did you go? - I went away the 16th of October; in Calais I found Mr. Shanley by the name of Loftus, he went by the name of young Lord Loftus, belonging to the family of Lord Loftus in Ireland.

Did you see any thing of Hopper any where? - I met him at Dover, I saw him land from out of the boat.

What was his travelling name? - Johnson.

Mr. Garrow. This is the man whom Jacques in his letters calls Tom, and mentions by the name of Johnson; this is only to shew who was the person that Jacques called Johnson; I ask have you known him in the prison by the name of Hopper? - Yes.

Had you any conversation with his lordship, or otherwise Shanley? - Yes, I had, the first time he saw me, he told me he did not know me; says I, Mr. Shanley I am, very sorry to think that you do not know me, you are the ruin of me and my family; says he, I shall have nothing to do with you; and away he went. I met him afterwards at Mr. Derheim's house, and he there told me that he was exceedingly sorry to think that the matter should fall on me and my securities; he did not know that itwas to fall on any body else but the warden, otherwise he would not have done it.

What did you accuse him of having done? - Of having made his escape in order to fix the warden with so much money; I told him it would be the ruin of me and my securities; he said if that was the case, he would give me a rough account of the matter, and if I would draw up an affidavit, or any thing of that kind, he would give me an affidavit to clear me; I then drew < no role > a memorandum of the particulars of my own framing from some little instructions that Shanley had told me; he desired me to commit it to writing, and he would execute it before any body; I was going across Calais market-place, and I met Mr. Lowe, a London attorney, and he copied from mine, and Shanley sent three times while Lowe was doing it; he executed it, and he executed twice in the presence of Lowe's, and once in the presence of Mr. Derheim's; this is the paper signed in my presence and Lowe's.

(Read.)

Dated

"20th of October, 1789, signed Francis Shanley < no role > ."

" Francis Shanley < no role > , late a prisoner in his Majesty's prison of the Fleet in London, but now residing at Calais, in the kingdom of France, voluntarily declares and says; that in or about August last, he, this declarant, was applied to by John Tronson < no role > , with whom he was acquainted by their having been prisoners for debt in Newgate, London, and who usually calls himself and signs his name James Smith < no role > , to sign two warrants of attorney, one for the payment of four hundred and fifty-five pounds, as a debt due to one Edmund Alder < no role > , the other eight hundred and sixty-nine pounds, as a debt due to one Richard Bailey < no role > , in order that judgments might be entered up, and executions taken out thereon against this declarant, on which he was to be removed to the Fleet, and that he should be enabled to make his escape from thence, in order to fix the warden of the said prison with the amount of the said debts, and that he should have part of the money to be received from the said warden in consequence of the said escape; and faith, that he having so agreed, he did accordingly sign the said warrants of attorney for the said pretended debts; although he positively faith, he never in his life saw either the said Edmund Alder < no role > and Richard Bailey < no role > , the plaintiffs in the said judgments, nor does he now, or ever did owe them any money whatever; but the said judgments were given and executed by this declarant for the sole purpose of fixing the warden, and no other purpose whatever; and further says, the said plaintiffs were procured by the said Tronson and one Robert Jacques < no role > a prisoner in the Fleet, and that Tronson paid for the writs of habeas corpus, and other expences; and that on Sunday, the twenty-third of August last, he was assisted in making his escape from the said prison by the said Tronson and Jacques, and was furnished with woman's apparel by Tronson's wife, and Tronson and Jacques furnished him with money, and desired him to take a post chaise to Dover, and to hire a private boat from Dover to Calais; and the said Jacques and Tronson have supplied him from time to time with money, since he has been in France; and further faith, that giving the judgments and suffering himself to be taken in execution thereon, was the scheme and contrivance of the said Jacques and Tronson, in concert with Alder and Bailey, the pretended plaintiffs in the said execution, to fix John Eyles < no role > , Esq; the warden of the Fleet, with the money supposed to be due by this declarant on the said judgment; and that it was previously agreed that if the said plan succeeded, whatever money should be recovered from the said warden by means thereof, should be divided between the said Jacques, Tronson, and this declarant, and Alder and Bailey, the said plaintiffs. Signed at Calais aforesaid, this 20th day of October, 1789: the several interlineations in the declaration abovementioned being first made: in the presence of H. Derheim's, sworn Languister of the English nation to theAdmiralty of Calais; John Lowe, Carleton-place, St. Alban's-street, London; William Clipson < no role > ."

Mr. Garrow. Did any thing more pass on your then journey to Calais? - No, nothing more: he said he was very willing to sign any thing else; but as to his going to England with me; (I said to him, now you have confessed the whole; if you will go over to England, and clear yourself like a man, I will pay your passage over; and if you owe any little trifle, I will pay it for you); he said, no, he knew Tronson and Jacques, and the rest of them, were so desperate people, that they might do something to take his life away. I returned to England, and went afterwards, a second time, to Calais; I did not see Shanley then.

Look at this paper, and tell me whose writing it is? - It is Tronson's.

Had you at any time any conversation with Tronson about that? - I had; he acknowledged it to be his hand-writing; he said he was advised by Mr. Jacques to send it to Shanley: I since that met Mr. Tronson.

Where did you get that letter? - I sent an officer from Calais to fetch Shanley out of prison; and he sent to me, that if I would come and pay a trifle that he was in prison for, he would come here; and the officer brought a parcel of letters. The post mark is the 31st of August, 1789; no date indeed, signed

"F. Shanley."

(Read.)

'Dear Frank, since I put the wafer on the letter, the underneath copy has come to hand, which you must likewise copy immediately. Yours, &c. James Smith < no role > , &c. You may have the draft here, but no letter by the post.

"Sir, my astonishment was great at seeing your advertizement; but since you and I must have both been deceived, I think it but right to inform you in what manner I left the Fleet. Soon after I arrived there on the Saturday, I sent for Clipson, and gave him one hundred pounds to let me out; this I did by the advice of a friend of his, whose name I shall not mention, as he has not deceived me. My terms were as follows: Clipson was to leave town on Sunday morning, and not to return till Monday morning, half past eleven; I was to tap at the window of the prison, upon which the gates were to be opened by some unknown person. I was to go to Ireland, and tell you I escaped over the wall; but as he has deceived me, and promised I should not be advertized, I think it right to inform you that I walked out by his direction. At the time you receive this, I shall be in Ireland, and follow the advice of my friends. To John Eyles < no role > , Esq. Fleet Prison, London." Inclose it to Mr. West, who will be there to receive it. Direct this letter agreeable to the following order: John West < no role > , Esq. Peel's coffee-house, Fleet-street, London.'

Mr. Garrow to Clipson. Is there one word of truth in that assertion, that you have received one hundred pounds, or any sum of money? - Not one word, Sir; that was entirely to lay it on my shoulders.

Do you know Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - I have seen some of it.

Did you ever see him write? - Yes, I have.

Do you believe these two letters to be Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - I believe them to be his feigned hand-writing.

Have you ever seen any of his feigned writing? - I have; and I have seen him write; and I believe this to be his feigned hand-writing.

Letter read, addressed to

"Monsieur a Monsieur Loftus, Hotel de la Cour Londres, Calais, France," with a General Post-office stamp, London, 16th October.

"Dear Sir, if this meets you, our friend Tom will have seen you; and he knows from whom this comes, to inform you that William Clipson < no role > , the turn-key, set off for Calais this morning, in search of you, to prevail on you to do some wicked act againstyour friends; but all rely on you with the greatest confidence. You will have heard that some of yours fell into your enemys hands, in consequence of a traitor; but-all will yet be well; so you are safe, and out of Old England. I have wrote a letter directed to Mr. Johnson, which I shall send with this; therefore if he should have left you, please to get it: I must say no more till I know this meets you; and then your friend Tom knows how to direct. From A SINCERE FRIEND."

Letter to Hopper, alias Johnson, read, dated

"October 16th, 1789."

"Dear Tom, if this should meet you, it is just to inform you that Clipson set off for Calais this morning, to endeavour to find out the same person you went in search of, to persuade him into some thing: I think some step might be taken to punish the villain there; at least he might be hobbled; you have nothing to fear from him: every thing here goes on to our utmost satisfaction; particulars I cannot relate, as I do not know this will meet you. I have wrote to L - s, therefore you will get that letter also; and if this should meet you, wait till you write, and receive my answer. Yours sincerely, YOU KNOW WHO." Directed to

"Monsieur a Monsieur Johnson, Hotel de la Cour de Londres, Calais, France." General Post < no role > mark, London.

Mr. Jacques. Please to let me look at the letters.

Jury. We should be glad to see these two letters.

Mr. Garrow. Was there a person of the name of Michael Kane < no role > in custody? - Yes.

Had he the run of the key, as you call it? - Yes, he used to go out sometimes.

Look at this letter, and tell me if you know whose hand writing this is? - It is Mr. Jacques's.

Was Michael Kane < no role > acquainted with Mr. Jacques? - Yes.

Letter read, addressed to

"Mr. Shanley," which has been Loftus,

"London, October the 24th, 1789."

"Dear Frank, I received your two letters last night late; I had then wrote to you, and could not recall it. I am surprized you should take no notice of the receipt of my two last, one to you, and one to Tom; or what is become of him? is he with you, or gone up the country? I think you should have hobbled Clipson for the money; for he has, I think, acted like a villain, in carrying matters so far; I think it is not necessary; how he could get you excused, if you come over, I cannot tell; but do not risk it, is my advice; for was he to be a villain, all you could say against him is not worth while. I think Shot" -

(Mr. Silvester. That is another turn-key that Clipson sent to Dover.)

The remainder of this Trial in the next Part, which will be published in a few Days.

Horrid Conspiracy!

THE TRIAL OF ROBERT JACQUES < no role > , FOR A Conspiracy AGAINST JOHN EYLES < no role > , ESQ; WARDEN OF THE FLEET-PRISON, WHO WAS TRIED AT JUSTICE HALL in the OLD BAILEY, On SATURDAY, the 10th of JULY, 1790, And was CONVICTED.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY E. HODGSON, PROFESSOR OF SHORT-HAND; And Published by Authority.

NUMBER VI. PART III.

LONDON:

Printed for E. HODGSON (the Proprietor); And Sold by him, at his House, No. 14, White Lion Street, Islington; Sold also by J. WALMSLAY, No. 35, Chancery Lane; S. BLADON, No. 13, Pater-noster Row; and C. D. PIGUENIT, No. 8, Aldgate.

MDCCXC.

CONTINUATION OF THE TRIAL OF ROBERT JACQUES < no role > , FOR A CONSPIRACY.

"I think Shot is an honest fellow; but you are the best judge; but I cannot help thinking he over-acts his part; I find he has been concerned in several things, and turned evidence: he certainly has managed Alder's matter very well; if he would fix Jacques and B - y, it would be a capital stroke; they deserve it. It was a villainous thing to arrest you after you had given the warrant of attorney, P - ys which you must send for that purpose; this plan shall be in my next; until then be particular. If it was not for Polly, I would certainly come over. They all think that J - s contrived the escape, which is very well. If ever I should be found out, we must stick to each other, and fix the whole on C - n. I understand, as to Shot, we must not trust him. I am just informed that our friend Michael is locked in, and has no longer the run of the key; I am sorry for it; he always told them J - s was the man; but do not alarm yourself; I will point out all particulars, and let you know in my next every particular. Write immediately, and tell me every thing that passed between you and C - n. If ever the thing is discovered, it never can be, unless he is a traitor. Adieu! God bless you; I think it will be better for you not to sign any name in future, but

'you know who;' you should disguise your hand, as you see mine can never be known. Let me know what excuse C - n made for being out of town the day you went off; do not trust him too much; I wish you had hobbled him in France. I did not know till now, that Alder lived with Bob Holloway < no role > ; never let them know my name."

