ver land-agent, a faithful steward, and an honest banker. And those are such people as no man of good property need want in this kingdom. Lord Portsmouth is a good arithmetician. I would not conclude upon the tales of his follies, however well told, and how ever credible the witnesses, that Lord Portsmouth is insane. I should conclude nothing against his sanity at all from these things, in reference to his grade of intellect. Why :-Because I have, on the other hand, the testimony of all his respectable neighbours in town and country, that for twenty, thirty, forty years, they have never seen him do an improper act, or utter an incoherent expression. Upon which of these branches of evidence would you have me conclude character. How can I account for perversions of taste? If a nobleman gets upon the box, and gives the coachman five shillings to let him drive to Windsor and back, that is below the dignity of an English nobleman; but though it is whimsical and mean, I must not call it insanity. If a man followed funerals, and becoming calm from a state of violent passion, fell in with one and began to sing a psalm, I should say he was so far whimsical, but not insane. I have known people myself who have had a liking to go to funerals. The eager ness of some people to witness execu tions, is notorious. As to a man's following a log, and fancying it a funeral, I can easily conceive that people who have a passion for executions, would take more delight in seeing Punch hanged, than other people. These are, taken insularly, however, indications certainly not of a sound mind. I should not say with Dr Latham, that Lord Portsmouth has intellect enough for a lower station of life, though he has not enough for a peer of his property. I am, perhaps, more democratic in my notions. I see nothing in the station of an English

peer, nor in the hazards to which he is likely to be exposed in his own country, which calls for an extraordinary reach of intellect. I should say, that if he could conduct a farm properly, and manage the affairs of a small fami ly and income in another station of life, and having that degree of assist ance which I before described, from an agent, a steward, and a banker, I think he might be an earl in these times very fairly.

Thomas Davidson, hay and corndealer in Warren-street, Fitzroy-square, had frequently dealt personally with Lord Portsmouth. His Lordship knew good articles from bad perfectly well, and objected to the prices on some occasions.

Thomas Manchester, bailiff.-Iconversed with him upon horses, cattle, hay, wheat, barley, oats, the quality of land; and upon all these subjects, his Lordship discovered excellent judgment.— Witness got as good answers from Lord Portsmouth, as from any other nobleman.

After the case for the defendant had been closed, at the desire of the jury, Dr Monro and Dr Willis were called.

Dr Monro.-I am of opinion that his mind is decidedly unsound; I have not the slightest doubt on the subject; I should say the unsoundness is of long standing; I should conceive that he must have been insane from the first ; I judge from the evidence given, and the affidavits; I should say, that ten years ago, when he was pulled from his horse by a servant, and could not dis charge that servant, he must be insane. I conceived Lord Portsmouth's to be a mixed case-lunacy supervening on a very weak mind. I conceive the way in which Lord Portsmouth reasons, if

he reasons at all, indicates him to be both insane, and what I may term a fool. He draws just conclusions from wrong premises at one time, and wrong conclusions from just premises at ano. ther. From that circumstance, I conceive him to be both a fool and a madman. I have been a physician of Bethlem hospital seven years. Insanity is my sole and exclusive practice. I consider every case to be distinct. Per haps there is none like Lord Portsmouth's. Cases of lunacy are as distinct as men's faces. I should think some might resemble his.-I should receive him into Bethlem. His case is incurable.

Dr Willis.-Lord Portsmouth's mind is perfectly unsound. In that I differ from Drs Latham and Ainslie. Their knowledge is greater than mine; they are older; but I cannot agree with them.-Witness begged leave to acquaint the Court with his definition of lunacy. After considering the vulgar error from which the term lunatic is derived, and observing that the moon had nothing to do with the disease, he considered all persons lunatics, who were confirmed in mental delusions. The first class of lunatics were the furious maniacs; the second the melancholy patients, who, if they were let alone, would be as mischievous to themselves, as the maniacs would be to others. Between these cases, were the patients who were mad on one single topic, and rational on all others. A very slight degree of restraint was necessary to them. There were others bereft of all sense, whether of decency, discretion, or honour. All the classes are characterized by a perversion of feeling. Between these four classes, there may arise a great variety of cases. I do not think Lord Portsmouth's case the result of bodily disease, and therefore the more hopeless. He was born just as he is. If he had been born

a beggar, instead of a lord, he would have exhibited himself as what is called a Tom of Bedlam. His appearing at races, and in company, is no proof of soundness. I attend patients frequently to races and the theatre. There is nothing in their disease inconsistent with their taking those pleasures. I know patients who are at large, who are perfectly lunatics-some who are capable of managing their affairs. Lord Portsmouth would believe anything. I think I could say anything to him, and alter his notion; but then I could put the grossest delusion on him. I doubt if there are any lucid intervals in lunacy. People have that idea among them, but I cannot conceive a man to be at any time lucid of confirmed insanity. If Lord Portsmouth were under proper influence, he would behave pretty well. That is the case with all lunatics.

