courage and honour, did appear; nay, that, though some of them are not quite so gross, a reiteration of these charges and insinuations continued for some considerable time. I need not remind you of the tenor of the song, nor of the letter signed Ignotus, nor of the other

two articles.

You will also consider the evidence that has been produced as to the manner in which Mr Stuart got access to these writings. I have already glanced at this in reference to another point of the question. But you will now consider whether the evidence warrants a conclusion that Mr Stuart was guilty of any impropriety in the mode of getting access to them. Now, in the first place, I would remind you, that you are not trying him here for any such charge. But, even if I did hold it as a charge before us, I would ask whether, after the evidence given by Mr Henderson, the country agent, who conveyed the offer, and of Mr Spalding, the town agent, who communicated it here, and of Mr Gibson, it can be considered that there is any proof that Mr Stuart took any improper steps towards the acquisition of these writings?

The evidence goes to this, that Mr Stuart got information through Henderson, that Borthwick was disposed to compromise the action of damages, and had desired Mr Henderson to make proposals; that Mr Stuart promised no terms in return; but said, if Borthwick gave up the author or authors of these libels, he would then consider what he should do; that, at present, he would enter into no engagement of a positive nature. The evidence of Mr Henderson positively negatives any suspicion that Mr Stuart advanced one farthing of the money which enabled Borthwick to leave the jail. Henderson positively swears that the L.50, which he consigned, was money advanced out of his own proper funds,

and that not one farthing came from the prisoner at the bar. Mr Gibson tells you, that the consignation was made in consequence of what had already happened to Borthwick in being. ousted from his office; and that, lest Alexander should get hold of the manuscripts and destroy them, he advised that no time should be lost in liberating Borthwick from jail; adding, that he would rather advance the money himself than run the risk. But it is not established that Mr Stuart offered any thing at all. Whether Mr Stuart went to Glasgow, or remained there or not, for any time, we have no business to inquire. But as to any appearance of his being concerned in any undue invasion of the premises we heard no evidence whatever.

You will next consider what the evidence says of the authorship of these papers. It must be fully in your recollection that Lord Rosslyn said he had examined them with care, and in particular the offensive song, looking at the paper and examining the watermarks and post-marks; and his Lordship has told you that he conceived himself authorised to say, that there was strong presumptive evidence that these articles were in the handwriting of Sir Alexander Boswell. I therefore conceive that a most material circumstance for you to consider is,—and the prisoner is fully entitled to the benefit of it-the moderate communication which the Earl of Rosslyn thereupon made, as to the terms of which his Lordship was fully confirmed by the evidence of Mr Douglas; namely, if Sir Alexander Boswell, on the one hand, should say that the papers were not in his handwriting, or that he had nothing to do with them, that that would put an end to all further inquiry, and would be held as negativing all evidence; on the other hand, that if he would say, supposing them to be his,

that the thing was a bad joke, and he was sorry for it, the matter would then be allowed to drop.

Sir Alexander Boswell acknowledged the signed letter to be his, but he declined saying any thing as to the unsigned papers. He did this by the advice of his friend, who thought it the most prudent course; though Mr Douglas, in his evidence, has admitted that he had no doubt, from his conversations with the unfortunate gentleman deceased, that they were written by him, two verses of the song, indeed, having been repeated by him to Mr Douglas. But in the delicate situation in which that gentleman was placed, it was deemed right to take the course which he did.

Something was put by way of hypothesis to Lord Rosslyn and Mr Douglas, as to what would be their opinion, supposing that they were not sure that these papers were in Sir Alexander's handwriting. I am much afraid, how ever, it is not necessary for us to speak to that at all; for you have heard the evidence with regard to the song, the letter signed Ignotus, the paper with the name Mark Tod, and the letter beginning "The late Lieutenant James Stuart." You have had evidence as to these, of the truth of which there cannot be the remotest suspicion; and I have no hesitation in saying, that, in my opinion, it leaves no doubt as to whose handwriting they were.

I need not detain you with the proceedings to which this discovery led. The result of all was, that the parties met, and took their ground, each armed with a pistol, that they both fired together, the prisoner first, and the deceased after a momentary interval, and the deceased fell. On this part of the case, the evidence of Lord Rosslyn, Mr Douglas, and the surgeons in attendance, is complete.

Therefore, Gentlemen, you have to attend, in the first place, to the evi

dence of what led to this unfortunate quarrel; the nature of the provocation, of the wrong of which the gentleman at the bar complained, and which is to be found in the terms of those articles that were put in in evidence; the measures which were attempted to prevent a meeting; the proposal which was made through the medium of Mr Stuart's second, and all that took place after their failure. You have also, of course, to attend minutely to the conduct of Mr Stuart, both previous to and on the field. You have the communication made by him to his surgeon Mr Liston, on the road, distinctly stating that he had no malice against the deceased; that, on the contrary, he was related to him distantly, but that no alternative was left as to the course which he must pursue. Then, you will recollect the evidence of Lord Rosslyn, that in nothing that he said did Mr Stuart appear to be actuated by malice or rancour; but that, on the contrary, he felt himself to be under an inevitable necessity of taking the step which he did, merely to vindicate himself from the injury he had received, and with no intention of deliberate malice against Sir Alexander Boswell; in the propriety of all of which Lord Rosslyn told you that he entirely agreed.