Clipson. I believe Jacques writes three different hands.

How many different hands have you seen him write? - I never saw him write above one; I have seen something like that, and another a more of a round hand.

Court. Shew him that other letter? - This is his common hand-writing.

Mr. Jacques. That is certainly my handwriting.

(The letters handed to the jury, dated 24th of February, 1788.)

That is the letter of Jacques to the warden.

Court. I think nothing turns on that letter.

Mr. Garrow. It is read merely for the advice, to employ somebody that knew the world.

Mr. Jacques. How long have you been turn-key of the Fleet Prison? - I have been under turn-key, and head turn-key, two years.

What was you before you was turn-key at the Fleet Prison? - What was I? I was a butcher by trade; that you know very well.

Did you ever follow that business? - Yes.

How long is it since you followed it? - Sixteen or seventeen years.

What have you been since that time? - I was an officer in the Marshalsea Court.

How long? - Five, six, or seven years.

What was the reason of your not being continued an officer there? - Because I returned the Court thanks, and went out of it. I was an officer to the Sheriff of Middlesex.

How came you not to continue in that situation? - A scheme of villainy, almost as much as this, was practised.

Point it out? - I was called up one morning to execute a warrant for eleven hundred pounds, to arrest Mr. Robinson of Coventry-street, a wine-merchant. They told me Mr. Jones was the plaintiff, in Oxford-street: I arrested Mr. Robinson; he said he did not owe a shilling of the money; they sent me word to lock up Mr. Robinson in safe custody, or take good securities for his appearance; it turned out in that case that the sheriffs sent for me in the counsel chamber; they asked me from whom I received the writ? and they stopped my warrants. I convicted two of them five years, to five years on board the ballast lighter; and one of them was five years in Newgate: the fires happened at that time, and I went into the public line.

Had you no acquaintance with those persons that gave you the warrants; and how long had you been acquainted? - I never was acquainted with one of them; I saw one of them; his name was Sheers; he now keeps a timber-yard.

Was not he at that very time, advertized as a common swindler; and have not you been also? - Never in my life.

Be so good to look at that bill? - Here is a name here, William Clipson < no role > , from Coventry. Do you mean to say that is me?

I mean to prove it to be you. Do you mean to swear that you was not connected with any of the persons in that bill? - I know two of them.

Was you not in the service of Mr. Freeman of Worcestershire, at that time? - Never in my life: I knew him very well; he brought two actions for me.

Had you never any other connection with Freeman? - I know two of the people mentioned here.

And you mean to swear that is not you? - I do.

Was not you sent for to Bow-street? - Mr. Clarke sent for me; says he, Mr. Clipson, have you been lately at Coventry? I said not, and not at Birmingham, nor in that country; I had not been out of London for three years, except to see my mother. I said, if it is me, I am ready to give any security whatever for my appearance at this office; I went there; and I called every day for a fortnight, on Sir Sampson Wright; and they never sent any word to the office. I believe Clarke is here; he will inform you the same.

When you first became turn-key of the Fleet, you was a prisoner? - I was.

Do you know Mr. Cox, of Long-acre? - I did.

Do you know Goodwin, the farrier? - I do.

Do you know Long, the coach-maker? - I do.

Do you know Mr. Cartwright the shoemaker, of Holborn? - I cannot say I do.

Do you know Mr. Mitchell, a seedsman, in Bond-street? - Very well.

Do you know Mr. Serle, a grocer, in Oxford-road? - Yes; so do you Mr. Jacques.

Do you know Mr. Johnson, Mr. Serle's attorney? - Yes; so do you.

Pray, Sir, have not you had connections with all these gentlemen? - Yes, some of them; they are some of my creditors that you have called together; I owe some of them some money; I do not owe Mr. Serle any.

How many prisons have you been in besides the Fleet? - I have been in the King's Bench as well as you.

Mr. Jacques. My, lord, I trust that is not the way of answering.

What is the other prison? - The Fleet.

What other? - One night in the New Gaol.

Any other prison? - Yes, one night in Tothill Fields.

Any other prison? - When I came from Portsmouth, I was five or six days at Winchester, a voluntary surrender of my own, to take the benefit of an insolvent act, which I did not. I was at the New Gaol buying a horse of one Bath, which he warranted found, and it was not found; and I stopped the payment of the bill; and he took me up, and never appeared against me at Union-hall.

What was you at Tothill Fields Bridewell for? - I had arrested one Mr. Field; and I would not take his word; and he swore I had robbed him of a thirty pounds note, and a fifteen pounds note. I was taken to Bow-street, and nobody appeared; and the next day Mr. Field did not chuse to appear; but he ran away.

At what gaol was you in custody on the prosecution of Cox? - None.

Was you never prosecuted by Cox? - Yes.

For what? - For buying a chaise of him, and paying him twenty-three pounds for it.

Was not it a criminal charge? - He did not make it so.

Was not you prosecuted by Cox on a criminal charge? - I was.

Where was you tried? - At Hickes's-hall.

Mr. Garrow. You was acquitted? - Yes, I was.

Mr. Jacques. You never had any transaction with Mr. Long, the coach-maker? - About nineteen years ago he was a creditor of mine for goods sold and delivered: I dealt in horses and chaises a long while.

You was criminally charged on that I believe? - No, Sir.

You mean positively to swear that? - Yes, Sir, I do.

Did you ever buy a horse of Mr. Serle, the grocer? - Yes, Sir; I paid him for it.

Have you paid him for it? - Yes.

Do you mean to swear that? - Yes; he owed me at that time money, Sir, or else I should not have brought an action against Serle.

You mean to swear that? - Yes.

He owed you money at that time? - He did.

You say you was not at the prison on the 23d of August? - I was not.

Was you ever from the Fleet prison before that day, from the time of your being a prisoner? - No.

On that day you went out and staid all night? - I did: I had not seen my mother for two or three years.

When was the first time that you heard that Mr. Shanley had made his escape in woman's clothes? - On the Monday, as I went home.

How came it that Mr. Shanley was described to be gone out in men's clothes? - I did not know that he was so described.

(Read.)

"Escaped from the Fleet prison on Sunday, the 22d instant, Francis Shanley < no role > , a native of Bunnybrook near Kilkenny, has much the appearance of a French man,about five feet nine or ten inches high, lately lodged at No. 6, London-street, Tottenham-court-road, had on a blue coat, edged with narrow gold lace, striped waistcoat, and yellow breeches; whoever brings him back shall have fifty pounds reward."

What coat did he come in? - He had on when he came in a blue coat, edged with narrow gold lace.

How came you to know immediately that he went out in woman's clothes? - I could not know it immediately.

When did you know it? - When Mrs. Bew called upon me, and told me of it.

When was that? - When she brought me that letter.

When was that? - A very few days after; it may be ten days after.

Who is is Mrs. Bew? - Mr. Alder's sister.

How long have you known her? - I never knew her in my life.

Do you know where she lives now? - In Grub-street.

You support her I believe, do not you? - No, Sir; I believe not.

Do you mean to swear that you do not? - Why, I think I can very safely.

Do you mean to swear that you do not, at this time, support her? - I do.

Nor the warden neither? - Not to my knowledge: I have given her money, but not lately; now and then half-a-crown.

You went over to France immediately as you heard of this business? - Not immediately; I went the 16th of October.

Shanley was very sorry it should fall upon you? - When I came to tell him it was the total ruin of me, he said that he was persuaded to it by you and Tronson, and that you had blamed him several times for coming there so often, for fear he should be known at the gate.

Had you ever seen him before he came to prison? - I had not.

Do you mean to swear that you never saw him at the Golden Cross, Charing-cross? - Yes, that I swear; I never saw him with my eyes, to my knowledge, before I took him a prisoner at Serjeant's-inn; I heard Mr. Deraines say he would kick him out of every company; and Mr. Lowe, who is here, would not walk across the yard with him.

Did you never tell any body that you had a sum of money for letting Shanley out? - No, Sir, never did: I never had a shilling.

Did you never say so in Mr. Byshe's private room, that you had a sum of money for letting him out? - No, Sir, never.

Did you never say so in the hearing of Mr. Byshe? - No; I never did. You have said to me you was determined you would never leave me till you was the total ruin of me, and till you had me double ironed in Newgate; that I swear positively.

Court. When was that? - That was just after he found I had got back safe from France; some time just before the October Sessions.

How long after the escape? - I cannot say; it might be six weeks or two months; it might be five or six weeks.

Mr. Jacques. Did you never come down on the ground in the Fleet prison, I being a prisoner, and threaten my life? - No, I never did; you was laughing at me, and rolling your head, saying, I have done him over and all his securities.

What was the provocation I gave you then? - You had been laughing at me, and you was on the ground; I went up to you on the ground, and put my hands together so (folding them) and I told you, says I, Mr. Jacques, if you are a man, and have any thing to say, say it now; I told you you was a desperate scoundrel, and a villain, and no man, and that if you was a man you would take me then and kick me out of the place.

You was turnkey then? - I was.

Was not Mr. Shot with you? - I do not recollect he was.

Do not you recollect the letter that was written to Mr. Justice Gould, which Mr. Justice Gould shewed to you? - He wrote one letter, that I threatened to rip open his guts with a knife, which I declare on my oath is false; I did not assault you; Ionly told you what you was; I said you are of all wretches the most abominable detestable scoundrel under the sun; says I, you are the most vile villain in the world.

You wanted me to strike you? - If you had I should not have taken the law of you.

Did not you on the same day declare, that if you had me in a room with pistols you would blow my brains out? - No; I did not.

You mean to swear that you did not? - I do; I believe I said that I would sooner you would take a pistol and blow out my brains, than ruin me and my securities, as you have done.

Before that escape as well as since, have you never threatened revenge against me? - Never, no other than prosecuting you in the way I have done.

Before there was any escape of this kind, did you never threaten revenge upon me? - I positively swear I never did; I never had an angry word before I was ordered to fetch you in, and then you said you would lose your life before you would go in; I took you in with a detainer; I had that order from the warden after I received that detainer.

Did not Mr. Rainbot tell you you should not have received that detainer? - He never said so; for he had entered it in the books himself: he told me he could give me an undertaking; but I told him I would not take his undertaking: the warden gave me orders; he said, he had suffered many hundred pounds by you, and he would take no undertaking from any body: I told then I was only doing my duty in the office I held.

You say you several times heard me declare that I would never leave the warden till I had ruined him? - I have.

When did I make those declarations? - I believe within a very few days after you was taken in; it was not to me; you said it publickly.

You say that letter to the warden is my real hand-writing? - Yes.

Now on what occasions have you seen me write the feigned hand? - I have very often seen you scribbling.

When did you see me write in that feigned hand? - I have seen you write several times that very fast running-hand on my desk; I have seen you write several notes, and I believe I have had several letters for you, to give to the warden.

Have they been in a feigned hand? - No, Sir, you took care to avoid that; I believe there was a letter sent in a feigned hand to the warden.

My lord, do you think this man has sufficiently proved this feigned hand to be my hand-writing.

Court. That is not for me to say; the jury are to say that: all that I can say is, that he has proved them sufficiently to have read them.

