TrIE NATIONAL REGISTEn: :its I apprehend that it was the duty of my solicitors to have sent me a copy of the brief, which however, they did not ; and I *repeat, • that previous-to the-t rial-I •tteger -read.it..•• is:appears. that. they pars • titularly called my attention to an unimportant circumstance which they had inserted in the brief, or the examinations attached, in consequence of an erroneous communication from my , servant, who Lid cdufounded the circumstances of two different occuliences, This Was the" one particular," which the Solicitor-General says that 1 myself 'corrected. I admit that this error was eipunged by my authority •,,aml opposite the four lines which 'contained it, is written " Wad thii to Lord COebrant," _which I think is anargu silent that the greater part of the brie* was,.not read to the ; cularly as there are twelve lines expunged in another place, oppo site to which my name does not appear. My Solicitors., however 4 assert, that though I did Hot read the brief myself , they. read th'e greater part of it to me; and on their asertion I admit That •they did so; though I have no recollection of the fact. But if it.coniti be shewn that they drew my attention to every line ..of the brief, except •oeily to that one most important point,. the description of Berenger's tire-s, which immediately follows the cony lines ex imnered, think that they were guilty of very reprehensible negligeore. In my affidavit which was before them, and was in s troduceit into the to ief, the coat worn by De Berenger is •wm•ii to have hero ffeten ; and in the examinatioos attached to the brief it is watt 41 to have bet n red. It is iolpossible that this most important difiereoce roold hive eseapol their observation, and vet it is true that' they never called ley atteotion to it. I may affirni, without f ac of being ;leant coatradieted, that I did not know that the di ess of De Berenger, which I had sworn to be grig'lll WPS in any part of the brief, touch loss in the esamioations of my servants, describe i to be red ,• because it is ilipossible, iiniess I had been abso lutely insane, thst i should not only have been sati , tied with a brief which authorised toy cowisel to C'ollll'ildirt my own atfilavit, but Lae been anxious to send my servants into court to give evidence againscnie. If mV sOlicittrrs aetnaly revl this part of the brief to me, it is obvious that I wac not giving that attention, which a mail, consious a Pail It naturally would have given. The void " red, ,, if I had heals! it: mint itive instantly excit.sl my particular notice. But, "It' the slifelence between red and green escaped my t:hservatfon," what it toy . olicitors " think" of it? My accusers chiefly depended for ne, Couvici ion on proving that De Berenge! appealed iiero - re sue in the red coot in which he Committed the fl sod. It is possible that one of toy solicitors should hive read it to nie, and not have said, " Yon observe, Lord Coenrane, that this is contratiictory your affidavit ?" To have read it to me without a pause, and have suffered it to pass witliont observation, is, I think, as tiegliciit as not to have read it at all; . aad is wholly irreconcileable with the as aert;ao of Mr. Abercrombie; that both parts of the brief were read over to me with the utmost care. • • If, la /ay dcfeoce in the House of Commons, I did rot state . the . manner in which 1 app•chended the ditkrence between the brief and the - affidavit orgisated, it was because I could not have stated it withoitt tUrOwing twoe blame on my solicitors titan I felt inclined. to do. I have bee., challenged by the Attorney-General to unseal. the lips of my solicitor and counsel. My solicitors, however, did not wait for me to topical toeir lips , as is evident by what is called the contacr st iteinent, with which they thought pyoper to furnish. Mr. Ambercromhie and others ;•and 1 think it rather unreasonable to Is qunc cite to mescal the lips of my counsel to qualify then') to, give evOteore against me, when - I could . not succeed in aniscalhig their lips cn the trial to speak ottc..wordin lov behalf. I%lv COMISeI. * Mr. Topping and Mr. SC . .rlett, whom I fully expected would have advocated my cause, never spoke in my defenee, lii saving this, however, i east no• blame on those gentlemen, because I have ni) doubt tbat under the eifsmn s tances the n known to them they acted as they thought hest. Neither do I mean to blame kfr. Serjeant rest, (the counsel for Mr. Johnstone), who, coots - ant to my expectation iind direction, &knifed my cans'' in coojnnetion with that of his own client. He made.as able speech as any advo• cate could hat•e done, with the informatton he possessed, and Ondrr his then .eircumstatices ; bat he intimated at the time,. and after wards authorised me to assert, that he was not able to do jnstice to tie cause and it is a just armpit' of complaint that after Mr. Ser jeant Best hid been exhait4ed b fifteen bouts' close attention and confit.ement, he was net allowed a few hours to recover himself and prepare for the defence. To return : I do, however,' accept. the daring of the Attorney Genet al, hn I freely release my solicitors awl counsel from every obligation of secrecy. I thooght, however, after the statemeot which had been circulated by my' solicitors, that it was my duty in 41.