or alive, his personal liberty became insecure; he therefore fled, with the letters in his possession, to France, and took up his residence at Paris, "until the people of England came to their right wits and senses again." To convince the English Courts of their error, he here, it appears, submitted his case to a French counsellor, who did not scruple to advise upon it, and who pronounced the following very curious

Opinion.

J'ay recu la vôtre, avec copie du procez de scire facias, au nom du Roy, et la réponse à icelle, tous deux en Latin, et l'ordre de la Chancelerie ensuivie, datée le 26 de May, 1682, et aye auprès de moy la copie des Lettres Patentes pour Représailles contre les Hollandois, pour 151, 612 livres sterlins, translaté en François. J'ay consulté cette affaire avec les premièrs conseillers du Parlement de Paris, lesquels sont d'avis qu'il est contre la justice naturelle et la constitution du Gouvernement d'Angleterre, que la méme Cour de Judicature d'où les Lettres Patentes sont issues, les pourroit abroger et anuller, sans premièrement faire satisfaction aux personnes injuriées ou endommagées, et ils tiennent pour fort deshonorable à aucun Prince, ou sujets, de chercher relief contre leur propres actes, lesquels sont en leur propre pouvoir d'accomplir; Le Roy de FRANCE ven

droit son lit de dessous soy, plutôt que de courir le deshonneur et reproche d'une telle action, si reflectant contre tous Princes Souverains.

FRANCOIS PERENOTT.

Paris, 16 Dec. 1682.

A CROSS-EXAMINATION,

On the celebrated trial of Elizabeth Canning, Mr. Willes, afterwards Solicitor-General in 1766, made a Judge of the King's Bench in 1767, and ultimately raised to the dignity of Chief Justice, thus cross-examined one of the witnesses for the prisoner.

"What time did she (Elizabeth Canning) come?-About twelve o'clock at noon.

Did anybody come with her that day?—No, nobody.

Was she in perfect health ?-I never saw her better, as I know of.

What had you for dinner?-Some of a cold shoulder of mutton and potatoes, which was dressed the Sunday before.

Did she eat a hearty dinner?-She eat as hearty as she could; she seemed to eat as hearty as I did.

This being new year's day, what did you give her to drink?-She drank some ten-shilling beer, which I had in the house. I was at work in the afternoon.

Does your wife drink tea in the afternoon ?

She generally does, whether she has company or

not.

Have you seen your niece drink tea?—I have. Do you think your wife and she had tea that afternoon?—I do really believe they had.

Does your wife generally have bread and butter, or toast with her tea, or not ?-She generally chuses toast and butter.

What time did you return home from work? About seven in the evening.

What had you for supper?-We had some of a sirloin of beef roasted.

Did your niece eat of that?-She eat a small quantity of that, but could not eat much.

What did she drink after that?-She drank a small quantity of ten-shilling beer."

This cross-examination was ridiculed by Foote in a farce, in the performance of which he exercised his talent of mimicry by a very successful exhibition of Mr. Willes's peculiarity of voice and

manner.

In vindication of Willes, Mr. Malone has observed, (in his Inquiry into the authenticity of the Papers, &c. which, in 1795, were published as the writings of Shakspeare, Queen Elizabeth, and the Earl of Southampton,) "Persons who are not conversant with legal subjects, or the true object

of lawyers in their examination of evidence, are frequently surprised at minute questions put to witnesses, which they think either vexatious or impertinent; and on such occasions, the wellknown question which a late admired comic actor introduced into one of his pieces, and which he rendered still more ridiculous by imitating the thin and stridulous voice of an eminent barrister, who was afterwards raised to the Bench, 'Pray, now let me ask you, was,-the-toast buttered on both sides?' is often mentioned with much satisfaction and applause by those who have attended more to the humour of the theatre, than the investigation of truth.-But the judicious lawyer, when he asks, not precisely such questions as the English Aristophanes has invented for him, but, in the case (we will suppose) of a disputed will,-whether the testator, when he made and published it, was sitting up in his bed, or in an arm chair;-what was the size or form of the room,-how many persons were present,-who lighted the candles, or furnished the wax with which it was sealed? &c. perfectly understands what he is about; and, in cases of fiction or fraud, the event often proves the propriety of such an examination; for by the answers given to these questions, compared with the testimony of others, and the real fact, the instrument set up is quickly overthrown." (State Trials, vol. xix. p. 475.)

S

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WILLES.

Miss Hawkins,

"" was a man of

"Chief Justice Willes," says in her Memoirs, (vol. ii. p. 254,) so little personal decorum, that he was perpetually offending against the respect due to his office. He would play cards at the public rooms at watering places; and one night, when so engaged, he was extremely annoyed by a young barrister, who feigning himself intoxicated, stood by the table, looked over his cards, and was so troublesome, that at length Willes spoke sharply to him.Sir,' said he, pretending to stagger, 'Ibeg pardon; but I wanted to improve in playing whist; so, so I came to look over—you; for ifif I, I, I am not mistaken, Sir,-you are α judge." To this anecdote we may subjoin the account of his Lordship given by Horace Walpole, in his "Memoirs."

"Lord Chief Justice Willes was designed for Chancellor. He had been raised by Sir Robert Walpole, though always browbeaten by haughty Yorke, and hated by the Pelhams, for that very attachment to their own patron; as Willes's nature was more open, he returned their aversion with little reserve. He was not wont to disguise any of his passions.-That for gaming was notorious; for women, unbounded. There was a remarkable story current, of a grave person coming