Court. Look at that letter, the name Jacques seems to be written all at length, and then all struck out but the letter J; was that so when you saw it first? - Yes, my lord.

Where did you first see this letter? - At Mr. Holloway's.

When was that? - I cannot say what time; it was soon after the escape.

Mr. Jacques. Before ever I was locked up as a prisoner, had not you and I some words? - I never had a word with you, except it was one night at one o'clock; I did not get up to let you in; but we had no words about it.

Do you remember the circumstance of Mr. Hopper being dragged in by Harry Abbot < no role > , who is now to be examined as a witness? - Yes.

Had we no words on that occasion? - You said I had no right.

Did not I tell the warden if he did not discharge you at that time Hopper would bring an action against him? - I remember you said you would make him; you said, I had no right to detain him; I told him the bail, though they were prisoners, had a right to render him.

How came I to be there on that occasion, was I not sent for by the clerk of the papers? - I believe Mr. Rainbot sent for you.

Mr. Garrow. Is that Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - Yes.

Mr. Jacques. Is that my real handwriting, or feigned hand-writing? -

(Read.)

Addressed to

" John Eyles < no role > , Esq.

"17th of June, 1789.

"Sir, I am surprized at the conduct of your people, forcing me within-side the prison, after our conversation this evening: I would have you send word immediately to Clipson to permit me to go, as I have business of the utmost consequence in the morning, as I am sure it must inevitably ruin you, if I am prevented; I have not time to say more, as Mr. Whiteman and Mr. Rainbot are waiting to come down at my request, for I think it better than to wait till the morning. I am, Sir, your sincere well wisher, and obedient servant, Robert Jacques < no role > ."

Mr. Jacques. Did not I mention it to you, that a voluntary escape being found against the warden, that if I was understood to be a prisoner, he would lose his office, and forfeit five hundred pounds; was not not that what I meant by being the ruin of him? - I do not know, Sir; you have very often talked of that.

You say I was examined as a witness against the warden? - I saw you examined as a witness against him.

How long is that ago? - A few days ago.

What was it for? - To prove in the warden a voluntary escape.

Do you know that Mr. Eyles would have been indicted at this sessions for the affidavit he made on the voluntary escape? - I have heard people say that you threatened to indict him.

There was a verdict found against the warden for a voluntary escape? - There was.

Who is the attorney concerned in this prosecution? - I believe Mr. I'Anson.

Who is he? - Mr. I'Anson.

JOSEPH REDFEARNE < no role > sworn.

I produce the writ from the Sheriffs-office.

(Read.)

" George < no role > the 3d, &c. To the sheriff of Middlesex. Take Francis Shanley, &c. to satisfy Richard Bailey, &c. as well as of a certain debt of 1720 l. as also for 63 s. Dated 1st July, 29th year, &c. (Indorsed) Levy 896 l. besides sheriffs duty and poundage."

(The writ of habeas corpus read.)

"Have the body of Francis Shanley < no role > , &c. To the sheriff of Middlesex. (Indorsed.) The execution of this writ appears in the schedule hereto annexed, &c.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I submit this is not agreeable to what is stated in the indictment.

Court. It is very proper evidence; it is the right evidence.

THOMAS MARTIN < no role > sworn.

I am an attorney in Gray's-inn.

Did you know any man of the name of Shanley? - No.

Was you at all concerned in the suing that writ of habeas corpus? - No; I had nothing in the world to do with it.

THOMAS MARTIN < no role > sworn.

I live in Newman-street. It was not done by any one in my office.

JOHN LOWE < no role > sworn.

Was you at Calais, and was you present when Shanley signed that declaration? - I was.

How came you to be present? - By accident.

How came you to meet with him? - I met him by accident.

THOMAS HOLLOWAY < no role > sworn.

I am an attorney. I received these lettersof Mr. Nepean, on the 17th of October; I received them from Mr. Nepean, the under secretary of state; he opened them in my presence; and I delivered them to Mr. Clipson.

Mr. Jacques. Is Mr. I'Anson your agent, Sir? - In some instances.

You was applied to in this instance? - I was.

You offered this prosecution to several persons, I believe, before it was offered to Mr. I'Anson? - No, I do not recollect that I ever did; it is business I do not understand.

Did you never offer it to Mr. Crossley? - I asked Mr. Crossley for his assistance; but I do not recollect I offered it to him.

Was not Mr. I'Anson concerned against the warden? - Against you and the warden.

Was there a settlement made between the warden and Mr. I'Anson? - I paid Mr. I'Anson the costs of an action brought against Mr. Eyles and Mr. Jacques, to get rid of them, in order that Mr. Eyles's name might not be hackneyed in the courts in conjunction with that of Jacques; I paid Mr. I'Anson myself; we agreed on the sum.

Were there no terms between Eyles and I'Anson about locking me up? - No terms whatever.

You was the person that brought an action against me? - I was.

You was at that time, concerned for Mr. Eyles? - I was about that time; I believe I was.

There was some doubts whether I was a prisoner or not? - I believe there were.

ANN BEW < no role > sworn.

You are sister to Mr. Alder; he is dead? - Yes.

Do you know Tronson? - I know him by sight.

Where did your brother live? - In Fetter-lane; sixty-seven or ninety-seven; I think it was sixty-seven; he kept an office there some time.

What situation in life was he in? - In a very poor situation.

Do you remember Tronson coming there? - I do.

Did he ever receive any letter there? - He came there one night, and he said he expected a letter; and he gave him the money to pay for it.

How were the letters directed? - To Mr. Smith, in Fetter-lane.

Did you know any offer of Tronson's after the death of your brother? - Not in my presence; I never mentioned any thing to Tronson about it.

You was the person that gave the information to Clipson? - I was.

Mr. Jacques. How long have you known Clipson? - I knew him when I went to give information.

Have not you received an allowance from him since that? - No, Sir; I have not indeed; if I asked him to lend or give me a shilling he did.

Did he never allow you a certain sum? - No, Sir; upon my oath.

Not half-a-crown regularly a week? - No.

Do you remember Mr. Tronson being taken up for the murder of Mr. Alder; who was the cause of it? - I was as much as any body else; I did it of my own accord, from things that I heard my brother say before his death; I was examined before the coroner; but I did not go before the magistrate.

Was not Clipson very active on that charge? - No, he was not.

MARY ALDER < no role > sworn.

I am the widow of Mr. Alder that lived in Fetter-lane; I do not recollect the number.

Do you remember Tronson coming there? - Yes; when my husband lay dead.

Were there any letters received at your house, and delivered to him by any other name than Tronson? - Yes; there was one letter came when he was ill; but I did not open it; it was directed to the name of Smith; I delivered it to Mr. Tronson: Tronson came while my husband was dying, and groaned very much; my boy went to the door: he came on the Tuesday following; says he, Mrs. Alder, I shall receive some money in a month's time, and I will be a friend to you.

Mr. Jacques. Have you ever received any money from Clipson? - Sir, I have nobody else to depend upon.

How much do you receive? - Sometimes eight shillings, and sometimes seven shillings a week; I had half a guinea for two months; and when I got into employment, it was reduced.

Did he tell you for what purpose he allowed it to you? - No, nor I do not know.

HENRY CHESTER < no role > sworn.

I am an attorney. I was acquainted with Robert Jacques < no role > : I know a man of the name of Tronson; he and Mr. Jacques were acquainted. There was some business in which Tronson and Jacques were connected; he went by the name of John Smith < no role > ; it was about a note of hand.

Did you ever hear Jacques, in June 1789, say something respecting the warden of the Fleet? - I did; it was in June, 1789, when the cause was tried of Hilditch and Eyles; and I found the cause was settled. I saw Mr. Jacques at the coffee-house; and he seemed very angry with the warden for having left him in the lurch; he said that the warden would be ruined, or something of that kind.

Recollect as near as you can, the expression he used? - He said something about ruining the warden, or the warden would be ruined.

Which of those two expressions do you rather think he used? - I think Mr. Jacques said he would ruin the warden; but I cannot positively say which, upon my word; he seemed very much hurt about it, that he should be left in the lurch in that manner.

Mr. Jacques. Do you happen to know of there having been a voluntary escape found against the warden at that time? - Certainly, Sir.

What did I allude to when I said the warden would be ruined; did not I tell you that the warden would be ruined in consequence of locking me up as a prisoner? - There was nothing said of that kind.

Then I did not give any reason for saying that the warden would be ruined? - It was just at that time when you took out the bank bill, or something like it.

Mr. Garrow. What was that?

Mr. Jacques. It was a joke about a hand-bill that was distributed; it was like a bank note; I picked it up, and was shewing it.

You have been frequently examined in Mr. I'Anson's causes? - Since I knew you.

Mr. I'Anson had an attachment against you? - On your account.

How did you settle it? - I apprehend you are liable to pay it.

Do you know any body of the name of Smith? - You know well that it was Tronson's hand writing, because you acknowledged it to me.

Have you the bill? - No, Sir; you saw it burnt; because I said I would take no advantage of you: you employed Mr. Fielding upon it; and Mr. Fielding said it was a forgery.

Was not it in the name of Melvil and Tronson? - It was certainly payable to John Smith < no role > ; and that John Smith < no role > was the hand writing of Tronson.

Could I know it? - You said so; I do not know whether you knew it or not.

MICHAEL KANE < no role > sworn.

Mr. Garrow. You have been, I believe, very many years acquainted with Mr. Jacques? - Five or six years.

You was in the Fleet Prison, I believe: do you remember a circumstance of Mr. Shanley being there? - Yes.

Had you any conversation with Jacques, before Shanley came, respecting the warden or his interests? - Yes; it might be three weeks or a month.

What did Jacques say to you? - Why, Sir, Jacques asked me whether I knew any person who would suffer himself to be arrested, in order to six the warden with a certain sum of money? I replied, that I did not: I did not like to discountenance the business, for some certain reasons known tomyself; but however I did not disclose any thing at that time; Jacques said nothing more at that time; and I never had any conversation with Jacques, till after Shanley had escaped.

Do you remember the day upon which Shanley came to prison? - I do remember it perfectly.

Did you see Jacques in the course of that day: and what passed, and who was in company? - I do not recollect seeing Jacques < no role > that day. I went into the coffee-room to get me a pint of porter; and a Mr. Hopper, who was in company with a person named Shanley; they asked me to have a glass of wine; I drank a glass, and parted with them an hour after; that was on the night of the day of his arrival. I came in also about nine or ten at night, into the coffee-room. I am sure Mr. Jacques was not present. Hopper and Shanley were together about half after ten at night: I supped with Shanley and Mr. Hopper; nobody else was at supper.

Where did you dine the next day? - I cannot tell where I dined; but I did not dine of that party.

Do you happen to know of your own knowledge, or from Mr. Jacques's information, or Shanley's or Tronson's, who were the parties that dined together that day? - No, Sir.

The next day we have heard Mr. Shanley had walked out? - Yes.

Do you remember seeing Jacques in your room after that? - Yes, the following morning, subsequent to the escape. Mr. Hopper lay in my room on several nights, in fact, previous to this transaction, and afterwards.

Mr. Jacques. Mr. Kane is brought here by the warden; and he has no habeas? - I have no habeas; the warden brings me here.

Mr. Garrow to Kane. Go on. - Jacques came into my room; he said, says he, you have had some dispute with Mr. Hopper last night; and you had better be quiet; because if Mr. Shanley is really gone, it will shew criminality on your part; and if Mr. Shanley is really gone, it will involve you.

