declare he would cut his father's throat: particularly, that upon the 1st, 2d, or 3d, or one or other of the days of the months of January, February, March, and remaining months of January, February, March, and remaining months of the year of God, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, and 1684 years, or one or other of them; he did attempt to assassinate his father by pursuing him in the highway, &c., and firing pistols upon him: which the said Sir James, his father, had declared to several persons of honour in his lifetime.

"And that upon the day of November last, the said Sir James Stansfield, coming from Edinburgh to his house at New Milns, and going into his chamber to rest about ten o'clock at night, and being alone in the room, under the credit, trust, and assurance of the said Philip, his son, and his own servants within his family: the said Philip did consult with one George Tomson, and divers other persons, how to murder him: and that accordingly, they did murder and strangle him in his bed-chamber; and in the dead of the night carried him from the said room, and threw him into a pond near the house. That the next morning when the body was found, the said Philip caused it to be buried in haste, and refused to stay till his friends and physicians viewed it. That the body being taken up again by authority, and inspected by surgeons, it appeared to have been strangled and not drowned. And that his nearest relations being required to lift the corpse into the coffin after it had been inspected; upon the said Philip Stansfield touching of it (according to God's usual method of discovering murder, says the framer of the indictment) it bled afresh upon the said Philip, and that thereupon he let the body fall, and fled from it in the greatest consternation; crying Lord have mercy upon

me.

"And that the said Philip being found by an assize to be actor, art and part of the aforesaid crimes, one or other of them, he ought to be punished for the treasonable crimes above specified, with forfeiture of life, lands, and goods and for the other crimes above mentioned capitally, and with the pains of death, and confiscation of moveables, to the terror and example of others, &c."

The trial of Philip Stansfield took place at Edinburgh, before the supreme criminal court, called the High Court of Justiciary; the judges on the bench being George Earl of Linlithgow, who held the long sinecure and now abolished office of Lord Justice General, and the Hon. Sir John Lockhart of Castlehill, Sir David Balfour of Forret, Sir Roger Hodge (or Hog) of Harcase, and John Murray of Drumcairne, styled Commissioners or Lords of Justiciary. The then second, and now presiding, judge of the court, the Lord Justice Clerk, does not appear to have been present.

The first day, Monday, the 6th of February, was occupied in arguing and considering what is called in the Scottish law the relevancy of the facts libelled or charged, that is to say, their sufficiency to infer the conclusion affirmed in the indictment or criminal letters. The decision of this purely legal question belongs solely to the judges of the court.

The pursuers, or counsel, who appeared for the prosecution, were Sir John Dalrymple, Lord Advocate (the same who afterwards became Secretary of State, and first Earl of Stair), and Sir George Mackenzie, the well-known writer on Scottish law and antiquities. The counsel for the prisoner (or pannel, as called in Scotland), styled procurators in defence, were Sir David Thoirs, Sir Patrick Hume, Mr. William Monie

penny, and Mr. William Dundas-the three last, names that have continued to be eminent in connexion with the bar and courts of Scotland down to our day.

Sir Patrick Hume alleged in the prisoner's defence, that as to the drinking confusion to the King it was an improbable calumny, he having upon all occasions testified his loyalty; particularly in Monmouth's rebellion, when he entered himself a volunteer in the Earl of Dunbarton's regiment; where he continued till the rebels were defeated.

As to his firing pistols at his father in 1683 and 1684, it might be proved there was an entire friendship between him and his father at that time but if those facts were true, as they had been pardoned by the act of indemnity, so they could not be made use of as instruments now, to infer that he was guilty of this murder.

That as to the corpse bleeding when the prisoner touched it, it was a superstitious observation, founded neither upon law or reason: and quoted Carprovius and Mattheus de Criminibus to be of the same opinion and said, the bleeding was occasioned by the moving of the body, and the incision the surgeons had made; and that other people touching the body at the same time, it could no more be ascribed to the prisoner than to them.

