Star.
London, England, 1822-09-20 00:00:00

do not expect anytilng for corning here beyond the
amount of my bill.of expense.
Re-examined.—Burke s second wife's father was to
pay the expenses of our coming over. It is com-
pletely against my will that I now appear, for I would
save the man if I could. I believe it was through
brotherly lovothitt he did what he has done.
Examined by the Courr.—l swear positively that
the prisoner was present at his brother's wedding, and
gave him away.
Eliza Butler is older than the last witness. Is
twenty-three Years old. Wei present at Burke's mar-
riage with her sister in Cashel. It took place in June,
1815. It was celebrated by Dr. Wright, a Catholic
Priest. The prisoner was there, and gave away his
brother its marriage to her sister Mary. They went
to live in Dublin. They lived together and had a
family of two children. She has frequently seen the
prisoner since.
Cross-examinecL—There are now persons paid for
doing our business at home. My mother is an aged
woman, and our business has suffered greatly in our
absence. It is with reluctance that I have staid here
to apilear upon this occasion.
Examined by the COURT.—Burke and my titer
lived together as man and wife in my father's house
more than ten days after the marriage.—This was
the case for the prosecution.
Mr. PHILLIPS then addressed tbeJory on behalf of
the prisoner. He called their attention to the fact,
that only two witnesses were brought forward to sup-
port this charge, being preci,ely the number that the
law required. He observed, that these witneves
were persons comparatively of tender age ; and then
commented on the absence of Mrs. Stapleton, And the
other more mature persons present, who could speak
to the facts more positively. He also asked why the
wife was not produced ? It was a part of this case
to hold her back.

Mr. ALLEY said, that Mr. Phillips could call the
wife if he pleased. He did not wish to produce a
woman against her husband's brother.
The RECORDER observed, that as Mr. Alley had
trusted his case to the testimony of the two witnesses,
the case being now closed, he was not now at liberty
to offer any new evidence to the Jury.—No witnesses
were called for the defence.
The RECORDER then summed up the case to the
Jury. He remarked that the expense of brining over
witnesses from Ireland might be an answer to the
observation which was made upon the paucity of evi-
dence in this case. It was also to be recollected, that
in May last, when these witnesses were first brought
over, the object was not then to substantiate a charge
of perjury against any party ; but to speak to the tact
of the marriage, to which even one would be sutfi-
cknt. It would be for the Jury to say whether the
sum of £350, which was to be paid for the expenses
of the witnesses, was so large, and so much above the
real expense, as to become a bribe to purchase the
evidence of the witnesses, which would, of course, in-
validate thei& testimony altogether. An observation,
however, he would make. Whatever credit the Jury
might be induced to give to the witnesses, there was
a fact which
.appeared to-him .to confirm strongly
their evidence. The fact to which he alluded was,
that cf Burke and his wife having lived together as
man and wife in Butler's house for ten days aftet their
marriage; and unless they supposed Butler base
enough to countenance the shame of his daughter in
his own house for that period, they were bound to
take as incontrovertible the fact of the marriage.—
Upon the whole, he was of opinion that the case was
entirely made out against the prisoner.
The Jury, after some little hesitation, found the
prisoner—Guilty.
The Recommit then. proceeded to pass sentence.
In the verdict which had been given he entirely coin-
cided, and it was his duty to tell the Jury that the
conclusion to which they had just come was con-
firmed by the feeling of eve!y one in Court at the
former trial, when the prisoner gave his evidence.
The offence of which the prisoner stood convicted
one of the blackest that could be committed in
a civilized country, as it struck at the security cflife,
character, and property. Whilst characters such as
the prisoner were suffered to remain in the country,
the laws could not be administered with justice to
individuals ; and it was therefore due to the commu-
nity to send such characters to guar ers where their
pranks would be more ienoxious. The sentence of
the Court was, that the prisoner should be confined
for six months in the common jail of Newgate, and
then be transported for the term of seven years.
A considerable interest was excited by this trial,
and the Court was exceedingly crowded whilst it
was going on.
The Court did not rise till half-past eleven at night.

Saturday last, Thomas Brierley, who, with Thomas
Ellis and Samuel Rowe, were convicted at the late
Chester Assizes for a most daring highway robbery,
near Congleton, suffered the awful sentence of the
law at Chester.

BIRTH.
Sept. 12, at Edinburgh, the lion. Mrs. Douglas, of Strathen-
dry, of a son.