Had you any dispute with Hopper the night before? - I had. There was an enquiry for Shanley: I searched the house, and the cryer also; not finding any thing of him, it drove me to conclude that something had happened in consequence of that conversation with Jacques. I told Hopper that I believed his conduct was reprehensible; and I ventured to say that Shanley was gone; I said, if you are inclined to do any improper act, why lead me into it.

Now, before Jacques came in to warn you against having any words with Hopper, had Hopper been out of your room? - He had. By and by the people of the gate asked me if I knew any thing of the circumstance? the warden had sent for me, somebody propagating that I was in the plot. I thought it expedient to tell every circumstance. I know Hopper was at that time a prisoner; and there was an intimacy and acquaintance between Jacques and Hopper for three or four years.

You cannot tell how often Hopper had been a witness for him? - No.

How soon after was Hopper discharged, after the escape of Shanley? - It might be three weeks or a month.

Mr. Jacques. Mr. Kane, pray what are you? - I am at present a prisoner in the Fleet.

The rules of the Fleet? - I am in the Fleet, in fact, a prisoner; I go into the rules to be sure.

How do you support yourself in the Fleet? - By the assistance of my friends.

What kind of life are you in: what kind of business do you carry on out of the Fleet? - I do not know that I am bound to tell you that: I think that answer might criminate myself.

Will you inform the Court how I became acquainted with Hopper? - I cannot particularly say the origin of it.

Did not you introduce Mr. Hopper to me? - There was a matter existed between you and Eyles. Having a knowledge of youfor a year or two previous to this business, I thought it expedient to inform you that Mr. Thomas Hopper < no role > was to come forward to give testimony against you on the business in question.

What was the business? - An indictment for perjury.

On the prosecution of Mr. Eyles? - I believe it was.

And Mr. Hopper was a witness on that indictment against me? - I believe he was.

Do not you know who hired Mr. Hopper and Williams against me in that indictment? - I do not know that any body has; I might have heard that some people did.

Do not you know that Mr. I'Anson, the present attorney, did it? - No, I do not know that he did it; but I was told so.

Do not you know that he was charged so on an affidavit; and that he did not deny it? - I was told so.

When was it? - I believe it was the last time you was tried for perjury.

Was you a very few days ago examined as a witness in the Court of Chancery, in a cause of great consequence to me? - Yes.

Who was the attorney in that? - I forget the attorney's name.

Do you not know that Mr. I'Anson is the attorney in it, for Mr. Lacey? Who subpoened you? - I believe Mr. I'Anson.

Was not you to swear to the conversation with me on that business? - No, Sir, never.

Did not you prove a conversation with me on that cause? - I forgot.

Did not you prove a conversation with me on that occasion, that I had received a sum of money, and not paid it?

Court. Was it to prove a conversation? - I believe it was.

Mr. Garrow. You have told us that you had heard from Jacques, that Mr. I'Anson had bribed Hopper and Williams to come against him? - Yes, Sir.

Do not you know positively, that Jacques paid these two men to be witnesses for him, and lodged a security in your hands, and promised them before hand a sum of money, and deposited the security for that sum of money? - He deposited some writing; but I really never looked at it; for I promised I would not look at it.

I believe it was for the purpose that you state; was it not: was it not so stated between Jacques and Hopper, that it was to buy off his evidence? - I believe it was.

Upon your oath, what passed? - I cannot inform you; but I believe it was for the purpose of getting Hopper from I'Anson's party.

Court. Why do you believe that? - I mentioned to Jacques that Hopper was inclined to do him an injury, on the part of I'Anson; and I told Mr. Jacques that I could introduce Mr. Hopper to him, in order to prevent what might happen; Mr. Jacques was very glad that he had so good a friend as myself, to bring his enemies to be his friends: I introduced him.

What passed in consequence of that introduction? - I looked on Hopper as an honest man; and I introduced Jacques as a person that I had some dealings with; and he always paid me as to money matters; and I told Hopper that Jacques would reward him handsomely, if he would do what was right.

Court. You may say any thing to impeach the witness; but you are not to try whether he was guilty of any other crime, by a side wind, on this subject: as to fixing Jacques, it is no answer, to say that Jacques is as bad as Hopper.

Mr. Garrow. Certainly not.

After Jacques had told you that Mr. I'Anson had paid Hopper and Williams to be witnesses against him, did Jacques continue in habits of intimacy with Hopper? - No question about it.

Do you know whether Jacques and Hopper, down to this very time, have not been intimate? - I cannot tell.

Does Mr. Jacques write more hands than one? - No, I do not know that he does.

Look at these, and tell me whether you believe them to be Jacques's hand-writing? - They are not like his hand-writing, so much, that I could not swear they are; andI am of opinion they are not; at least, I have no reason to think that they are, because it is not a kind of hand that I have ever seen him write.

Mr. Jacques. Had you the rules before this escape of Mr. Shanley? - Upon my word I cannot tell; but in the course of five minutes I can recollect.

Mr. Garrow to Chester. Look at this letter? - I believe this is his; but as to these, I have seen Jacques write these sort of hands; I think these too.

Have you seen Jacques write different hands? - I have seen him write three different hands; but there are several letters in these two; but I think these are his.

Mr. Jacques. On what occasions have I wrote three different hands? - With respect to a warrant of attorney which was in my office; the defeazance was not to it, when it was to be executed: I asked Jacques if he had filled up the other part? he said he had; and he then wrote the defeazance the same as the other, in a different hand-writing. That was in the suit of Read against Le Mesurier and Higgins.

JOHN CHRISTIE < no role > sworn.

Mr. Garrow. You have not been in court? - No.

How long have you known Jacques? - Thirteen or fourteen years.

Have you often seen him write? - Yes.

Does he write all in the same hand, or different? - No; he writes different hands.

Be so kind to look at these letters? - I do think they are his hand-writing.

Mr. Jacques. Did you ever see them before? - I cannot say that I have.

Upon your oath, have not these letters been shewn you before? - There was one, but no more.

To know if it was my hand-writing? - They asked me whether I could say it was your hand-writing? and I told them I believed it was; now Mr. Jacques.

Have you been frequently examined as a witness in all the causes that Mr. I'Anson is concerned in? - Why, I have been examined; I knew you too well; I knew I should have a great deal of trouble; but never been properly paid.

Was not you examined on an action in the Court of Exchequer? - Yes, I was.

What did the Chief Baron say to you; did not he say did not believe a word you swore? - He did not.

Mr. Silvester. There was a verdict against Jacques.

Mr. Jacques. I was non-suited.

Jacques proved a debt for a note of five hundred pounds; and I never owed you one farthing of; I will swear it, that I never owed you one shilling in my life, if I had money. Lord Chancellor has given him orders to strike him off, under my commission, because he swore to two hundred and thirty pounds.

Do not be so very warm, because it is impossible for me to get through your examination. Was not you at Armstrong's at my suit? - I was.

Did not you send to Mr. Crossley, to come to you? - I do not know that I did: Mr. Crossley came; I do not know whether I did or not: I know Ross < no role > the officer told him that you offered him to do it; and then you would not do it; and then you went to Hindes.

When Crossley came, did not you offer to make a voluntary affidavit of all the conspiracy that was framed against me by I'Anson? - My lord, I will direct my evidence to you. Mr. Crossley came and asked me if I was at the proving Jacques < no role > a bankrupt? I told him I was; he asked me if I could not be an evidence against him, if he would bring an action against Mr. Green and the present recorder, who were two of the commissioners under the present commission; he went away. I told Mr. Armstrong after he was gone, I could not get a habeas; says Armstrong, you may say you will; you are not obliged to swear it, till you get there. Mr. Crossley came and asked me; and he drew me up an affidavit; I said I would not do it till I was at liberty; when I was at liberty, I said? now says I, I will not swear it, for there is not a word of it true.

Was I present at the drawing of that affidavit? - No.

Did I ever call upon you? - No; but you and Griffin, the surgeon, came by, and you hallooed out, oh! there is the bird in the cage.

Did not the Chief Baron tell you he would not believe a single syllable that you had said, for as you had signed the affidavit he did not doubt but you would have sworn it? - If any thing of indicting for perjury will do it, you are the man.

Court. That is highly improper and indecent.

MARTHA CHRISTIE < no role > sworn.

I know Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > .

Do you know his hand-writing? - Yes, very well; all his hand-writings; I can tell you a great many indeed; this in particular is what he calls his faint hand; that there I will swear is Mr. Jacques's writing; that is what he calls his faint hand, a hand which he makes a common practice of writing; these two are Mr. Jacques's writing; but the the other I am very sensible is his writing.

Mr. Jacques. What do you call this, Mrs. Christie? - The hand you usually wrote.

Court to Kane. What was your answer to the writing? - My answer was, that I do not think them like his hand-writing, in my own opinion; I do not imagine them to be like his hand-writing: I can have no opinion that they are from the writing itself: I do not think they are.

Then you say from the writing you think it is not his hand? - I do.

HENRY ABBOT < no role > sworn.

Mr. Garrow. Do you know Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > ? - That is the man.

Do you remember seeing him any time, and when? - I have seen him at Mr. Crossley's: I have known him three or four years: it is about three years ago, I went to Mr. Crossley's, in the Adelphi, about some business of my own; he had company in the fore parlour: he desired me to walk into his office: Jacques came in; and after some conversation, he told me he knew how a large sum of money was to be got, and said I should be concerned if I would, and he thought he could trust me; I asked him how? he said, by getting a man arrested, and suing the warden of the Fleet, by causing his escape; I told him, I thought it would be a difficult matter; he said, no, it was the easiest thing done in the world; this conversation was dead with me; I thought no more about it for two years: nobody but Jacques and me were together: I was in the Fleet, and am now: I was at the Fleet when Shanley came there a prisoner, I lent him my room; it was on the Saturday he came in; Shanley was missing on the Monday; he set off with the key of my room; and I never saw Shanley, or the money, or any thing: I had no conversation with Jacques about the escape.

Mr. Jacques. What are you? - A butcher in Bishopsgate-street; and likewise I bailed you twice, and you forfeited your recognizance twice.

You are allowed two shillings and four-pence a week: you are not able to pay the eighteen pounds I suppose? - No; my wife is if she likes it.

How often have you been tried in this Court? - Not so often as you; once.

For what? - On suspicion of buying things that were unfairly come by; but it turned out not so.

Have you not often declared that you never would pay the man the eighteen pounds, though you could pay hundreds? - No; you might say so; I never did.

Do you mean to say you never did? - I never did.

You say this was first three years ago? - Yes; so I recollect.

Was that the first time you saw me? - No; you had been at my house; and you gave me an invitation to come to see you; but I did not.

Did you never mention this to Mr. Crossley? - I never did.

What was your reason for not mentioningit? - Why should I? it died with me till Shanley escaped.

You have endeavoured in every respect that you could to do me an injury, have you not; have you not constantly abused me? - When; what for.

Always? - I do not know that I ever abused you but once.

WILLIAM HUMLY < no role > sworn.

Mr. Garrow. How long have you known Jacques? - The first time I knew him was when he was in the Fleet; I cannot say how long it is since; I had no conversation with Jacques; I heard Jacques speaking in the top gallery, as I was walking; I cannot say who he was talking to; he said, he should not wonder if there was an escape before the term, and the warden would be fixed with it; that was three weeks or a month before Shanley came into the Fleet.

Mr. Jacques. Was that before the escape? - Yes.

Was not it in consequence of the trap doors being left open? - No; it was not.

