man skull produced, which is fractured; but was this the cause, or was it the consequence of death? was it owing to violence, or was it the effect of natural decay? if it was violence, was that violence before or after death? My Lord, in May 1732 the remains of William Lord Archbishop of this province, were taken up by permission, in this cathedral, and the bones of the skull were broken, yet certainly he died by no violence offered to him alive, that could occasion that fracture there. Let it be considered, my Lord, that upon the dissolution of religious houses, and the commencement of the reformation, the ravages of those times affected both the living and the dead. In search after imaginary treasures, coffins were broken up, graves and vaults dug open, monuments ransacked, and shrines demolished; and it ceased about the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I entreat your Lordship, suffer not the violence, the depredations, and the iniquities of those times. to be imputed to this. Moreover, what gentleman here is ignorant that Knaresborough had a castle, which though now a ruin, was once considerable both for its strength and garrison? All know it was vigorously besieged by the arms of Parliament, at which siege in sallies, conflicts, flights pursuits, many fell in the places round it, and where they fell were buried, for every place, my Lord, is burial earth in war; and many questionless of these, rest yet unknown, whose bones futurity shall discover. I hope, with all imaginable submission, that what has been said will not be. thought impertinent to this indictment; and that it will be farther from the wisdom, the learning, and the integrity of this place, to impute to the living, what fury in its zeal may have done; what nature may have taken off and piety interred; or what war alone may have destroyed, alone deposited. As to the circumstances that have been raked together I have nothing to observe, but that all circumstances. whatever are precarious, and have been but too frequently found lamentably fallible; even the strongest have failed, They may rise to the utmost degree of probability, yet they

are but probability still. Why need I name to your Lordship the two Harrisous recorded by Dr. Howel, who both suffered upon circumstances, because of the sudden disappearance of their lodger, who was in credit, had contracted debts, borrowed money, and went off unseen, and returned a great many years after their execution? Why name the intricate affair of Jaques du Moulin under King Charles 2d, related by a gentleman who was counsel for the crown? and why the unhappy Coleman who suffered innocent, though convicted upon positive evidence, and whose children perished for want, because the world uncharitably believed the father guilty? Why mention the perjury of Smith, incautiously admitted king's evidence, who to screen himself equally accused Faircloth and Loveday of the murder of Dun, the first of whom in 1749 was executed at Winches ter, and Loveday was about to suffer at Reading, had not Smith been proved perjured to the satisfaction of the court, by the Surgeon of Gosport hospital. Now, my Lord, having endeavoured to shew that the whole of this process is alto gether repugnant to every part of my life, that it is inconsistent with my condition of health about that time, that no rational inference can be drawn, that a person is dead who suddenly disappears, that hermitages were the constant repositories of the bones of the recluse, that the revolutions in religion or the fortune of war, has mangled or buried the dead; the conclusion remains perhaps no less reasonably than impatiently wished for. I at last, after a year's con, finement equal to either fortune, put myself upon the can, dour, the justice, and the humanity of your Lordship, and upon yours, my countrymen, gentlemen of the jury."

FINIS,

LONDON:

Printed by W. Phillips, George Yard, Lombard St.