distinguish between them and the others, that were not servants, but free agents. It is true, that a servant is not bound to obey his master but in lawful things, which they say they thought this was, and that they knew not to the contrary, but that their masters acted according to the King's commission; and therefore their case must be left to your consideration, whether you think them upon the whole matter guilty or no. If you believe them guilty, you will find them so; otherwise you will acquit them.

"For the other persons, some of them pretend they came in on his majesty's proclamation, and for that you must consider the evidence, and take it altogether, and consider whether you are satisfied by what they have said or proved, that they have brought themselves within the benefit of the king's favour by that proclamation. You have heard it read, and observed the qualifications and directions by it, and the terms upon which the pardon was promised, which are not made out to you, to be complied with by them; they may apply another way for the king's mercy; this court must proceed according to the rules of law and justice: but then all of them hold on this; we were, say they, under the captain, and acted under him as their commander : and, gentlemen, so far as they acted under his lawful commands, and by virtue and in pursuance of his commissions, it must be admitted they were justifiable, and ought to be justified: but how far forth that hath been, the actions of their captain and their own will best make it appear. It is not contested, but that these men knew, and were sensible of what was done and acted, and did

take part in it, and had the benefit of what was taken shared amongst them; and if the taking of this ship and goods was unlawful, then these men can claim no advantage by these commissions, because they had no authority by them to do what they did, and acted quite contrary to them. What had they to do to enter into such articles, and to act as they did? You must consider the evidence given here, according to the rules of the law; and if you are satisfied that they have knowingly and willfully been concerned or partaken with Captain Kidd in taking this ship, and dividing the goods, and that piratically and feloniously, then they will be guilty within this indictment. It is worthy of consideration what appears upon the evidence, that they met with one reputed to be a notorious pirate, called Culliford; he was esteemed an arch-pirate, and known to be so; yet this Captain Kidd that was commissioned to take pirates, instead of taking him, grows to such an intimacy with him, that he said he would have his soul lost before he would hurt him, or to that effect, and so they made presents one to another; and Captain Kidd left three of his men with him. Whilst men pursue their commissions they must be justified; but when they do things not authorised, or never acted by them, it is as if there had been no commission at all. I have distinguished the evidence as well as my memory serves me, and must leave it to you to determine upon the whole matter, who are guilty, and who are not. And such as you are satisfied to be guilty, you will find so, and such as you are not satisfied to be guilty you will acquit."

The jury, after half an hour's consultation, brought in all the prisoners guilty, except Lamley, Jenkins, and Barlicorn, whom, as being servants, they acquitted.

A second trial of the same ten persons for a further act of piracy had the same result. Further indictments were gone into, in which men of the name of Culliford (Captain Culliford, the pirate already mentioned), Hickman, and Eldridge were included. Culliford and Hickman pleaded guilty, and Eldridge was found guilty. The result of the whole proceedings was, that a law point being raised in favour of Culliford, judgment against him was respited, and Dr. Oxenden pronounced sentence of death upon Kidd, Churchill, Howe, Loff, Parrot, Owens, Mullins, Hickman, and Eldridge.

Kidd was executed with one of his companions, Darby Mullins, an Irishman, at Execution Dock, on the 23rd of May, 1701. After Kidd had been tied up to the gallows, the rope broke, and he fell to the ground; but being immediately tied up again, the Ordinary, who had before exhorted him, desired to speak with him once more; and on this second application, entreated him to make the most useful care of the few farther moments thus providentially allotted him for the final preparation of his soul to meet its important change. These exhortations seemed to have the wished-for effect; and he was left, professing his charity to all the world, and his hopes of salvation through the merits of his Redeemer. Some others of the men sentenced were also executed.

SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS IN THE

TIME OF WILLIAM III.

THE years 1693, 1694, and 1695, formed the gloomiest period of that troubled time which followed the Revolution of 1688. King William III., and Queen Mary, the latter of whom was to die before the last days of 1694 closed in, had, no doubt, firm possession of the throne, but, as regarded a great portion of their subjects, it was but an armed possession. Military force everywhere restrained the suppressed wrath of the Jacobites, and even was of use to check the puritanical dissatisfaction of those ultra Whigs who thought the Government had not gone far enough in the cause of revolution. Soldiers, garrisons, and forts full of troops so abounded throughout the length and breadth of the land, that the new constitutional monarchy had curiously all the aspect of a military despotism. Everywhere, too, King William's forces were then unpopular. The defeats of Cape St. Vincent, Landen, Marsaglia, and Brest had lessened the public faith-even the faith of those who supported the revolution—in the effective strength of the British soldiers and sailors. Discontent prevailed much throughout England, and plot upon plot was formed against the very life of the monarch. But if this was the state of

things in England, it was far worse in Scotland. There the king's troops were actually objects of extreme hate and execration with the great mass of the populace. The foul massacre of Glencoe, one of the worst of crimes for a Government to commit, had euraged the people of Scotland, and had brought undue weight against the reforming and would-be-salutary rule of King William. His troops, wherever garrisoned in the Scottish territory, were constantly insulted, and frequently violently assaulted. Conflicts of the most deadly kind occurred between them and the civilians, not only of the lower class, but of better station and official position. The frequent fatal results gave rise to many life-and-death criminal trials; and from these I take the two following, which made a sensation at the time, and are recorded by Arnot; they are peculiarly characteristic of the terrible discord that existed.

The first of these trials, which occurred in December, 1694, was that of John Gillespie, merchant in Glasgow ; John Anderson of Dovehill; and Robert Stevenson, glazier in Glasgow, for the murder of Major James Menzies. The unfortunate major, the subject of the judicial investigation, was clearly a person of importance, for, by the prosecution, it appears that he was related to the eminent family of Fletcher of Salton, in Haddingtonshire. The prisoners, in effect, were proceeded against at the triple instance of William Fletcher (afterwards himself of Salton), brother to the Laird of Salton (the celebrated statesman and writer, Andrew Fletcher), nearest of kin to the deceased; of Lieutenant