MARY HARRISON < no role > sworn.

I live No. 6, London-street.

Did you know Francis Shanley < no role > ? - Yes.

Did you know him at the time he was last arrested? - Yes.

How long had he been out of gaol? - I cannot say; he was arrested April was a twelve-month in Newgate; he was discharged from the spunging-house before he was last arrested, ten days.

Now the day he was arrested did you hear him say any thing about the matter? - Yes, frequently; all the day long he said he wished for Mr. Tronson to call upon him, for he thought he should be arrested: I said to him, keep out of the parlour window: I went to Shire-lane about five, and then he went and stood at the street door, and was arrested: he was distressed the whole time; I have known him four years next May: I have seen Tronson frequently with him.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, in every count in this indictment it is charged to be a conspiracy, with intent to defraud the warden; in no part of this evidence has it been shewn that I ever did attempt to defraud the warden.

Court. There is quite evidence enough of your intention to go to the jury.

Mr. Jacques. There was, I believe, some time ago, a case where a man was tried before Mr. Justice Ashurst for setting fire to his house, with intent to defraud the Sun-fire-office; there being no evidence given that any action had ever been brought against the office, the learned judge on that occasion, ordered him to be acquitted in consequence of that.

Mr. Justice Buller. He was very right; it was not like your case; whether the office was injured or not they were to prove it; but in your case it is quite different.

DEFENCE.

My lord and gentlemen of the jury, permit me to claim your attention for a few moments; I shall detain you but a very little while, for I find myself very incapable of entering into that sort of defence which the nature of such a case requires. The learned gentlemen on the part of the prosecution have certainly said a great deal respecting my character, and respecting the character of my witnesses; but I trust you will divest yourselves of all sort of prejudice, by the insinuation that I am a bad man; it has been hinted to you that I have been tried for forgery; I have been; that I have also been tried for perjury; it has been hinted to you that I have been tried under a commission of bankruptcy; but I have always been acquitted of all those charges, and I have superseded the commission of bankruptcy; therefore I trust you will not be prejudiced, and will well consider the sort of evidence that has been given against me; and I am sure if you exercise your judgment on this occasion you will see much greater reason to think that Clipson has concerted this plan for the purpose of destroying me; that Shanley, Clipson, and Tronson may have beenall concerned in destroying me in the opinion of the world, and defrauded me of a debt of eight hundred and sixty-pounds, that Shanley was in custody for; to be sure if I can be convicted on this occasion, Shanley will get rid of his debt entirely; Shanley is now abroad; I have no opportunity of recovering it: you will be well satisfied of the nature of the evidence, of the credit of the witnesses that have given testimony on this occasion, because they have all sworn to conversations; conversations I trust you will be told by his lordship, that they are of a very dangerous nature, particularly by such witnesses as have been tendered before you this day; which I am sure they will be proved to you to be; I may say every one; that I have witnesses of the first credit to call, to prove that they are not capable to be believed on their oaths; if I do that, it is not saying that I write a number of hands; I shall call to you my own banker; I shall call several other witnesses, men of character, men of reputation; there are persons that unfortunately stand indicted on the next indictments with me that will be called before you, two of them; but you will find that they are men of character, men of respectability, though unfortunately indicted with me. I trust you will be told by his lordship, that there has been no sort of evidence to fix any thing upon me; that there has been no meeting proved with Shanley; no meeting proved with Tronson and myself, for the purpose of framing this conspiracy: you will well consider that I find myself very unequal to go on, therefore I shall submit; I shall call the witnesses that I have to tender to you, and only request that you will not be prejudiced by any thing that you have heard against my character: my character I admit has been very much injured indeed; my fortune has been destroyed; my reputation gone; but by whom has it been destroyed? by Mr. I'Anson: I'Anson indicted me for forgery; Mr. I'Anson indicted me for perjury: I proved in the Court of Chancery, and he dare not attempt to deny it: I have not been so fortunate to find out the rest of the witnesses on this occasion; if so, I might unravel the whole of it upon that occasion; I feel myself very unequal to say any more; I only request that you will well consider the consequence of this prosecution, it has been pointed out to you as a serious one; and it is a serious one, I admit, and of the greatest magnitude; I should rather stand here to be tried for my life, I should rather stand here charged with felony. I have been in great habits of intimacy with the warden of the Fleet; there was a time before he became acquainted with Mr. I'Anson, that he thought me a man of the strictest honour; but the moment he became acquainted with Mr. I'Anson his opinion altered; he certainly thought himself attacked in a very serious manner by Mr. I'Anson, and he thought it material to obtain his friendship. Gentlemen, I have undergone a trial of great length, and I have been astonished and shocked at the testimony against me; and I trust that I shall be supplied by his lordship as to what I have left deficient, and that the evidence I shall call, will be sufficient to set aside the evidence against me, and that I shall be entitled to your acquittal. My lord, I trust the warrant of attorney being proved, will be sufficient to prove the debt from Shanley.

Court. It is material to you to prove it.

(Witnesses for the defendant.)

FRANCIS SEARLE < no role > sworn.

I am a grocer in Oxford-road.

Mr. Jacques. Upon your oath, from the knowledge you have of Mr. Clipson, would you believe him on his oath? - No, I do not know that I should.

Court. Do not know! - No, I would not.

Mr. Jacques. I have no right to ask his reasons; the learned gentlemen on the other side may do that.

Mr. Silvester. How long have you known Jacques? - I think it is between two and three years.

How long have you known Clipson? - About two years.

Your intimacy with Jacques < no role > I cannot go into this at time? - I am not intimate with either.

Then you are not intimate with Clipson? - By no means.

Perhaps know little of him? - No otherwise, than some transactions that came in the course of things.

More than one? - I believe two.

Do you know of his being a witness examined at all? - I have heard that he was.

You never were present at any examination of Clipson's? - No, I never was.

Then you do not know of your own knowledge, of his ever being a witness? - Only by hearsay.

He never was a witness against you? - No.

Then what you say of his character is all by hearsay? - No, it is not.

Mr. Silvester. Call in Clipson.

Mr. Silvester to Searle. You carry on business still in Oxford-road? - Yes.

Why would not you believe him, what fact is it Mr. Searle about Clipson? - I only know, that about a year and a half ago, I sold him a horse, and I took of him a bill; which bill was not paid; and upon enquiring of several people, I heard that he was used to buy and sell horses, and swindle every body he could; and since which he has, I believe, been arrested on that bill.

Did you arrest? - He was arrested on the same bill.

By you? - By a person I know very well.

Was he arrested at your suit? - I am not quite sure of that.

You did not take him up, and charge him with cheating you? - No Sir, he does not pay the bill, and he bids me defiance in it, and threatens me with perjury, and a great deal of that.

Court. Upon those grounds that you have stated, do you believe that he is a person you should think not to be believed on his oath.

Mr. Jacques. May I be permitted to ask about this debt; because Clipson said he was not indebted to him?

Has that note ever been paid? - No.

Is Clipson indebted to you for that note? - No doubt he is, I have the bill in my possession, or my attorney.

Clipson. I have the bill in my own possession; I will fetch it in a few minutes.

Mr. Jacques. You brought an action upon that note against Clipson, did not you? - I did.

What was the reason of your discontinuing that action? - My attorney's advice was that he was such a bad man, and so dangerous.

Court. Stand down, but do not go out of Court.

GEORGE GOODWIN < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Clipson? - Yes, I have some reason to know him.

From the knowledge you have of Mr. Clipson, would you believe him on his oath? - No, because he has forfeited his word so many times; I do not think his word is to be taken.

Is his oath to be taken? - I look upon him a dangerous man to society; and I hope the Court will protect me, for he is a very litigious man.

Clipson. Here is the note of hand which I have paid.

(Shewn to Searle.)

Searle. I believe this to be the note.

Court. How came you to swear you had it in your possession? - I told you, my lord, I did not know where it was.

Clipson. I have had it these six months.

Mr. Silvester to Goodwin. Then he has broke his word so often in not paying you, that you chuse to say he is not to be believed on his oath? - That is particularly my opinion of him, that is his general character.

What are you? - I am a coach-smith.

Is that your opinion of all your customers that break their words? - No Sir.

You never knew him examined in any Court against you? - No, I am very fortunate to be protected from such men; I know several that he has imposed on andgot their property, and swindled them out of property.

Had you any other dealings with him, but taking the stable? - No, he sent back the key, and I could get no rent.

WILLIAM ROBINSON < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Clipson? - Yes.

From what you know of him, would you believe him on his oath? - Why I cannot say I would in all respects, for he has deceived me.

Court. Do you, or not, think he is a man to be believed on his oath? - Upon my word I cannot say, in my opinion I could not believe him, I cannot say what another would do.

Mr. Silvester. Now you are a stable keeper? - I was then, I am a grocer now; I let him a stable, that is all the transactions I had with him.

GEORGE LONG < no role > sworn.

Do you know Mr. Clipson? - Yes.

From the knowledge you had of him, on your oath, would you believe him on his oath? - No, Sir.

Mr. Silvester. What are you, Mr. Long? - What you cannot hear me, but you could hear Mr. Jacques very well.

I will hear you if you please.

What are you? - A coach-maker.

I suppose Clipson owes you some money? - He owes me for a carriage.

That is the only transaction you ever had with him? - That is the only one I ever had, and I hope to have no more.

How long is that ago? - Fourteen guineas in the year 1770.

You had no transactions ever since; you do not deal with Mr. Jacques? - No Sir, I never saw Mr. Jacques till I was subpoened on this affair.

This is the only transaction you ever had? - That is the only one, and that is too much for me; I know nothing of his character since.

Mr. Jacques. You knew Mr. Cox? - I did know him, he is dead.

He was subpoened on this trial? - Yes.

Mr. Jacques. I shall prove that Cox was a material witness on this trial, and shew what his evidence was.

- CARTWRIGHT sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Clipson? - Yes.

From the knowledge you have of him, would you believe him on his oath? - I would not, for myself I should not.

Mr. Silvester. What are you? - A shoemaker.

Where do you live? - In Holborn.

Do you keep a shop? - Yes.

How long have you known Clipson? - I know no further than this of him; that some years ago, he came and tendered a bill in my shop to me, and I found that that bill I could not take, and that is all I can say about him.

Perhaps you know Mr. Jacques < no role > a little better; what is his general character? - As to that, I cannot say any thing further; the bill was tendered to me and I did not take it.

BENJAMIN GRIFFIN JACKSON < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Clipson? - I do.

From the knowledge you have of him, would you believe him on his oath? - Upon my oath I would not.

Mr. Silvester. Well, Mr. Jackson, this is not the first time we have met here? - Yes, it is.

Not where you stand now, but at the bar? - It was only to be discharged by proclamation on a false accusation: the bill was thrown out.

Where was your knowledge of Clipson? - I knew him in the Fleet.

That is the only knowledge you had of Clipson? - From report I had a great deal of knowledge of him.

But you yourself had no knowledge of Clipson; but as to his being turnkey, and your being in the fleet, he having I believe confined you in the strong room for yourmisconduct? - He did confine me in the strong room; but I do not know of any misconduct of mine; and at the time when he came up to Guildhall, he swore what I am confident was false; I was convicted on exparte evidence.

Court. What were you convicted of? - An assault sworn to be committed on Clipson, which was just as true as on you now.

Mr. Silvester. You had counsel, I take it then? - I had you for a counsel; I think so.

And all I could do for you, you was sent to Newgate? - Yes.

