that might make them lean towards either side. In this case it was peculiarly necessary that the Jury should not entertain an idea favourable to either the defendant or his accusers. The subject of this action had been discussed usque ad nauseam in the papers, and it was impossible that any Juryman would be perfectly void of some private feeling on this subject. But he felt convinced that they would judge the case on its merits; that is, on the evidence as it supported or failed to support the terms of the indictment. Perhaps it was unnecessary for him to refer to the status, high position, and calling of the defendant. He had been known for many years past as a man of high honour, a gentleman whose character was blameless and without reproach. For this reason the learned Counsel addressed the Jury under peculiarly advantageous circumstances. The antecedents of Mr. Long and a view of his past career would prove, notwithstanding the observations of his learned friend, that he did not merit the obloquy of any one, and that he was not a likely person to commit the act, of which he siood charged, wilh any malicious intention. Mr. Long's position and status denied such an accusation, and the learned Counsel, in corroboration, would call attention to the names of the gentlemen who went bail for him. They were Mr. Hutton, a chaplain and Bishop's commissary, and Mr. Stuart, also a clergyman and Secretary to the Church Mission Society. When the defendant was supported by men of such rank and standing the Jury might be sure that his antecedents would bear the minutest test. Having made these prefatory remarks, the learned Counsel would proceed to consider the case itself. But before eniering into the charge itself, he would bring to the notice of the Jury the mode of procedure adopted against him. His learned friend, Mr. Peterson, appeared to have been labouring under a difficulty on that point. There were three courses open to the prosecutors; the first was a civil action, which ihe learned Counsel on the other side considered himself shut out from, by technical reasons. But there was another fair, open and manly mode of procedure, much more so than the one adopted, which was the harshest known in the English law. Though the prosecutor's were not able to institute a civil action for technical reasons, they could at all events have applied for a criminal information. The Jury might not be acquainted with the nature of that proceeding; he would therefore give some explanation regarding it. It was a mode of proceeding which did not close the defendant's mouth. The cases were
137
