which, I said before, he was not warranted in doing. Being told the Bishop was there, he said he would treat him with all possible respect, and he opened the door, and admitted him and his followers; and then, he says, he loaded another pistol.-He tells you, the. Bishop entered in a great rage. Whether there was any rage or passion, or no, is only material to show whether or no the rest of the story is probable; because, his being in a rage, does not prove him guilty of a breach of the peace. The question is, whether he has committed any acts in breach of the peace? First of all, the Prosecutor tells you, that he told the Bishop he should behave with proper respect to him, but he should not leave the office-he swears that the Bishop took hold of him; and afterwards he went to William Roberts, an husbandman, be longing to the witness-he then went to another. servant, Robert Davis, and attempted to pull him. out; that the Bishop returned to William Roberts, collared him, and drew him towards the door; that the Bishop went with his hands clenched towards the witness; and the witness describes the manner in which he (the Bishop) went towards him.-Now his taking hold of the witness IS AN ASSAULT, He says, he attempted to pull him out; his seizing hold of him IS AN ASSAULT; his returning to William Roberts, and collaring him, and pushing him towards the door,) IS ANOTHER ASSAULT; his going with his hands clenched towards him in a menacing way, if he were near enough to strike him, would be

an assault; if not near enough to strike him, it would not be an assault; and then he called to his servants to come and pull him out-that is a breach of the peace, coming and removing them all by force

and violence.

Then there is that which passes in respect to Mr. Roberts.-The Prosecutor and the other witnesses tell you, that Roberts was in a great rage; he cannot say whether he entered before or after the orders given by the Bishop; that he clenched his fist, and said, "If nobody will turn him (meaning the Prosecutor) out, I will do it."-The Bishop said, the Prosecutor had pistols; upon which Roberts said, in an outrageous manner, "Do not shoot the Bishop, shoot me;" and said, that if nobody else would turn the Prosecutor out, he would.-He asked the Prosecutor to go on one side with him, into the churchyard, and said, he was not afraid of him in any place. The witness said, he had something else to attend to; and another of the witnesses said, he promised to meet him at some other time and place. This is, you see, a challenge by Roberts to fight the Prosecutor; why, that is a breach of the peace. The Bishop is present; he is the person who tells Roberts that the Prosecutor had pistols; then the Bishop hears this challenge. They all came upon one design. When several persons come upon an illegal design or purpose, the act of one, especially if in the presence of all, is the act of all.

This, Gentlemen, is the sum of the evidence

on the one side; and there is no evidence on the other.

· The Bishop, no doubt, is a man of an excellent. character; but at this moment he gave way to his temper. He ought to have followed the process of the law, and not so to have done. Thus much I have said affects the Bishop, and affects Roberts. As to Owen, the Prosecutor says that Owen came into the office; he made a noise; he talked very loud. The witness told him, if he had any business, he was there ready to transact it, otherwise he begged they would go about their business. He only speaks to his making a noise. John Williams,. he says, was less noisy than the rest. The witness asked what business he had there; and told him to go about his business. He says, he staid there against his will; he staid after the rest went away.

Upon this it is necessary for me to state, as I did before, that the other Defendants coming with the Bishop upon the same design, by force and violence, to dispossess the Prosecutor, undoubtedly they came with an unlawful intent and purpose; and, if you believe these witnesses, they were guilty of the several breaches of the peace which I have stated, in assaulting the Prosecutor, in assaulting David Roberts, in assaulting William Roberts, and in the Defendant Roberts challenging the Prosecutor; if you believe these witnesses, it seems to me that the Defendants are guilty of the riot with which they stand charged. As for the force and violence which the

Prosecutor made use of, all that may be urged in another place in mitigation of the punishment; it is only for you to determine whether they, or each of them, are guilty of this riot.

Mr. Erskine.The two last witnesses stated a direct contradiction.

Mr. Justice Heath. The law is clear and plain; you will apply the law to the facts as I have stated them. You will banish all prejudices that you may have from all publication. It is, indeed, unnecessary to admonish Gentlemen of your enlightened understandings; but at the same time, considering that individuals are to be tried by the law of the land, if they are guilty, notwithstanding the high character they may deservedly have, down to this time, it is your duty to find them guilty. If you have any reasonable doubt whether they are guilty,-in that case you will acquit the Defendants.

In about five minutes the Jury acquitted all the Defendants.

SPEECH

FOR THE

REV. GEORGE MARKHAM

AGAINST

JOHN FAWCETT, ESQ.

FOR

CRIMINAL CONVERSATION WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S WIFE,

Before the DEPUTY SHERIFF of MIDDLESEX,
and a SPECIAL JURY,

UPON AN INQUISITION OF DAMAGES.

PREFACE.

NONE of the pleadings of Lord Erskine when at the Bar, excited a greater interest, or were attended with greater success, than those (and they were most numerous) in cases of Adultery. His assistance was so generally sought after, that, except in a very few instances, he was always secured by the retainers of complainants-so that, with the exception of the case of Howard against Bingham, now Earl of Lucan, in the present volume, the case of Eston against the Late Duke of Hamilton, where the phrase of the “Loose Fish" made so conspicuous an appearance and a cause of Baldwin and Oliver, in which he attended at York Assizes, and where the Jury found a shilling damages, we do not recollect any of his