WILLIAM WREN < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. The Gentleman stood forward and offered to be examined.

From the knowledge you have of Clipson, would you believe him on his oath? - Indeed I would not.

Mr. Silvester. What are you? - I am a coach-maker.

I take it for granted, he owes you for some article in your business? - He does; he drew < no role > a note, and got a person whose name I forget to accept it; the note was drawn for fifteen guineas, for two chaise harnesses, the one he had, the other I would not let him have.

Is that the only transaction you ever had with him? - The only one; it may be three, four, or five years ago; the first that ever I heard of him after, was that he was a turnkey in the Fleet prison, from his general character I would not let that harness go out of my shop.

- JOHNSON sworn.

I only get up to explain, as I conceive I am bound in justice to do, with respect to Mr. Searle, who is known to be a very respectable man; I firmly believe he considered the note to be in my possession: Mr. Searle is a man, for whom I have been concerned for several years; I have been very often been obliged to bring actions on notes and bills of exchange deposited with me; I believe I did mention to Mr. Searle some time ago my intention of relinquishing the action, in consequence of the extraordinary bad character I had of Clipson; this bill was given up without a halfpenny being received, and we sat down at our own costs, because I thought it was advisable.

Mr. Silvester. I know you very well, Mr. Johnson? - Mr. Silvester, I defy you, or any other man to say any thing against my character, either professional or otherwise.

Mr. Silvester. Was there not an action brought by Clipson against Searle for five pounds nineteen shillings? - There was an action brought.

What is become of it? Is it depending now? - No, Mr. Moseley is the attorney.

Have not you paid debt and costs, on your oaths? - Not one farthing: says Moseley; you will never get a farthing from Clipson if you cast him; I thought it most prudent to give him up his note.

Are not you concerned with Jacques? - Never in my life, nor no connection with Jacques.

Or Holloway? - What do you mean? Sir.

I mean Robert Holloway < no role > ? - I know the man, but never had any connections at all, as to having connections, I have talked with Holloway; if you mean to criminate me, I must be heard; but you cannot, Mr. Silvester.

Does not the business you are alluding to about Clipson; does it not arise from Jacques or Holloway.

Robert Holloway < no role > . I never mentioned Mr. Jacques's name in my life.

- MITCHELL sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Clipson? - I know a little of him.

From that little of him, would you believe him on his oath? - I cannot answer that.

THOMAS GRAY < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Christie and his wife? - I do.

From the knowledge you have of them, would you believe them on their oath? - Iwould not; I will give you a reason, why I would not believe them, because they have both deceived me.

Mr. Silvester. What they owe you for some meat? - More than I shall be paid for; they promise and never keep their words. Good night to you, Sir.

Mr. Jacques. Did Mrs. and Mr. Christie ever make an affidavit in a cause where you know they were perjured; was not you a creditor under Christie's commission? - I was I believe; I proved five hundred pounds under that commission.

Give the whole of the reasons to the Court? - Any more than I never found them keep to their words, as honest people, in their dealings with me.

Mr. Silvester to Johnson. Have not you been frequently in prison with Jacques? - Yes, I have, I had occasion frequently to ask him questions as a witness in a cause lately tried.

ARTHUR ONSLOW < no role > , Esq; sworn.

Mr. Jacques. You know Mr. and Mrs. Christie? - I was a commissioner in the commission against one Christie, about seven years ago; and he and his wife were examined several times before us.

Would you believe Mr. Christie and his wife on their oaths? - That would depend a great deal on what they swore; I cannot give an unqualified answer about that; I ultimately signed his certificate, but I had great distrust at that time.

Mr. Garrow. That is to say, in spite of Jacques you signed the certificate? - I do not remember that Jacques opposed it; he consented to it.

RICHARD GARRAT < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Henry Abbot < no role > ? - Yes.

From the knowledge you have of him, would you believe him on his oath? - To my knowledge I would not; I would not take his word for two-pence.

Mr. Garrow. What are you? - I am an appraiser and undertaker in Shoreditch; I was present when he swore himself not worth ten pounds, and had a wife at that time that kept a public house.

Did you ever hear him examined in a court of justice? - No, only that time.

I am sorry your name is so like mine? - I was his plaintiff, I went to pay him his groats, and I gave him the two shillings and four-pence; he refused the shillings, and I gave him half a crown, and he would not give me the two-pence; I said, I do not like to be robbed so; he put his hand into his pocket, and pulled out a number of guineas; forty I suppose, and says, there, d - n your eyes, that is more than ever you was worth, or ever will be.

So Abbot was bail for a man, and you sued Abbot and got judgment and execution; and he sued for his groats? - Yes, I pay them now; I never saw Jacques in my life to my knowledge.

How long has he been in custody after paying him his groats? - I cannot tell.

Try, try? - He was allowed the groats the 29th of January, 1789.

So that from January, 1789, you have continued paying him his groats.

Who came to you? - A man came with a subpoena; I did not know what I came here for; I received the subpoena this morning.

Without asking what you could prove; upon your oath, how often in your life have you seen Abbot? - Some months before for what I know; I knew him by sight and by his character.

Then you come to swear to a man, that he is not fit to be believed on his oath, of whom you know nothing but from sight? - I would not take his oath, nor his word.

How long was it after you began to pay him his groats that he shewed you the money? - It might be six months after; I chose to keep him there from robbing other people, and he shall stay there as long as I have got a groat.

Court. You did put the question to his general character.

Mr. Jacques. Yes, my lord, and he says it is bad.

JAMES WINDOW < no role > sworn.

I am clerk to Mess. Biddulph and Cox.

(The letters produced.)

Mr. Jacques. Are those my hand-writing? - They neither of them appear the least like to what I have seen you write, not the least in the world.

Mr. Garrow. You are clerk to a very considerable banking house? - Yes.

What opportunity had you of becoming acquainted with Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - From drawing the drafts seven years ago.

You look for uniformity in drafts? - Yes, otherwise they would not be paid.

You have not seen his writing these seven years? - Not till this morning.

Where was it you saw this honest gentleman this morning? - In the Fleet; I observed to him that it was a long time since I observed any of his writing, and he said, I will refresh your memory, and he immediately wrote his name.

And you have no doubt his name was very different to what these letters are? - Very different.

Did you often see Mr. Jacques write? - Now and then.

Mr. Jacques. Did I send for you to the Fleet prison? - No, I came of my own accord.

It was not by any desire of mine that you came to the Fleet? - No.

GEORGE CROSSLEY < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know my handwriting? - I have seen you write five hundred times I believe.

Bo so good as to look at this letter? - I never saw Mr. Jacques write like this.

Mr. Garrow. Look at the letter C? - Sir, I have viewed them attentively long before this trial, and I never did see him write any thing like it.

Do you venture to to say now upon your oath, with all the knowledge you have of the subject, that they are not his handwriting? - I cannot say either way; but if these had been put to me independent of these disputes, I certainly should have said I did not believe them to be Mr. Jacques's.

Very good, Mr. Crossley; I ask you, do you, or not, believe them to be Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - From the writing I defy any body to suppose it.

Upon your oath, do you not believe these to be Mr. Jacques's hand-writing? - I can form no other belief than what I have stated; I should have stated that they were not, had they been shewn to me independent of these disputes.

I ask you again; with all the knowledge you have in that witness box on this subject, do you, or do you not believe them to be his hand-writing; do not you know from Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > , that they are his hand-writing? - That I positively say I do not: as to the hand-writing, they are not like any thing I ever saw of his.

You never saw him write but one hand; one plain honest manly character of Mr. Jacques's? - All men write variously; I have never seen him write any thing like this.

I ask you Mr. Crossley, whether within your own knowledge Jacques has not more than one character of writing? - Not to my knowledge.

You never saw any writing that you knew to be his, but one hand-writing? - Certainly not more than the variance of a pen, which you or I could make.

You never saw two characters of handwriting that were Mr. Jacques's? - Mr. Jacques never corresponded with me, but in his common hand.

Have you any reasons, except what you have heard on this occasion, to believe that Mr. Jacques has used one, two, three, or four different characters of hand-writing? - I have never seen any.

Have you, except from the evidence to day, any reason to believe that he had different characters of hand-writing? - I have no reason to believe that Mr. Jacques used different characters.

Have you any reason to believe, independent of the evidence in this case, thatJacques has for purposes of his own different hand-writing? - I have not any reason to believe, not of my knowledge; I have no reason to believe it.

That is not the question Mr. Jacques puts; have you reasons to believe that in the transactions of Jacques's life, he has used more than one hand-writing? - He never did to my knowledge.

No? - I have no reason to believe he ever did; I never saw any other than the common writing.

Court. And you have no other reason to believe it? - I have no reason to believe that Jacques wrote in any other than the common form.

Have you any reason to believe, independent of what has been proved in this Court, that Jacques has in the habits of his life made use of more than one character of hand writing? - No, I have none.

GEORGE PARROT < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Christie? - Many years.

From what you know of him, would you believe him on his oath? - I know nothing to the contrary.

Mr. Garrow. Do not you think that he is a man that is to be trusted on his oath? I should rather apprehend he is.

Now with respect to his wife, have you known any thing of her? - No Sir, I have seen her once before.

Mr. Jacques to Mr. Crossley. Do you remember Christie being arrested at my suit? - Yes.

Do you remember a request from him to call upon me? - I received a letter from Christie to call on Mr. Jacques; if I had known it was necessary; I would have brought in in writing; Certainly what I then put down, Christie would have sworn to if necessary; he was afterwards called upon as a witness in the same cause; and he gave much the same account of the transaction as to day.

Do you recollect what the Chief Baron said to him on that occasion? - I do not; I recollect his evidence was not regarded.

Mr. Garrow. This is running you too hard? - The verdict went contrary to his evidence.

Do you mean to swear that; recollect yourself? - If I recollected the case, I am speaking of the bankruptcy case.

In what court? - In the court of exchequer; I rather think I mistook.

In truth the verdict followed his evidence. - There was a verdict in the exchequer, in favour of his evidence against Jacques.

Mr. Jacques. Did not the Lord Chief Baron say on that occasion, that he laid his evidence totally out of the question.

JOHN JACQUES < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. I wish for the warrant of attorney, if you please.

Was you subscribing witness to that warrant of attorney? - I was.

Where was it executed? - In the Fleet prison.

Who was it executed by? - There was nobody present but myself, Mr. Shanley, and you.

What passed at the time it was executed; what was the consideration for that warrant of attorney? - Mr. Jacques gave up bills to Mr. Shanley in consequence of his exeting that warrant of attorney.

Did you ever see him before he executed the warrant of attorney? - Several times.

What was the cause of your seeing him? - I had meetings with him several times to get some money from him, to get him to execute this warrant of attorney; because you had no other security but bills.

Did he acknowledge the bills, were bills that he had received consideration for? - He did.

Did he acknowledge the debt? - He acknowledged the debt, and promised to pay it when it became due.

Do you recollect any other circumstance upon it? - Nothing material, but he executed the warrant of attorney, and acknowledged the debt due, and promised he would be punctual.

Was any thing said about arresting himfor the debt due? - Yes, it was in consequence of that.

Did you understand that they were bills for which Shanley was liable? - I understood they were bills which Shanley was liable to pay you.

Look at these letters; are either of these my hand-writing? - No, I am sure they are nothing like it.

Did you ever see me write any thing like it? - Never.

Mr. Garrow. You are brother to the defendant? - I am.

Of course you have known one another through life? - Why, yes, it is most likely we have.

