since seen the paper, and an account of two dollars against Morgan had been added.

Nicholas G. Chesebro, sworn. Says that he received of Esquire Chipman a warrant in Sept. last, (the one produced in court.) There had been no conversation with any of the defendants on trial, relative to the taking out of the warrant, before it was taken out. Witness went with the officer to Batavia, and all the defend ants but Ganson. Witness spoke to Henry Howard, and asked him to take a ride. Howard objected, on account of his business-said if he could get home that night, or in the morning, he might go. Don't know as he said any thing about Morgan. Thinks he got a warrant before he spoke to any one. Saw Seymour on the side walk, and asked him to go to Batavia. Seymour hesitated, but said he had some business at the bank in Rochester, for the next day, and if he could return that way he would go. Witness did not mention to Seymour at that time, any thing about the warrant. Witness asked Roberts to go, and he asked them all to go, for the ride only. On the way to Batavia, no conversation was had of any thing to be done with Morgan, other than the bringing him to Canandaigua and trying him; had no thought of any thing further himself. At Batavia, witness and Hayward walked out in the morning, and the others were left in the house; Morgan was arrested and taken to Danold's. Witness took break fast at the other house; was not at Morgan's examination before Chipman, but came after it was over, and learning that he was discharged, he presented an ac

count of $2,00. This charge witness put on the list of accounts, because Ingraham told him there was such an account at the bar. After Morgan was committed, should think he had no conversation with either of the defendants, relative to the removal of Morgan-neither of the defendants had, to the knowledge of witness, any part in taking away Morgan. Witness had no intention of it himself. The idea of Morgan's going west originated here after the discharge from the warrant. Did not anticipate any force being used to take away Morgan. Witness did not understand that Morgan was to leave the jail until near night on the 12th. At Batavia, Miller was at the carriage, and threatened to pursue, and witness supposed he would, which was the cause of his directing the driver to drive fast. In September last, Mr. James Sibley called on witness and introduced to him a man by the name of Church, and one or the other of them informed him of Morgan's intended publication of the book.

Witness said but lit

tle; probably expressed his wish to have the publication suppressed. But nothing was agreed upon, and nothing was said of disposing of Morgan's person. Cross-examined. Thinks there was conversation at Chipman's, that Morgan was or had been at Lima. Never had any conversation with Kingsley on the subject of Morgan, before he took out the warrant. Witness's motive for prosecuting the theft was principally to suppress the publication. Thinks he must have told Henry Howard before they started, what passed at Chipman's office. Witness took the carriage himself, and paid for it

$10. The leading subject of conversation on the way was that they were going to take Morgan, and that he would be convicted; and witness supposed this would derange the publication of the book. They had no further object.. They stopped at Major Ganson's, where he joined them. Witness had no conversation with Ganson on the subject of their business. When the stage stopped, witness got out immediately, and went in, and did not know the reason of its stopping. The party followed on foot and got to Danold's about half an hour after dark. When the carriage stopped, witness heard no one say they had not better go on, or that they had started and would go on. One object he had in getting a judgment against Morgan was to punish him for publishing the book, and to secure the debt. The evening of the 12th of September was the first witness heard of the plan of taking Morgan from jail. Several persons then communicated to him the purpose of removing Morgan. Those persons had been informed by communications from Canandaigua, sent to Rochester, that Morgan was in jail for debt. Witness supposed that Miller would come and pay the debt and take Morgan away, and to prevent this he sent the information to Rochester. Understood that Lawson paid the debt; don't know who; at the time Morgan was taken from the jail witness saw no other persons there that he knew, except Sawyer and Lawson. Witness hired the carriage and paid for it, to carray Morgan away. Witness has not seen Morgan since he saw him in

Chipman's office, nor heard from him in any way that he can rely on. Did not think that in any event that they would return by Rochester from Batavia, nor did they calculate to have Morgan go there. Neither of the defendants on trial was to the knowledge of witness, informed or given to understand by significant words, by writing, by hints or by signs, that Morgan was to be taken from jail at Canandaigua.