The evidence being closed, Mr Adam addressed the Court at some length in behalf of the defendants.

The Chief Commissioner, after some general observations on the state of the law, in cases of insanity, proceeded to comment on the peculiar facts of the present case. It was the case of a peer of the Parliament, and the public were more interested in it than in the cases of ordinary men, because it was the duty of the public to see that the peerage descended pure and unsullied to the proper heirs. That it was felt to be no ordinary case, was plain, from the extraordinary trouble which had been ta ken with it. In his experience, he had never known a commission of lunatic inquiry to last so long; and yet he could not say that it had gone too far. It was an anomalous case, and the jury had to exercise throughout a mixed function of judge and jury. Questions in abundance were necessarily put, which, in strict rules of evidence, ap

plied to ordinary cases, were not ad missible. He divided the case into three periods of time-from the present juncture, back to the second marriage, and from the marriage, back to 1818, and from that time, to any antecedent period which might have been spoken to in evidence. There was nothing in the last-mentioned period, which was, of necessity, to be connected with the is sue. Yet the evidence respecting that portion of time, might be made material, with a view to finding in what state the earl was, and what had been the opinions concerning him and his state of mind, by those persons who were about him. To recur, then, to the first period in his division-from the present time, back to his marriage -it was chiefly affected by the evidence of the medical gentlemen. He would confine his remarks to the ef. fects, and accord the details. These gentlemen had all seen Lord Portsmouth in the month of January last: they were Sir H. Halford, Drs Baillie, Powell, Warburton, Sutherland, Sir George Tuthill, Ainslie, Latham, Willis, and Monro. All these persons being of high eminence in their profession, concurred in the opinion that at present, or on the 28th of January last, Lord Portsmouth was of unsound mind. The jury had also examined Lord Portsmouth, and well knew how far their own opinion concurred with that evidence. He might put it to them directly, if they could come to any other conclusion. There might be shades of difference in the two examinations, but they were of light importance. Dr Bankhead's evidence differed from that of the other medical gentlemen, but Dr Bankhead had not seen Lord Portsmouth since October last, and then found his lordship's mind so locked up, that he was unable to get anything from it. It appeared clear, under all the circumstances, that, since the return from Edinburgh, they

must consider Lord, Portsmouth as a man of insane mind. Most of the medical gentlemen were of opinion, that Lord Portsmouth's mind had always been in the same state as at present. All these examinations had taken place since July last, and they judged of the previous period of his life, by the declarations of Lord Portsmouth himself; supposing those declarations to be true, they found it impossible to come to any other conclusion. They had then to go back to the period of his second marriage, in March 1814. His first countess died in November 1813. The circumstances under which the marriage was celebrated, were peculiar. It was not his intention to cast any severe reflections on the Hansons, but he must say that the conduct of Mr Hanson did not accord with that protection which the law expected a trustee to throw around the object committed to his charge. If the deeds executed on that occasion could be supposed, in point of obligation, to be unconnected with a marriage, there could be no doubt the circumstances were such as to make the deeds void, and to set aside all the covenants. There were numbers of instances which must occur to the minds of all the professional gentlemen who heard him, in which deeds had been set aside on lighter grounds. But the marriage altered the case. The children likely to be born of the marriage, were purchasers, and however indiscreetly contracted, while the marriage held, the deeds could not be set aside. It appeared, that in March 1814, Lord Portsmouth was at Mr Hanson's, and expressed a wish to be married again. Mr Hanson said he could not consent to the marriage, unless his lordship married one of his daughters. Lord Portsmouth immediately went into another room, and addressed Miss Hanson. She referred him to her father, who told him he should have an answer on Monday,

this being said on the previous Saturday. But though no answer was given till Monday, there was full evidence of a settled determination. A deed of settlement was sent, sheet by sheet, to be engrossed by a stationer Mr Hanson never employed before or since. This was done on Sunday, and on the same day, an attempt was made to take out a licence from Doctors' Commons. It was generally known that a licence could not be taken out on Sunday, but it went to prove the determination. The next morning, Lord Portsmouth repaired, perhaps with some eagerness, to the house of Mr Hanson for his answer. There he was told that Mr Hanson would not consent, unless he would be married that day. The licence was there. The affidavit was prepared. Lord Portsmouth took the oath. He signed deeds which he had never read. He was hurried away to the church, unshorn, without clean linen, without any clothes on him suit able to so cheerful a ceremony. The clergyman was performing the morning service. The party were obliged to seat themselves in a pew. When it was over, the clerk learned, for the first time, that there was a couple waiting to be married. All these circumstances shewed that sort of haste which implied, that all the parties who had brought his Lordship to this, were afraid, lest the interposition of the friends of the earl, aided by the law, might prevent the marriage. So far was Lord Portsmouth from being conscious of the importance of what was going on, that he actually did not know which of the daughters he was to have. Looking at all these circumstances, what could they infer? not folly mere ly, but folly run mad. The same consequence flowed from any reasoning which could be applied to the period immediately antecedent. The cruelty of the countess, Mr Alder, and the Hansons the degrading submission