You are perfectly well acquainted with his hand-writing? - I am.

He has but one character of hand-writing? - I never saw him write but one character in common; I should know, I think, his hand-writing from any body's.

When did you see him last, before you came here to day? - I have not seen him these two months.

You came from the Poultry Compter? - I did.

Was you much acquainted with Mr. Shanley? - No, Sir, I was not.

What was he? - I believe he was an officer; I was not acquainted with him; I cannot tell you whether he was or not; I understood he was an officer in the army.

This was a pretty large debt? - So it appears to be.

So he gave the warrant of attorney to your brother, in consideration of some notes he gave up? - Yes.

Did you fill up the warrant of attorney? - No; it was ready filled up.

It was filled up before you went into the room? - Yes.

So that all that passed after you came in, was just to cancel the notes? - Yes.

They were burnt, I suppose? - I do not recollect what became of them; I understood they were to the amount of the warrant of attorney; I cannot tell at all who filled it up.

You witnessed it at the time it been date? - I believe so.

Have you any doubt about it? - No, I have not.

You are sure you executed it before Mr. Shanley escaped? - Yes.

Then you mean to swear positively and distinctly, that this warrant of attorney was executed before Mr. Shanley escaped? - That, upon my oath, I declare most solemnly.

Look at this, and tell me whose handwriting that part of it is, which is not printed? - I do not know.

Look at this: whose hand-writing is this: upon your oath, is not it the handwriting of Robert Jacques < no role > ? - Upon my oath, I do not think it is; I do not know whose hand-writing it was: I never saw Thomas Hopper < no role > write.

Was there any thing on the back of this? - I do not recollect that there was.

Mr. Richard Bailey < no role > was not there, was he? - He was not.

Was he a party to any of those notes that were given up? - Not that I know of.

It was a pure debt between your brother and Mr. Shanley? - I understood it so.

Then as far as you remember, there was not any thing written on the back of it? - Not that I remember.

Whose had writing is that

"Witness John Jacques < no role > ," at the back of it? - That is my hand-writing.

Is it really? God bless my soul! whose hand-writing in the body of it? - I cannot say.

Belike you may help me to the time when you signed your name there? - I do not recollect that I wrote any thing at the back of this; I suppose I wrote it at the time the warrant of attorney was executed; I am sure I never signed it at another time.

Do you remember nothing of such a thing being written at the back of it? - I know it was a warrant of attorney given in trust.

Upon you oath, did you ever see Shanley write that name? - Upon my oath I cannottell; I cannot say whether I did or not.

Did you ever see Shanley write that? - I cannot say I ever did.

Have you the least belief, guess, or suspicion, that he ever did? - I should suppose he did, because my name is there. Upon my oath, I declare, I cannot tell whether he did or not.

Upon your oath, do you believe that to be Shanley's hand-writing? - I have answered you before; and I cannot give you a better answer. Upon my oath, I declare that I do not recollect; for I did not recollect, as I observed before, that there was any thing written on the back. I believe it to be the hand-writing of Shanley; and I believe it to be the same hand-writing that is here.

That is not an answer. Upon your oath, do you believe that to be Shanley's hand-writing? - I do really believe it is the same hand-writing of Shanley; I do believe it to be the hand-writing of Shanley; and I cannot believe any otherwise, for no other reason, than its being like that other.

Then you have not the least memory of Shanley ever signing that, or your signing it as a witness? - Upon my oath, I declare most solemnly, I never desire to go to Heaven, if I recollect it.

Was any thing said at the time, about Bailey's being trustee? - There was nothing particular passed about Bailey at all.

Did any body come with Mr. Shanley to the Fleet? - Nobody at all.

What sort of a man is he? - A thin tall man.

As tall as I am? - I dare say he is rather thinner than you.

What complexion? - A pale complexioned man.

Dark eye-brows? - I cannot recollect; I paid no attention to his eye-brows.

Is this the hand-writing of Tom Hopper < no role > : do not open it, but give me the answer? - I do not know whether it is Mr. Hopper's hand-writing, or not; for I never saw him write. It is something like my brother's hand-writing; I think it is his; I believe it is.

Will you say, on your oath, that you think it is his hand-writing? - I think it is; it is something like it; I will not swear positively it is his writing.

What way of life was your brother in, at the time Shanley owed him so much money? - He was in the Fleet Prison.

How long did you understand the debt had been contracted between your brother and Shanley? - That I did not understand.

How had it been contracted? - My brother had lent him money; and Bailey at that time kept a public house in Lime-street.

Bailey was not worth twenty pounds at that time? - There is a witness will say that he was worth more than twenty, or twenty times twenty.

Do you remember Mr. Shanley going into custody at your brother's suit? - Yes, I do.

What day of the week was it? - I cannot charge my memory.

Was you there? - Yes, I know I was there. I do not know whether I dined there on the Sunday he escaped; but on the Sunday there was word he escaped, I believe I was there.

Did you dine there? - I cannot say; I believe I was there, because I was so flurried two or three days after, as my brother was speaking to me about it; I do not think I did; I rather think I did not.

Then you will not swear that you and Mrs. Jacques, and your child, and Mr. and Mrs. Hopper, dined there on the Sunday it was said he escaped? - I do not believe I did; I will not swear I did or did not.

Was it not in the company of Tronson, your wife, your own child, Mrs. Hopper, Mr. Robert Jacques < no role > , and Phoebe Wilmot < no role > ? - No, Sir, I do not think I did dine there.

Will you venture to swear you did not dine with all the persons I mentioned, with the addition of Mr. Shanley? - I will swear positive that I did not; and that I never saw Mr. Shanley at the time he was in the Fleet. The reason I did not speak to him,and pay any attention to him, was, my brother was very angry with him, to think he should lose so much money by him.

About the time that Mr. Shanley was said to have made his escape, do you remember pawning your brother's watch? - No, Sir, not that I know of.

Will you swear you did not within a very few days? - I do not know that I did.

Will you swear that you did not? - I will swear as I know, and I will swear no otherwise; I will not swear positive.

Upon your oath, did not you pawn his watch, and several other things, in order to raise money to carry Shanley to Calais? - No, upon my oath, I did not for that purpose, not at that time, I do not believe I did.

Between the time of executing this warrant of attorney, and the time of Shanley's escape, did not you pawn several things of your brother's? - I have.

Was your child there that day? - I do not recollect; he might be with me.

Will you swear he was not there? - I will not swear it.

Upon your oath, will you swear that you do not know that that son of yours, walked out hand in hand with Shanley? - That I positively and solemnly swear that he did not; and that I know nothing at all about it.

Then why do you swear he did not? - What! my child walk out with him! because I am sure he never saw him, nor I neither.

Do you recollect any clothes of your wife's that day? - If she went there, she had clothes on.

Did she come home in the same clothes she went out in? - Yes, upon my oath, if she was there with me, she did.

Did your wife return in the same clothes she went out in? - Whatever Sunday she went out with me, she returned in the same clothes.

On the day Shanley escaped, did she return in the same clothes she went out in? - That I swear she did; I am sure she did return in the same things.

Do you mean to swear distinctly, that upon the day Shanley went out of the Fleet Prison, your wife came home in the same dress? - I declare my wife was not with me at the Fleet, to the best of my recollection, if she was, I most solemnly declare she went home in the same clothes she went out in.

Was she at the Fleet Prison that day? - I am sure she never said so to me.

Then you do not know that she was there at all? - I do not.

Look at this paper: tell me whose handwriting you believe that to be? - I cannot tell.

You never saw it before? - No.

Do you know Tronson? - I do.

Did you ever see him write? - I believe I have.

Do you believe that is not Tronson's hand-writing? - I do not think it is.

Why do you believe it is not? - I am not acquainted with his hand-writing; I do not know that I ever saw him write above once.

Do you believe it is, or is not his handwriting? - I do not with to swear positively.

Do you believe it is or is not? - I do not sufficiently know his hand-writing to say; I do not know whether it is or is not.

Court. You cannot form any opinion about it? - I cannot; if I could, I assure you I would speak.

Mr. Garrow. You was at the prison on the day that Shanley was said to have escaped? - In company with my brother; nobody else; I went out by myself.

You did not see Miss Wilmot there? - I do not recollect.

Do you know Charlotte Hopper? - What, Mr. Hopper's wife.

Was she there? - She was not, while I was there, to the best of my recollection.

Do you know Mrs. Smith? - I do not know any such person.

You did not see Tronson there? - I did not.

Mr. Jacques. You was asked whether you dined at my room with Mr. and Mrs. Hopper, Mr. and Mrs. Tronson, myself,and Miss Wilmot. Did you ever in your life dine with them all together in my room? - Never, so help me God.

Did you dine with me in the Fleet, or see me in company with them in any shape whatever? - Never, so help me God; I said so before.

Mr. Jacques to Christie. Can you read that hand-writing to which you have sworn, and read it to the Court? - I cannot read that well; besides I cannot read without glasses.

Mr. Jacques. He could tell it was my hand-writing, without glasses.

Mr. Christie. He was at my house, Christmas, 1779; he was there about two months, he came from Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, for protection from an execution that was out against him; and I think, in the year 1780, when he was gone home, he was arrested by a writ. Mr. Weldon was the attorney, for one William Sharp < no role > ; it was for eighteen pounds; he came to town, and he put in bail; and before the trial came on, he says to me, Mr. Christie, I have this man's receipt for this eighteen pounds; and I shall certainly cast him; he took, in my presence, a receipt that he had of this William Sharp < no role > , written on the back of a card, for one pound one shilling, for a gold seal; he took a pen-knife, and he struck out every line, but the name of William Sharp < no role > ; he polished the card over again; and he wrote a receipt over again, received eighteen pounds; he then indicted Mr. William Sharp < no role > for perjury; I was with him myself at the Old Bailey, for the indictment. He brought the clerk that takes the affidavits, with him, to prove that Mr. Sharp made the affidavit. When the trial came on, he subpoened this man; he said, for God's sake, what do you subpoena me for? and he shewed him this receipt; says he, do you know Mr. Sharp's handwriting? yes, says he, it is his; this clerk saw Mr. Weldon, and told him, you are certainly wrong, for I have seen the receipt; upon which Weldon withdrew the record, and Jacques made him pay thirty-three pounds.

Court, Let this polishing-glass be produced? - It is here in court.

Mrs. Christie. This is the glass with which he polished the card; I saw him do it; it is what women use to their white gloves; it will polish any thing.

Mr. Jacques. I cannot ask her a question now, as she has been in court.

To Christie. You say Mr. Sharp was indicted for perjury? - He certainly was.

You knew of the circumstance at that time? - I knew it well. At the time of the indictment, you told me, says you, I have the principal receipt, but I cannot find it; you did that in my presence; and in my dining-room, you scratched out every line, but the name of William Sharp < no role > at the bottom.

Upon your oath, did not your name stand at the back of the bill, and was not you examined before the Grand Jury? - No, upon my oath, it does not.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I trust you will hear me. That indictment is in court; and I trust you will order it to be sent for?

Court. I certainly shall; but his name being there is no contradiction? - I know I was with Mr. Jacques < no role > that day; and he had other bills; whether I was examined on Mr. Sharp's, or not, I will not pretend to say; I believe I might be asked whether he was arrested for Mr. Sharp's matter.

Mr. Jacques. Was not he sworn to tell the truth, and the whole truth?

(A pair of spectacles lent him.)

Mr. Garrow. Read < no role > a few lines; a few words will do for this purpose.

