career.

before acted he persisted in his de. sign of arresting the prosecutrix, altho' he must have known that she was not legally subject to his authority. He persisted too, all religious as he was in driving the prosecutrix into what would have been a state of concubinage, if the law were what he was told it was; information which might at least have made him pause in his Now, Gentlemen, in justice to the prosecutrix and to others I must here explain how and when she first learned to doubt the validity of her marriage. It happened, that the prisoner Monaghan had often said to her in fits of passion, that she was only a follower of his and not his wife, This the prosecutrix did not believe, but struck with the circumstance she related it to Mr. to his Clarke when she went house, this induced Mr. Clarke to make some inquiries from the woman herself as to her marriage, he took down from her own mouth what she then stated, and afterwards intimated to her that whatever be the effect be it for weal or be it for woe, she was not the lawful wife of the prisoner. Capt. Greville who still wanted to join these persons, to drive the prosecutrix into a state concubinage was made fully aware of these facts, he was told in a letter from Mr. Clarke that his conduct was illegal and warned of the conseStill he persisted; he quences. Government to applied to the have the embarkation order stopped, and he was by the Government informed that it was not in his province nor was it in theirs to interfere; yet Gentlemen, he still persisted in endeavouring to attain his object, he sent to Captain Sweeny, of H, M. 59th, who commanded the invalids on board the Wellington, to seize the prosecutrix and have her sent back; he did arrest her as he said by order of Major Greville, and she came back to Calcutta, in charge of

PP

Capt. Anderson, of the Comet
Steam-Boat, however, as Cap'.
Anderson on his arrival in Calcutta
did not think proper to detain her
in custody, she went to the house
of Mr. Clarke.

Gentlemen, if I have delayed
you by any comments on this nar.
ration you must forgive me, I have
not stated one fact, nor made one
comment that was not necessary
to the interest of my client; there
are now three questions for consi-
deration-1st, the bare illegallity
of Captain Greville's conduct-2d,
whether he acted from a mistaken
sense of his duty-and last, whe-
ther he acted under a conception
that his conduct was morally
right or knew that it was wrong.
Here Mr. Dickens contended that
in time of peace no person is subject
to Martial Law, but Officers and
men listed and under pay, he ad-
mitted that in this country, camp
followers and settlers were subject
to it in matters of Military dis-
cipline and cognizance while a
force was in the Field, but not
otherwise. In this place he said
a power illegal, indeed, but per-
haps salutary was assumed in the
Fort, with which no one thought
it worth his while to interfere
while used for the peace of the
place and strictly confined to sol-
dier's wives living and receiving
pay as such, when they were
guilty of irregular or disorderly
conduct in the Fort, but where
Gentlemen, in all this, said Mr.
Dickens, do you find the subjec
tion of this woman to Martial Law
as Major Greville has absurdly
asserted, but which I say is not the
fact, I pledge my reputation that
she is no more subject to it than
any one of you, than I am my-
self; but assuming for the sake of
argument that with the limitation
I have laid down she were sub-
ject to it, where Gentlemen is the
Military crime which the unfor-
tunate prosecutrix has been guil-
ty of that subjects her to Martial
Law, if there was any difference or

separation between her and her
husband that was purely a matter
of Civil cognizance, and in such
cases, Gentlemen, supposing the
husband as a soldier demanded
his assistance of Major Greville,
it was his duty to assist in getting
redress according to the known
laws of the land. Here Mr. Dic-
kens read the 9th section of the
articles of war. This Gentlemen
was even by Military Law Captain
Greville's bounden duty to do.
We all know the proverbial folly
of putting the finger between the
bark and the tree, what had
Captain Greville to do with it.
If indeed the prosecutrix had been
living with her husband in the
Fort, and had been there guilty of
any outrage, or impropriety of
conduct, and had been there con-
fined for it, though even then if
the case were of Civil cognizance,
the imprisonment would have been
illegal, you Gentlemen, would have
heard nothing of it, no one would
have interfered, and if she had
deserved the punishment she would
have it in the Congee House. But,
Gentlemen, without rendering
himself liable to the charge of the
grossest ignorance and fatuity no
person could suppose, that she, this
prosecutrix who had been seven
years absent from her husband,
(admitting him to be such), who
was not receiving any pay or al-
Jowance soever from either this
Government or the Crown to be
subject to Martial Law, she did
not even live in the precincts of
the fort, she resided at the house
of Captain Hutchinson at Cossi-
tollah. So much for the two first
points on which I anticipate an
attempt at defence from the Defen-
dant's counsel. We now come to the
third question, viz whether the
Defendant acted from a conception
that he was morally right or knew
that he was wrong, and made a
a mere colourable pretext of his
duty. It is on this point that you
must decide whether he was a
ocnspirator or not. Gentlemen of