$ place to put to them certain questions, which I was imt thhi • •• - AVG. 14. aware would have occasioned much delay ; but after a lapse of nearly t 'fortnight, they wrote to infoitu -me that they ilion4la it.... would be improper to MISWer thohe quebtiona. I now lay them bQ. fore the pnbiie. I particularly authorise the Counsel employed for the detence to state their reasons for determining to defend me conjointly withMr Johnstone, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Adam expressed on the 6th of May, contrary to that own opinion expressed on the k'ani of May, and contrary to my opinion and direction expressed on the 29th of May ; and I also authorise them to assign the reason for their opinion, that no witness ought to be examined on my part ; and.especially their reasons for not examining my servants on the subject of De Berenget's dress, notwithstanding my cagiest desire to Ira , c them examined. lam also willing, nay, lam auxions that Mr. Sedeant Best should state, whether when be admitted that the coat was red, and not green, lie did not imagnne that I bad sworn falsely fay desigo? I know that in his speech he attributed my description of the coat to error only, but I am anxious to know whether lie did so from his-feelings as a man, or his sense of duty as an advocate his Lordship afrerwards plocecJs thus : To come now to tin mans ter in which the error in the brief origniated, I have no hesitation in acknowledging that I am at issue with my solicitors on that point. The it account is, that two of my servants whom I had sent to their office to he examiuril as to the evidt lice they could give on the ilia), admitted that De Bei enger wore a red coat with a greet) collar. My servants, on the contrary, assure me that the y did not, and could tiot.admit, that it was a red coat ! because wilco they saw De Be renger he wore a gruat-coat buttoned . up, and they saw neither she. body nor the skirts of the under-coat; but the collar roid.so much of the breasos as they saw were green: but they admit that on being questioned by my solicitors, Whether the could swear that it was not a red coat, tiny confesve I that they could not, and admitted that it might be red, and that the green which they saw might be green faciuga to a military coat ; but they have constantly declared that no part which they saw was red, and they deny that they ever admitted that they saw any red. My solicitors were in prisseSSion of their previous affidavits, describing I)e iterenuer to have worn a grey great-coat buttoned up, and a c .uit with a green collar onderneath. I shall not deny that my solicitors considered the admissions of the servants to amount to an acknowledgmebt that the coat was red; but I shall ever believe that such admissions actually went no further tha: , , that since they aid not see the body of the:coat, it might, for aught they -knew, be red —and possibly, that trey supposed it was red, because the wearer, having a sword and Military cap, they conceived him to be aft army officer. The description whirl'. my solicitors introduced into the brief, in consequence of this examination. namely, a red coat with a green collar, neither accords ssith lily description, nor w ith the coat ac tually. worn by. I)e B.:rower on his way from Dover, %Oka, as proved by the witnesses on- the trial, was either wholly scarlet or turned up with yellow. If I ha I been a party to the fraud, and had sworn falsely as to the colone,of the coat,.i doubtless also might have been wicked enoagh to have endeovoured to suborn the servants to perjure themselves in my behalf; but I should hardly have ventured to send them to my so;icitins to be examined on the subject, without previously in. structing them myself: amid it can hardly be supposed, that if they had been on theie guard from any previons instructions of mine, that my solicitors, in the common course 'of examination, would have obtainl froin them any evidence which militated against my own sltateineot. I should natmally, too, have teat some anxiety to know • titc.res4,lt of their examination ; yet the truth is, that I never asked then' aisitigle question on then return from the Solicitor's office. Indeed, if had questioned them as narrowly as one may. suppose al,:nilty; Man, who had sent his servants on a guilty errand, of so innell clanger anti importance, would have questioned them, I should, in all probability, have,di,eovered whether they had or had not ex ecuted that corm() to my sat i•faction. At all events I should have beetraasions to know the result of their examination as entered in the'brief; and it it be true that it was actually read to me by my Solicitoe, I most, under such circumstances, have lent too attentive an ear to have Offered the ruinous word red to have escaped my observation. I must, too, .have shevoi symptoms of uneasiness on hearing that word which could not have escaped the observation of the render, particularly as the contradiction between that word and my oath must have been resent to his mind. And, lastly. with the knowledge that the brief contained a flat and fatal coutradic. non to my own . affidavit out of the biotin's of my Own servants, I should hardly-have snifered it to have gone to my counsel in that state ; and then have pressed, in the way in which I did press, to have those servants examined on the trial. How my bolicitors could admit'so fatal a contradiction into the brief