(Reads.)

"If he should have left you please to get it"

Clerk of the Arraigns. He has read that part right.

(Reads.)

"If this should meet you it is to inform you"

Clerk of the Arraigns. He has missed the word

"just"

(Reads again.)

"If this should meet you it is just to inform you that Clipson sets off for Calais this morning"

Mr. Jacques. But your lordship observes that before he could read it he determined it was my hand-writing.

JAMES JORDAINE < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you remember some times after the rumour in the Fleet prison, of the escape of Shanley, that it was rumoured also that Mr. Kane had said, that I had some knowledge of the escape? - It was so rumoured.

Did I in consequence of that ask him whether it was a fact, that he had mentioned so to any body? - Yes; you did.

What was his answer? - He said, he never did in his life.

Did he say that he had no knowledge of it? - He said he had no knowledge of the business whatever.

And that he did not know that I had any knowledge of it? - He said that he never had any knowledge whatever, that ever you knew any thing at all of it.

Did I speak to him very angrily or not? - I remember you was very warm at its being reported.

Who was it rumoured by? - I cannot tell.

Who do you believe it was reported by? - I never heard any body challenged with it but Kane, and he denied it.

Mr. Silvester. Kane and Jacques were friends? - I believe they were not.

Mr. Jacques. This was a long time after the escape? - It was.

JOHN SLATER < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know some time after the escape of Shanley that it was rumoured I had something to do with it? - Yes, Sir.

Hnd that Kane had said so? - Yes; you charged him very severely, and he said on his honour he knew nothing of it.

This was a long while after the escape? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. Are you a prisoner there? - Yes; I was there a year last Thursday.

You know nothing of the escape? - No.

Do you know Jacques and Mr. Kane? - Yes.

Were there any two men in England more intimate than Jacques and Kane? - I do not know; not at that time.

Tom Hopper < no role > lodged in the same room with Kane? - I do not know indeed.

But he was the man of all work? - I do not know; I had something else to do than look after him.

Mr. Jacques. Did you hear me repeatedly speak very disrespectfully of Kane, both in his absence and in his presence, both before and after the escape? - Why, yes, Sir, I have indeed, before as well as after.

Mr. Garrow. How disrespectfully? - Being in company Jacques had no good design along with him; Kane owed Jacques < no role > a good deal of money, and he thought he did not behave so well as he should do: he heard in the prison that Kane had a good deal of talk at the gate; that he challenged Jacques with the escape, and Jacques chastised him about it.

Did you ever hear Jacques quarrel with Kane, or find any fault with, or chastise him, as you have expressed it, before the escape of Shanley? - Yes, I have: they used to dine together sometimes.

Mr. Jacques. At a public table.

Mr. Garrow to Slater. Tell me one instance in which you heard Jacques find fault with Kane, before the escape? - I cannot say as to the occasion; but I have several times.

Can you tell me any one instance from the beginning of the world to the time of Shanley's escape, in which Jacques objected to Kane? - I have heard him several times.

What? - I cannot say at any one time.

What did you hear him say before the escape of Shanley? - I did not take any minutes of it.

JOHN WHISTLER < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. You know Mr. Kane? - Yes.

Did you not within a very few days come up to my room in company with Mr. M'Cabe and him? - I did.

At whose request did you come up with Kane? - At the request of you and M'Cabe, and more particularly at the request of Kane.

Do you happen to know how it came about that I agreed to see Mr. Kane? - I know there was some altercation; but what it was I do not recollect: I being acquainted with both parties wished them to have an interview.

What was my displeasure with Kane? - You said he had made a voluntary affidavit in the Court of Chancery; I informed him of it: on my informing Kane that you told me he had made an affidavit voluntarily, that you did not in the least blame him for that, had he adhered to the facts, but that every syllable he had sworn was false: I was acquainted with both parties; and I mentioned to Mr. Kane that matters had been misrepresented: I had them together; they had some conversation; and as they had been in the habits of friendship formerly, Mr. Kane wished to part so, and took Jacques by the hand, and wished him a good day.

Mr. Jacques. That he wished to be friends, but I charged him with having swore falsely? - Yes.

Mr. Garrow. Jacques charged him with perjury, and shook hands with him, and wished him a good day? - Yes.

- HESLOP sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Christie? - Yes.

Upon the oath you have taken would you believe Christie on his oath? - I shall not answer that question unless the Court compels me.

Mr. Jacques. He has made an affidavit that he is not to be believed? - I had no intimation of that, and I certainly cannot recollect it; I recollect Mr. Christie and your being concerned in affidavits.

Did you not say that once? - I believe it was six or eight years ago for ought I know.

A subpoena was left at your house? - There was; but I knew nothing about it.

Look at this letter; you know my hand-writing? - I do.

From the knowledge you have of my hand-writing, do you believe this letter to be my hand-writing? - Why, really I have seen you write in two or three different stiles of writing; I do not mean to say it was on purpose; here is one of them that I really do not think is his hand-writing, or that it bears the most distant likeness to his hand-writing; the other two, on looking single letters out of the whole there seems to be some resemblance of Jacques's hand writing; but it appears to me to be a disguised hand.

Mr. Garrow. Through this disguise, do you believe these two letters to be the hand-writing of Jacques? - I really cannot say; I have gone to the extent of what I can say, which is, that the cut of some of the letters is like Jacques's hand-writing; I really should be inclined to believe that these two letters are Mr. Jacques's writing, in a disguised hand.

You have known a good deal of Jacques in his transactions; do you recollect a warrant of attorney that was Mr. Jacques's filling up, upon which you signed a judgment, in the case of Griffin and Jacques against Williams? - I do.

Was that in his usual and ordinary hand-writing, or in a feigned hand-writing? - That I think was in his ordinary handwriting.

Mr. Jacques. Do you form that judgment from any writing of mine that you ever saw: if any person endeavoured to imitate my hand-writing might not they do it as much like my hand as this letter? - That I cannot say; I say that it appears to be a disguised hand if it is yours; I have had letters from Jacques in the ordinary course of business, where the writing has been very different.

Do you mean that as any intention of disguising my hand? - Very far from it.

Have these letters ever been shewn to you? - No; only the difference of the pen, or some such thing, no other.

EDWARD LLOYD < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. You know Mr. Kane? - Yes.

Do you remember some time before theescape of Shanley Mr. Kane and me having some words? - I cannot recollect that circumstance before the escape.

Do you recollect after the escape that it was rumoured that I had some concern in the escape, and that it was Kane < no role > that reported it at the gate? - I cannot say what rumour there might be in the prison; I believe I heard that there was a talk that you was concerned in the escape; whether it was particularly Mr. Kane < no role > I cannot pretend to say.

Do you remember my charging Mr. Kane with it? - I think I remember a circumstance, when a Mr. M'Cabe, an attorney, sent for Mr. Jacques to the gate: Jacques was in my room: I believe he was sent for by Mr. M'Cabe; I saw them together.

Did you see Jacques and Kane together? - Yes, I did; several times.

Do you remember my calling Kane into the room, before you and Weldon, in consequence of that rumour? - I do.

Do you recollect when I called him into the room, that I asked him whether it was true that he reported that I knew any thing of that escape? - I do; and his answer was, he never interfered with the business, or knew any thing about it, and never had said a syllable about it at that time; that was some little time after the escape; I cannot say how long to a month, or a week, or a fortnight.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I hope I shall have Mr. Barclay; he has been called, and he is from the Fleet.

MARY LLOYD < no role > sworn.

Mr. Jacques. Do you know Mr. Kane? - Very well.

Do you remember my speaking rather disrespectfully of Kane in his presence, before the escape of Shanley? - I remember Mr. Kane and you having many words; but I cannot recollect the time, whether it was before or after the escape; but it was more than once or twice; you charged him with it afterwards, and he denied having any thing to do with it; it was in the presence of Mr. Jordaine.

Clipson. Mr. Barclay is sent for, and Mr. Weldon is discharged.

Mr. Jacques. That was the most material witness that I had.

Mr. Silvester in reply. Gentlemen of the jury. By the course of the profession I am entitled to make observations on the evidence; but after so long a trial, and there being no doubt of Mr. Jacques's guilt, I would much rather leave it to the observations of my lord, and you, than say a single word, as Mr. Jacques has no counsel.

Mr. Jacques. All I beg is, that you gentlemen will divest yourselves of prejudice, and not determine from any act that has been given against me in this cause.

The learned judge summed up the evidence: after which

ALEXANDER BARCLAY < no role >

Was examined as to an assault on Mr. Jacques, in what is called the Bear, six or seven months ago; Clipson doubling his fist, and using very opprobious language; calling him a rogue, and a villain; and saying that he would do for him; there were several other people on the Bear; and Clipson threatened to fight him, and called him a swindler, and a villain, and said he ought to be hanged, and that he said to the witness if he had the villain Jacques in a room, he would do for him.

Mr. Jacques. From Clipson's general conduct and character would you believe him on his oath? - A man's oath is very sacred; but Clipson's behaviour has been such that I really can scarce give an answer to that; his behaviour has been very unbecoming.

Mr. Garrow. You are indicted in the next indictment with Jacques, for a conspiracy to charge Clipson with murder? - Yes.

Court to Jury. This does not amount to any contradiction of Clipson; he has admitted this.

Mr. Jacques to Jury. For God's sake, gentlemen, consider my family; I have a very large family.

The Jury immediately returned a verdict,

GUILTY , of the conspiracy.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, can I ask on which count I am found guilty?

Court. Yes, you may ask that certainly.

Mr. Silvester. The third and fifth.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, I trust your lordship will, in passing sentence, have some consideration as to my family: I have a very large family entirely dependent on myself.

Court. It is not my province to pass the sentence; but now you have brought it to my mind, I find by the evidence, you had it in contemplation to bring an action against the worthy Recorder; if he therefore has any difficulty in passing the sentence, I shall solicit the assistance of my brother Wilson, and pass it for him.

Mr. Jacques. My lord, if I had been indicted under the act for effecting the escape of a prisoner, you know the punishment that is inflicted under that act; if you will suffer me to transport myself from this country; or otherwise I should be glad if sentence of death could be passed upon me.

The Recorder withdrew, and Mr. Justice Buller passed sentence as follows:

Robert Jacques < no role > ,

The offence of which you stand convicted is one of the foulest crimes which man can commit; it is so extensive in its consequences, and so dangerous in its example, that at all times the Court are bound to inflict a very heavy and severe punishment for it: in your case it has been attended with every circumstance that can aggravate so black a crime as this; and therefore in passing the sentence upon you, which the Court in their discretion think the case requires, I cannot make any allowances for any supposed mischiefs or inconveniences, which may arise from what you have yourself stated to have been your former situation of life: you have deprecated of the jury, that they would not incline against you, because your life hitherto has been very bad; it is a strange defence to come out of the mouth of any person; perhaps you may have heard that it did succeed here in one case better than it ought, and therefore might succeed again in blinding a jury. The fact is proved against you beyond all possible doubt; and the offence is of that enormity, that the Court think themselves bound to inflict that punishment which the justice of the case requires, and they must rely on the officers of the Court that the sentence is executed with proper severity. The sentence of this Court is: that you be Imprisoned in his Majesty's Goal of Newgate for the space of three years , and that during that time you be once set in and upon the pillory at the Royal Exchange for the space of one hour, between the hours of twelve and two o'clock .

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Justice Buller.

N. B. This trial began at ten in the morning, and lasted till eight in the evening.