the Jury, it is not necessary to prove the fact of an actual conspiracy, it would be impossible to take you into the first meeting of parties who join together for an illegal end. Such meeting may never have taken place at all. When a question is raised of whether there is a conspiracy or not, its existence may be shown from concurrent acts, and similar motives tending to one common end, and agreeing in time and place and the end, illegal as in this case it was as I have I trust already abundantly, proved to you. Having established that the acts done, and end here aimed at, were illegal and improper, you must admit that there was some motive, and now I come to that motive. Again I demand what could be his motive for conduct so extraordinary.

Captain Greville says it was Military duty, Military duty Gentlemen! in what articles, what act, what regulation did he find it. Allowing he might at first have so conceived it, have read to you from his own letters proof that he had been warned of his mistake. Supposing he did not take this assertion as absolute authority it was at least enough, accompanied as it was by an intimation that two other legal Gentlemen concurred, to set Major Greville on the enquiry. Subsequently he did enqure, at least applied to the Government for their assistance, and they refused it, as I have already told you, Gentlemen, and trust f shall prove. They not only refused it, but informed Major Gre ville that the matter was not within his competence. Still he persevered. Forewarned he was but not forearmed with prudence. Now, Gentlemen, I ask again why did he persevere; what was the motive? Ignorance he could no longer plead as an excuse, at least if it could be urged after all that had passed it would amount to a confession of perfect fatuity, of absolute idiocy. This defence

I do not anticipate, Gentlemen, again I demand the motive for this conduct, again I say it is on the purity of his motives, on the morality of his conduct, as a man and a Gentleman, that For we are to try this case. if it were the mere illegal excess of authority in arresting the woman that were in question I would not ask you for your verdict why, if it were merely his Military duty, that urged him, why did he become a party to the pecuniary transaction, why threaten her with the Congee House, why the moment she was out of his service contradict the good character he had previously given her. Last and not least of all, why disclose to the man Monaghan, a man of furious passions, at the very moment when he was doing his utmost to compel her to live with him, the story of the prosecutrix assignation with an officer of the 14th Regiment. A story, Gentlemen, which was not true. These things were no part of his duty, he could not have been ordered to do them, what then as a mere individual could have been his motive. I have told you, Gentleman, that if the husband had in such a case as this sued out a Habeas Corpus, and it had appeared on the affidavit of the woman which the Court would not allow to be contradicted, that the cause of separation was cruelty on the part of the husband, or if in colloquial language the wife had sworn the peace against him, the highest judicial authority in this country would not only have refused to interfere on behalf of the hushand, but would have given her if necessary, an officer to protect her to her home. Such would have been the conduct of the Judges of the land, what would have been the conduct of other men, if asked to interfere in this matrimonial quarrel, a mere worldly wise man would have refused to interfere for her own sake, and because it is

notoriously ridiculous and ill-
judged to meddle in such matter.
If a good and benevolent man had
been applied to, he had refused to
interfere from a fear of exasper-
ating the parties and embittering
the dispute; if a wise and a good
and a religious man had been call-
ed on to interfere for such a
purpose as this and had known
the facts he would not have
hesitated, he would have refus-
ed. The worldiy wise man the
the
merely good natured man,
wise and good and religious man,
would not have interfered. The
Judges of the highest Courts
would not have interfered, but
Major Greville did interfere, and
how he interfered you know, and
thus we may apply on this case
the verse :

And fools rush in where Angels fear
to tread."

Gentlemen, I have done, with much pain to myself have Í gone through the details of this case; I anticipate not attacks in the character of the prosecutrix; if such are made, I am prepared to repel them.

She is now in the service of the lady of the present Bishop of Calcutta, and I have abundant testimonials from other quarters. The motives for this prosecution were not vindictive. One undoubtedly was to punish the Defendants at the Bar for the breach of the laws of which they have been guilty, and the injury which they have done the prose cutrix. But there was an ulterior object, viz. to secure to her the future enjoyment of her personal liberty, and some security from the attacks which have been made upon her and her character, and under which unless she had found a defender she might have suffered Gentlemen, the facts yet more. will soon be in proof before you, and I leave the case in your hands, not only without fear, but with the utmost confidence.

Anne Mackey examined by Mr. Compton, My name is Anne Mac

PP 2