to a pollution of the bed on which he was resting-the many acts of folly and cruelty which had been given in evidence, none of which were conceivable as the acts of a man of sound mind. They had been attributed to mere ignorance; but what sort of ignorance was this which was incapable of becoming informed on the most essential affairs of human life? As to what had taken place in the early life of Lord Portsmouth, he thought that there was enough proved to shew that his Lordship had never been considered of very sound mind. He then went into a lengthened examination of the evidence on the one side, from which he inferred that there was no evidence to overturn the conclusion that Lord Portsmouth was decidedly insane. Something had been addressed to them with respect to the time, from which they would find an attempt was made to ex cite their alarm as to the consequences of their verdict. They had looked at the evidence in its progress, with the most minute attention, and they would determine the time, as well as the luna. cy, according to the facts before them, without regard to the consequences. It had been said, that if they did not return the lunacy of this man, admitted on all hands to be weak minded and of easy delusion, the Court of Chancery would still be able to furnish him with an adequate protection. He confess ed, from what he knew of the law, he did not discern how that could be done. They must have no fear of consequences, but judge by the facts only. Their verdict would not be enough to set aside the marriage, without other circumstances. That, they might lear from a late trial in the House of Peers, when it was declared, that not even an act of Parliament would be enough to set aside a marriage, without a previous decision being obtained in the Ecclesiastical Courts. But if they were to consider consequences on one side,

they must not blind themselves to them on the other. Suppose the adultery, the cruelties, and all the other circumstances alleged to be true, what was to protect Lord Portsmouth from the recurrence of the same evils again, if they found him of sound mind? They must, once for all, consider the facts alone. He could not leave a case in worthier hands. To see a jury of their rank, sitting with such patience and assiduity, for nearly three weeks, to discharge their unpaid duty to society, at the expense of great loss and inconvenience, was, perhaps, the best proof of the excellence of the law, and the paternal care which surrounded the interests of English subjects. He thanked them, on behalf of the law and the country, for the service which they had render ed to both. They were at liberty to retire and consider their verdict. The jury retired at six o'clock.

Verdict of the Jury.

Upon the return of the jury, which was about seven o'clock, Lord John Fitzroy, the foreman, turned to his brethren, and said—" As many of you, gentlemen of the jury, as are of opinion, that John Charles, Earl of Portsmouth, is a man of unsound mind and condition, and incapable of managing himself and his affairs, signify the same by holding up your hands."-All the jury held up their hands.

The foreman then said," Gentlemen of the jury, as many of you as are of opinion that John Charles, Earl of Portsmouth, has been of unsound mind and condition, and incapable of managing himself and his affairs from the 1st of January 1809, signify the same by holding up your hands."

The jury were unanimous in the affirmative.

THE DECCAN PRIZE CAUSE.

THE Lords of the Treasury have at length determined this cause, which is equally important for its novelty, its principles, the distinguished parties interested, and the magnitude of the property in question.

Our readers know that the matter has been repeatedly agitated before their Lordships, in many learned arguments, since the middle of last July; Mr Harrison and Dr Jenner having appeared as counsel on behalf of Lieut.General Sir Thomas Hislop, and the army of the Deccan; Mr Adam and Dr Lushington on behalf of the Marquis of Hastings and the Grand Army; and Mr Serjeant Bosanquet on behalf of the East India Company.

The property was captured at Nagpore, Poonah, Mahedpore, and many other places, in the course of the Pindaree war, between October 1817, and March 1818, and it was of a very large amount. By the law and constitution of the British empire, all property captured from a public enemy, by land or sea, belongs, in the first instance, to the Crown; whose interest is solely divested by its own act, either as a constituent branch of the legislature, or as a spontaneous grant

or.

No statute applies to the land prize, or booty, like the present ; and the question therefore was, to whom, and upon what principles, the Crown, acting under the advice of the Lords of the Treasury, should make a grant of such large property?

In former cases of Indian capture, where the grant was comparatively small, the Crown, we understand, had been in the habit of apportioning a part of the captured property to the East India Company, who distributed it among