who, being an old and infirm man, was desirous of some elderly person as a housekeeper; and no imputation can justly be cast upon the plaintiff for consenting to such an introduction; for, by Mr. Wallace's favor, the jury had a view of this defendant, and the very sight of him rebutted every suspicion that could possibly fall upon a woman of any age, constitution, or complexion.I am sure every body who was in court must agree with me, that all the diseases catalogued in the dispensary seemed to be running a race for his life, though the asthma appeared to have completely distanced his competitors, as the fellow was blowing, like a smith's bellows, the whole time of the trial -His teeth being all gone, I shall say nothing of his gums; and, as to his shape, to be sure a bass fiddle is perfect gentility compared with it. I was surprised, therefore, that Mr. Wallace should be the first to point out this mummy to the jury, and to comment on his imperfections, because they proved to a demonstration, that the plaintiff could have no other possible inducement or temp. ^ tation to cohabit with him, but that express and solemn promise of marriage which was the foundation of the action, and the aggravation of the wrong. But, besides such plain presumption, it is directly in proof that she never DID cohabit with him before, nor until under this express promise and condition; so that the whole argument is, that disease and infirmity are excuses for villany, and extinction of vigor an apology for debauch

K

ery. The age of the plaintiff, who is a woman towards fifty, was another topic; so that a crime is argued to be less in proportion as the temptation to commit it is diminished.

It would be in the defendant's favor if the promise had been improvident and thoughtless, suddenly given, and as suddenly repented; but the very reverse is in evidence, as she lived with him on these terms for several months, and at the end of them, he repeated his promises, and expressed the fullest approbation of her conduct. It is further in proof, that she fell into bad health on her discovering the imposition practised on her, and his disposition to abandon her. He himself admitted her vexation on that account to be the cause of her illness, and his behavior under that impression was base: having determined to get rid of her, he smuggled her out of his own house to her sister's, under pretence that change of air would recover her; and continued to amuse the poor creature with fresh promises and protestations, till, without provocation, and without notice or apology, he married another woman, young enough to be his daughter, and who, I hope, will manifest her affection by furnishing him with a pair of horns, sufficient to defend himself against the sheriff when he comes to levy the money upon this verdict.

By this marriage the poor woman is abandoned to poverty and disgrace; cut off from the society of her relations and friends; and shut out from every prospect of a future settlement in life suita

ble to her education and her birth; for having neither beauty (nor youth to recommend her, she could have no pretensions but in that good conduct and discretion which, by trusting to the honor of the defendant, she has forfeited and lost.

On all these circumstances, no doubt the jury calculated the damages, and how can your Lordship unravel or impeach the calculation? They are not like the items in a tradesman's account, or the entries in a banker's book; it is,

For loss of character, so much;

For loss of health, so much;

For loss of the society and protection of relations and friends, so much;.

And for the loss of a settlement for life, so much. How is the court to audit this account, so as to say, that, in every possible state of it, the jury has done wrong? How, my Lord, are my observations, weak as they are as proceeding from me, but strong as supported by the subject, to be answered?-Only by ridicule which the facts do not furnish, and at which even folly, when coupled with humanity or justice, cannot smile. We are, besides, not in a theatre, but in a court of law; and when judges are to draw grave conclusions from facts, which not being under re-examination, cannot be distorted by observation, they will hardly be turned aside from justice by a jest.

I, therefore, claim for the plaintiff the damages which the jury gave her under these directions.

from your Lordship," That they were so entirely within THEIR province, that you would not lead their judgments by a single observation."

The rule for a new trial was DISCHARGER,

THE CASE

OF

THE BISHOP OF BANGOR
AND OTHERS;

INDICTED FOR A RIOT AND AN ASSAULT.

TRIED AT SHREWSBURY ASSIZES, ON THE
26th OF JULY, 1796..

THE exemplary morals and decorum which have so long, to the honor of this country, distinguished the high dignitaries of her national church, bestowed upon the trial of the right reverend prelate, who was the principal object of it, an extraordinary degree of curiosity and interest. Indeed, from a perusal of the whole proceedings, we cannot help thinking, that the prosecutor might perhaps have been influenced by the expectation that any compromise would have been preferred by the defendant and his friends, to even a public discussion of such an extraordinary accusation as that of a riet and assault by an English bishop, assisted by other clergymen of his diocese, within the very preeincts of his own cathedral. The reverend prelate, however, was not to be intimidated. Ho.. pleaded not guilty to the indictment, and res