Charles C. Church, sworn. Lives in Batavia, and is a silver smith. Knew Wm. Morgan in Batavia, about a year and a half; about July or August the publication of Morgan's book and the connection between him and Miller were frequent subjects of conversation. Was in Canandaigua in August or September; Mr Sibley asked witness about the book, and he told him it was going on. Sibley asked him to go and see a place he had bought of Mr. Chapin. On the way Sibley took him into Chesebro's shop and introduced him to Chesebro. Morgan's book was mentioned and Chesebro expressed his regret that the book was coming out. Witness does not recollect that one word was said about suppressing the book. Did not ask Sibley to introduce him to Chesebro. Knew nothing of Chesebro more than any other person. Witness came out on business at the Ontario Bank; came to take up a note, and not on the subject of the book. Crossexamined. Sibley began the conversation about the book. Witness' business at the bank was to take up his own note of $300.

Here the testimony closed and

the counsel on both sides agreed to submit the case to the jury without argument.

Judge Howell then charged the jury. The Judge commenced by remarking, that the counsel, by declining to sum up the cause, had thrown a very unexpected burden on his hands, and they must not complain if he should fail to notice the whole of the testimony as fully as they might desire. The crime with which the defendants stood charged by the indictment was one of very great enormity. They were charged with having formed a wicked conspiracy to seize a citizen, under the protection of our laws, and enjoying the rights and entitled to the privileges of a free man, and with out authority to transport him from the jail of Ontario County to foreign parts, and there to secrete and imprison him; and with having actually carried into execution this conspiracy. The counsel for the defendants had cautioned the jury against the influence of popular excitement; it was true that great excitement had prevailed, and the court rejoiced that it was so-the crime was one which ought to call forth the indignation of all virtuous citizens, and it was to be hoped that the excitement would never cease until the actors in this dark and probably tragical, affair, are brought to light, and the guilty punished. At the same time the jury were bound to divest themselves of all passion and prejudice, and to know nothing of this cause but what they derived from the testimony given them in the box where they were sitting. The judge defined a conspiracy, and

commented on the nature of the evidence by which it must in most cases be established. It was not to be expected that a secret and wicked combination should be proved by producing the original compact, but by showing the acts of many individuals, acting in concert, all tending to the same unlawful end. The first question to be determined by the jury, under the first and second counts, would be, had such a conspiration as that charged in the indictment been proved to have been formed by any persons whatever; and if so, were the defendants on trial, or either of them, parties to it ?— and second, were the defendants, or either of them guilty of kidnapping and imprisoning Morgan, as charged in the two other counts?

As to the first question the Judge remarked, that the evidence produced on the part of the prosecution established, most conclusively, the fact of the conspiracy between certain persons; and it then became the important question, whether either of the defendants were parties to it. The prosecution did not profess to offer any direct evidence of such participation, but would infer it from the acts of the defendants. It then becomes important to bear in mind the precise object stated to have been designed by the conspiracy charged in the indictment, to wit, the carrying of Morgan from the jail of Ontario county, and to inquire what acts of the defendants tended to accomplish that object. It was not contended that any direct agency had been proved against any of the defendants either in removing Morgan from

the jail, or in his subsequent imprisonment. It had indeed been fully proved, that he was violently removed from the jail at Canandaigua, and carried by night as far as the Ridge Road beyond Hanford's Landing, in Monroe county, and that he has not been heard of by his family or friends since that time. And although not so clearly proved, yet the evidence left but little room to doubt that Morgan was carried in the same unlawful manner to Lewiston, and from thence down the river to the burying ground near Fort Niagara--and from that period his fate was not disclosed-whether living or dead, no one had informed us. But were either of the defendants engaged in his abduction? Some of them had proved conclusively, and the others very satisfactorily, that at the time of Morgan's abduction, they were engaged in other plaees about their ordinary business, and it did not appear that they had subsequently engaged in it. Did then any of the acts or deliberations of the defendants satisfy the jury that they had entered into the conspiracy to remove Morgan from the jail? The Judge then commented on all the facts and declarations proved, and charged

the jury. that if, after carefully examining all these, they should have any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, they must acquit them; but if from all the evidence, they were satisfied that the defendants had been parties to the conspiracy charged in the indictment, or had participated in the unlawful abduction and imprisonment of Morgan, charged against them, then they must fearlessly pronounce their verdict of guilty, however distressing the consequences might be to the defendants.

