rapture) in the dedication of his history to Henry the Fourth of France, will meet with the fullest conviction. I am only sorry, my lords, that his countrymen, the French, have so far profitted by the sentiments he hath there delivered, as now to see their error. I profess I am one of those who should not have broke my heart, (I hope I shall not be thought uncharitable in saying it) if they had banished the Hugonots and kept the Jesuits; in a political view, I had much rather they had retained the Jesuits and banished the Hugonots. And, my lords, to ruin the Hugonots, a more jesuitical advice could not have been given than what hath been followed in the present case; make a law to render them incapable of office, make another law for not serving. If they accept, punish them-(for it is admitted on all hands that the defendant in the cause before your lordships is prosecutable for taking the office upon him); if they accept, punish them; if they refuse, punish them; if they say yes, punish them; if they say no, punish them. My lords, this is a most exquisite dilemma from which there is no escaping, it is a trap a man cannot get out of, it is as bad a persecution as that of Procrustes-if they are too short, stretch them; if they are too long, lop them: and, my lords, this bye-law, by which the dissenters are to be reduced to this wretched dilemma, is a bye-law of the city, a local corporation, contrary to an act of parliament, which is the law of the land; a modern bye-law, of very modern date, made long since the corporation act, long since the toleration act, in the face of them and direct opposition to them, for they knew these laws were in being. It was made in some year of the reign of the late king-I forget which; but, my lords, it was made about the time of building the mansion-house. Now, my lords, if it could be supposed the city have a power of making such a bye-law, it would entirely subvert the toleration act, the design of which was to exempt the dissenters from all penalties. For by such a bye-law

they have it in their power to make every dissenter pay a fine of six hundred pounds, or any sum they please; for it amounts to that.

"The professed design of making this bye-law, was to get fit and able persons to serve the office; and the plaintiff sets forth in his declaration, that if the dissenters are excluded, they shall want fit and able persons to serve the office. But, my lords, were I to deliver my own suspicion, it would be, that they did not so much wish for their services as their fines.

"My lords, dissenters have been appointed to this office; one who was blind, another who was bedridden, not I suppose on account of their being fit and able to serve the office; no, they were disabled both by nature and by law. My lords, we had a case lately in the courts below, of a person chosen mayor of a corporation while he was beyond the seas with his majesty's troops in America, and they knew him to be so. Did they want him to serve the office? No; it was impossible: but they had a mind to continue the former mayor a year longer, and to have a pretence for setting aside him who was now chosen on all future occasions as having been elected before; and, my lords, in the cause before your lordships, the defendant was by law incapable at the time of his election, and it is my firm opinion that he was chosen because he was incapable. If he had been capable he had not been chosen, for they did not want him to serve the office; they chose him because without a breach of the law, and a usurpation upon the crown, he could not serve the office. They chose him that he might fall under the penalty of their bye-law, made to serve a particular purpose, in opposition to which, and to avoid the fine thereby imposed, he hath pleaded a legal disability grounded on two acts of parliament. And as I am of opinion that his plea is good, I conclude with moving your lordships, that the judgment be affirmed."

SPEECH of ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, Esq. in defence of ROBERT WILSON, of Edinburgh, charged with the Murder of JANET his wife, on the night of the 27th of January, 1803; tried before the Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, 28th of February, 1803.

"Gentlemen of the jury,

"I completely concur with my learned brother, that the crime of murder, charged against the panel, is one of the deepest dye; and severe as the punishment is, which the law annexes to it, it is not beyond what such a crime deserves. Murder is a crime at which human nature revolts with horror: but if there has been murder in the present case, and the panel has perpetrated that crime against his wife, he has committed a crime of the greatest atrocity, and is sunk to the utmost depravity of soul. They had journeyed through life till they had nearly reached its termination, and had another world in view. The declining state of her health had rendered her an object of compassion, and made it his duty to watch over her with tenderness and care. He had made her the partner of his gains, she partook of his comforts, he had become her benefactor, a character which is productive of all the offices of kindness. If, therefore, he was guilty of her murder, it was indeed most atrocious; but in proportion as the crime appears more heinous, it requires, of course, the clearer proof. Where a common crime is committed, it may strengthen the presumption, but where it is of uncommon turpitude, it requires to be distinctly proved indeed. The evidence that has been adduced is altogether circumstantial. I admit that circumstantial proof will go a great length, but it must be strengthened by some additional facts before it is conclusive of guilt. In tracing the evidence, I shall first call your attention to

those parts of it which operate in favor of the panel: and that which first presents itself is his character, which, undoubtedly, is of great consequence on this occasion; and from what we have heard of him, if he is guilty, he must be the most callous determined villain that is to be met with in society. But this idea will immediately be removed, for all the witnesses prove him to be an honest man; a kind and indulgent husband; and, in all respects, possessing an unexceptionable character. In this situation, how are we to account for this crime-he was not given to dissipation, nor was he addicted to any vicious. habits, nor violence of passion. This crime is not said to have been perpetrated in sudden anger, nor from jealousy on the part of the panel. To what then are we to attribute it? The public prosecutor has told you that he had formed an attachment to the woman Lees, but this has by no means been proved. That his wife, an old woman, confined to bed by disease, and a prey to suspicion, did entertain jealousy of him, has certainly been stated; but is the evidence of a single witness sufficient to establish this? If true, could it not have been proved by the testimony of the woman herself, who is among the prosecutor's list of witnesses, but has not been brought forward. Therefore, I contend, that the attachment to this woman has not been proved. But even though it were, it is a cause inadequate to the effect. The death of his wife, an old debilitated woman, was likely to happen in the course of a few weeks. Where, then, could be the motive for murdering of her, even to obtain another when at the hazard of his life and character. Do you suppose he should thus, by the touch of an invisible demon, start up, and become a deliberate murderer? The suspicion is, that Margaret Lees and the prisoner had formed a deliberate plan for murder; but why should they do so, when they could easily accomplish their gratification without it? They were not in high life where

i

wealth and honors were to be conferred by removing the object which stood in the way, and therefore we must suppose they committed murder to obtain what they could easily have obtained without doing so.

"The next thing to be noticed is the time and circumstances. As to the time, it has been shewn that Mr. Mathew, the lodger, was absent in the month of December last, and yet it is strange that this plan was not then carried into execution. As to the time of night, Mr. Mathew went out at eight o'clock, and Mrs. Wilson bid him be home soon, and he might have been every moment expected, but the prisoner does not effect the deed immediately on Mathew going out; he waits till about ten, when certainly he might be expected to return. It is an hour too, when all the neighbours are awake, and might be easily alarmed. When Mr. Mathew came home, a few minutes after, he finds the door neither locked nor bolted. Does Wilson go with a candle to the passage to prevent him coming into the kitchen? No; he just acted in his usual way, and Mathew comes into the kitchen. There is nothing in the manner or looks of Wilson more than ordinary; he says this is a fine night; he lights Mr. Mathew's candle, and serves him with supper. He betrays no conscious guilt, no alarm, though he had only a little time before murdered his wife, and had before him the horrible prospect of passing the night in the room with the murdered corpse; a situation certainly more awful than for an innocent man to have sat in the vaults of the dead.

"What is his conduct next morning when he found his wife dead; he goes to Aitken's house to bid Mrs. Aitken come to his; he acquaints them his wife is dead, and it is proved he appeared in distress. He next goes to Mrs. Jollie, and yet it is said she was the only witness who lived in enmity with him, and is one of the persons who heard the cries. Had he been guilty, would he have