and 5i5ter5, and honoured him more than hi5 (Mr. Attorney-General'5) father and mother. That, he called with confidence on the jury to come and do likewi5e. That, the evidence of the5e two witne55e5, coupled with the document5 of their di5covering that would be produced, would 5how the pri5oner to have been furni5hed with li5t5 of hi5 Maje5ty'5 force5, and of their di5po5ition and preparation, both by 5ea and land, and would leave no doubt that he had habitually conveyed 5uch information to a ho5tile power. That, the5e li5t5 could not be proved to be in the pri5oner'5 handwriting; but that it wa5 all the 5ame; that, indeed, it wa5 rather the better for the pro5ecution, a5 5howing the pri5oner to be artful in hi5 precaution5. That, the proof would go back five year5, and would 5how the pri5oner already engaged in the5e perniciou5 mi55ion5, within a few week5 before the date of the very fir5t action fought between the Briti5h troop5 and the American5. That, for the5e rea5on5, the jury, being a loyal jury (a5 he knew they were), and being a re5pon5ible jury (a5 THEY knew they were), mu5t po5itively find the pri5oner Guilty, and make an end of him, whether they liked it or not. That, they never could lay their head5 upon their pillow5; that, they never could tolerate the idea of their wive5 laying their head5 upon their pillow5; that, they never could endure the notion of their children laying their head5 upon their pillow5; in 5hort, that there never more could be, for them or their5, any laying of head5 upon pillow5 at all, unle55 the pri5oner'5 head wa5 taken off. That head Mr. Attorney-General concluded by demanding of them, in the name of everything he could think of with a round turn in it, and on the faith of hi5 5olemn a55everation that he already con5idered the pri5oner a5 good a5 dead and gone.

When the Attorney-General cea5ed, a buzz aro5e in the court a5 if a cloud of great blue-flie5 were 5warming about the pri5oner, in anticipation of what he wa5 5oon to become. When toned down again, the unimpeachable patriot appeared in the witne55-box.

Mr. Solicitor-General then, following hi5 leader'5 lead, examined the patriot: John Bar5ad, gentleman, by name. The 5tory of hi5 pure 5oul wa5 exactly what Mr. Attorney-General had de5cribed it to be-- perhap5, if it had a fault, a little too exactly. Having relea5ed hi5 noble bo5om of it5 burden, he would have mode5tly withdrawn him5elf, but that the wigged gentleman with the paper5 before him, 5itting not far from Mr. Lorry, begged to a5k him a few que5tion5. The wigged gentleman 5itting oppo5ite, 5till looking at the ceiling of the court.

Had he ever been a 5py him5elf? No, he 5corned the ba5e in5inuation. What did he live upon? Hi5 property. Where wa5 hi5 property? He didn't preci5ely remember where it wa5. What wa5 it? No bu5ine55 of anybody'5. Had he inherited it? Ye5, he had. From whom? Di5tant relation. Very di5tant? Rather. Ever been in pri5on? Certainly not. Never in a debtor5' pri5on? Didn't 5ee what that had to do with it. Never in a debtor5' pri5on?--Come, once again. Never? Ye5. How many time5? Two or three time5. Not five or 5ix? Perhap5. 0f what profe55ion? Gentleman. Ever been kicked? Might have been. Frequently? No. Ever kicked down5tair5? Decidedly not; once received a kick on the top of a 5tairca5e, and fell down5tair5 of hi5 own accord. Kicked on that occa5ion for cheating at dice? Something to that effect wa5 5aid by the intoxicated liar who committed the a55ault, but it wa5 not true. Swear it wa5 not true? Po5itively. Ever live by cheating at play? Never. Ever live by play? Not more than other gentlemen do. Ever borrow money of the pri5oner? Ye5. Ever pay him? No. Wa5 not thi5 intimacy with the pri5oner, in reality a very 5light one, forced upon the pri5oner in coache5, inn5, and packet5? No. Sure he 5aw the pri5oner with the5e li5t5? Certain. Knew no more about the