The jury then retired, and after an absence of about half an hour returned a verdict of not guilty.

The above trial commenced on Wednesday morning, and closed on Friday evening. There was a great latitude of inquiry taken in the examination of witnesses; and the numerous spectators who attended in the court room were gratified with the disposition manifested to give this conspiracy a thorough investigation. Important facts were elicited, relative to the treatment and probable fate of Morgan, which will aid in further prosecutions, and for the ferreting out of which much credit is due to the exertions of individual citizens.

THE MARQUESS OF HASTINGS, K. G.

Nov. 28. On board the ship Revenge, then lying in Baia Bay, near Naples, having nearly completed his 72d year, Francis Rawdon Hastings, Marquess of Hastings, Earl of Rawdon, Viscount Loudoun, Baron Hastings, Botreux, Moliness, Hungerford, and Rawdon, Earl of Moira, and Baron Rawdon of Moira, co. Down, in Ireland.

Having completed his education at Oxford, and made a short tour on the continent, Lord Rawdon embraced the military profession, for which he had felt an early prepossession and entered the army in 1771 as Ensign in the 15th foot. He obtained a Lieutenancy in the 5th in 1773, and embarked for America.

In 1778 Lord Rawdon was nominated Adjutant-General to the British army in America, with the rank of LieutenantColonel; he was actively employed both on the retreat of the British army through the Jerseys from Philadelphia to New York, in the action at Monmouth which followed, and at the siege of Charlestown.

His Lordship was next appointed to the command of a distinct corps of the army in South Carolina, which province was invaded by the General, Gates. At the memorable battle of Camden, which succeeded on the 16th of August, 1780, Lord Rawdon commanded one wing of the army.

A severe and dangerous attack of illness obliged Lord Rawdon to quit the army for England, but the vessel in which be embarked was captured and carried into Brest Lord Rawdon was almost immediately released, and on his arrival in England was honoured with repeated marks of distinction by his Sovereign, who appointed him one of his Aid-de-camps, and created him an English Peer, by the title of Baron Rawdon, of Rawdon in Yorkshire, March 5, 1783. He had received the rank of Colonel, Nov. 20, 1782.

In that House Lord Rawdon proved himself a clear and able orator, and a judicious

man of business. His benevolent persevering exertions on the Debtor and Creditor Bill, to relieve the distresses of persons imprisoned for small debts, will remain a monument of philanthrophy upon the parliamentary records; while his manly deportment throughout every debate, both in the English and the Irish Parliament, proved his steadiness as a statesman not inferior to his intrepidity as a soldier.

Having formed an intimate friendship with the Prince of Wales, his Lordship took an active part in the Prince's favour on the memorable discussions respecting the Regency; and on the 26th of December, 1789, moved in the House of Lords the amendment in his Royal Highness's favour. With the late Duke of York his intercourse was equally constant, and in May, 1789, his Lordship acted as his second in his duel with Lieut.-col. Lennox.

In October of the same year, on the death of his maternal uncle the Earl of Huntingdon, he came into possesion of the bulk of that nobleman's fortune. His mother then succeeded to the barony of Hastings, and the other baronies in fee possessed by her father, while the earldom of Huntingdon was unclaimed, and remained dormant till confirmed to the present Earl in 1819.

On the 20th of June, 1793, his Lordship succeeded his father as second Earl of Moira, and on the 12th of October that year he was advanced to the rank of Major-General.

In the summer of 1794, when the situation of the British army and that of the allies in Flanders was extremely critical, and the former was obliged to retreat through Brabant to Antwerp, the Earl of Moira was dispatched with a reinforcement of 10,000 men, and succeeded in effecting a junction with the Duke of York, though his Royal Highness was then nearly surrounded by hostile forces much superior in number. The dispatch which his Lordship had employed in embarking his troops without either tents or heavy ba