You will take these matters into recollection, and keep in view also the evidence given by Mr Gibson as to the very becoming manner in which Mr Stuart expressed himself to him after the unfortunate rencounter, the great concern he showed, his uncommon grief,-the agony in which he was when he communicated the fatal intelligence,

the opinion which Mr Gibson felt himself able to draw, that he had not the slightest personal animosity against the deceased gentleman. You will compare all this with the evidence you have, both from Mr Douglas and Lord Rosslyn, as to the fairness of the pro ceedings of the prisoner, on the field,—

the prisoner, as upon the inevitable necessity that was imposed upon him of taking the course which he did,it does not appear to me advisable, for the sake of the law, to divest the case altogether of the nature of the provocacation given; neither do I conceive it the safest course for the pannel; for it comes to be a very difficult and delicate consideration, indeed, whether, if you lay that matter apart, and then defend this case of a determined duel, terminating fatally, by saying that it was undertaken for no other purpose than rescuing the prisoner from the situation in which he was placed: this, I say, appears to me to be a delicate and dangerous position to put the case upon; for I apprehend the rule of law is quite clear in cases of this description, that no false punctilio or notion of honour can vindicate an act which terminates fatally to a fellowcrcature. But take that consideration, urged as it was with all the powerful eloquence of the learned counsel, and take along with it the injuries received by the prisoner, the uncommon provocations given,-the terms of accommodation offered and rejected, and combine them altogether; the temperate conduct of the prisoner in the field; his grief for the fatal issue of the meeting, then, in my humble apprehension, you will have a case before you which, in reference to the charge made, and the evidence led in support of it, is well deserving of your most calm, deliberate, and dispassionate consideration.

In order to make way for the conclusion, to which the Learned Gentleman thought himself warranted to come, in asking a verdict of Not Guilty, he expatiated on the subject of duels in general, and endeavoured to justify them, or, if not altogether so, to palliate them, by referring to a variety of moral writers, some passages from whose works he read to you. Now,

I beg leave to say, that these may be all extremely good topics in a general discussion, but they are not what, as a Judge sitting here, I am entitled to lay any stress upon: I must look alone to the authority of law writers, and to the practice of courts. As to what moral writers may have said of the advantages which may have arisen from this practise of duelling, this affords no safe ground of judgment.

But there were other topics referred to by the learned counsel, and which I admit are legitimate sources of judgment for you,-adjudged cases, and charges of judges in trying these cases. Mr Jeffrey has stated, and I have no doubt of the accuracy of his statement, that convictions in cases of duelling, where every thing has been fair, have been extremely rare. No one can doubt of this; and it is admitted by both the authors whom I formerly quoted. Mr Burnett notices the case of Rae, the result of which he approves, but he speaks differently as to the case of Glengarry. Mr Hume, you will recollect, alludes to these cases, as well as to that of Cahill, and also says how much juries are disposed to acquit where the proceedings have been fair. You have heard, also, the names of respectable jurymen concurring in such verdicts; but you must lay these out of consideration, and only keep in view, that, as former juries have exercised their discretion in the discharge of their office, so you must do in discharge of yours, and come to similar conclusions, only if you see sufficient grounds. You will consider the charge, the evidence for the charge, and the strong body of evidence which has been brought forward on the part of the prisoner. You will recollect that, as to the narrative part of the charge

that of malice in seeking a quarrel— it has been directly negatived; and, with regard to any thing like personal rancour, there is the strongest evi

dence that no such feeling entered into the mind of the prisoner. Considering, therefore, the circumstances in which he was placed the strong necessity he felt himself under to vindicate himself the deliberate way and manner in which he set about his vindication, not proceeding instantly himself, but sending to the Noble Lord, whom he employed as his friend, who told him that he had no other alternative but to act as he did the total absence of all rancour-the great sorrow that he expressed on account of the fatal consequence of the meeting, and the uncommon body of testimony to the mildness of his character, taking all these things into your consideration, you will consider whether you can, with propriety, pronounce him Not Guilty.

Gentlemen, before concluding, I must say, that I am not one of those who can give the slightest countenance to such proceedings as those which led originally to this fatal business. Neither I nor any other Judge in this

Court can give the slightest countenance to publications such as those which were directed against the gentleman at the bar. It is one of the greatest misfortunes and evils of the present day that we have to witness the disgraceful licence of the periodical press; and I do lament, from the bottom of my heart, that the unfortunate gentleman deceased should have had any concern with writings of this description, for it is impossible to shut your eyes against the evidence by which it is proved that Sir Alexander Boswell was engaged in these writings, and that the prisoner at the bar was the object of his attacks.

You will, therefore, keep these considerations in your view, and pronounce snch verdict as the circumstances of the case shall seem to you to authorise.

The Jury, without retiring, after a few moments' consultation, returned their verdict vivâ voce, by their Chancellor, Sir John Hope, unanimously. finding Mr Stuart Not Guilty.

THE KING V. WEAVER AND OTHERS. Court of King's Bench, Guildhall,— January 4-Before the Lord ChiefJustice and a Special Jury.

This was an indictment against Weaver, Shackell, and Arrowsmith, for a series of libels upon her late Majesty the Queen.

Mr Tindal opened the pleadings.

Mr Denman, in rising to address the Jury, adverted to the circumstances which gave him the leading of the case. The standing which he (with his friend Mr Brougham) had enjoyed during her Majesty's life had not, in the wisdom of those who directed such arrangements, been continued to either of them since her death; and therefore it was