That the other circumstances laid in the indictment were but idle stories, for that it could be proved the prisoner went to bed in his own chamber the night his father was murdered, and did not stir out of his bed till called up by his father's servant next morning.

His Majesty's advocate replied, that the drinking or wishing confusion to his Majesty (which fact was not expressly controverted) did clearly infer treason, and came within the intention of the act. All speeches in disdain and contempt of his Majesty (as this was) being by that act made so. And although the prisoner having engaged voluntarily in his Majesty's service; it was urged that these words could not be spoken deliberately and maliciously, yet they being proved to be reiterated, and the prisoner forcing others to drink the same health: the crime once committed could not be wiped off by any speeches or actions afterwards, and that the prisoner had due sense of the importance of the words, having conjured the company to secresy; and threatened to beat and brain them that should discover what they had done.

Whereas it is said all crimes before the year 1685, are pardoned by the indemnity, it is answered, the crime of cursing of parents was not included in a general act of indemnity; for the words of the act against curses of parents being, that the cursers of parents shall be put to death without mercy, there required a special remission in the act of indemnity, especially where private persons are more interested than the public, as here the parent is: and also for that the indemnity extended only to those who were under the degree of an heritor, wodsetter, or burgess, which the prisoner could not pretend to be.

Although it is said, the son threatening to cut his father's throat was but a remote circumstance, and that it could not be concluded from thence that he had actually murdered him; yet he thought it such a circumstance, that unless the prisoner could shew that some other person killed him, he must be reputed the murderer.

Here the King's advocate opened the evidence, and then went on. That as the body bleeding, although several persons touched it, none of

their hands were besmeared with blood but the prisoner's; and that the body having lain two days in the grave in a cold season, the blood must naturally be congealed. That the lifting about the body, and even the incision that was made, causing no such effusion before, but only of some water or gore, and should upon the prisoner's first touching begin to bleed afresh; he must ascribe it to the wonderful Providence of God, who in this manner discovers murder; especially since no natural reason could be assigned for it: and that the horrible impressions it made on the prisoner, notwithstanding his resolution to the contrary, might be urged as another argument of his guilt.

And that although Sir James Stansfield was melancholy and frantic in the year 1679, yet, he was known to have recovered his health, and to be of a composed, sedate temper of mind for several years past, and so capable of business, as to be intrusted by the wisest men in the kingdom; nor at the time of his death had any sickness or returning frenzy upon him besides, it appearing plainly that he was strangled, it could not be presumed that he afterwards walked out and drowned himself. And as to the prisoner's surrendering himself, it was indeed suitable to the rest of his imprudence, and he might imagine by that means to make the world believe he was innocent.

:

The court at Edinburgh, the 7th February, 1688, met, and the assize consisting of fifteen merchants and tradesmen, being sworn without any challenge or exception to any of them, his Majesty's advocate produced his witnesses.

John Robertson, servant to the deceased, deposed, that he saw the prisoner a little before harvest last in the kitchen at New Milns, drink confusion to the Pope, Antichrist, the Chancellor, and the King, and commanded the deponent to drink it on his knees, and that the prisoner was not drunk at that time: and, that the deponent saying it was treason, the prisoner answered, you dog, what are you concerned, you do not understand to whom you speak?

Agnes Bruce deposed, that a little before harvest last, in the kitchen at New Milns, she saw the prisoner drink confusion to the Pope and the King, and made Samuel Spofforth drink the same on his knees; and it being talked of in the house about a week after, he said to this deponent, God him, if he knew who divulged it, he would be their death.

John Robertson aforesaid, further deposed, that since harvest last, he heard the prisoner wish the devil might take his father. And at another time, the deponent telling the prisoner he was going to such a place with his father, he prayed the devil might let none of them come back, either horse or man. And on other occasions he had heard the prisoner say of his father, the devil damn him, the devil rive him, &c., and said, his father girned upon him like a sheep's head in a tongs.

William Scot deposed, he heard the prisoner wish the devil might take his father.

Agnes Bruce, above said, further deposed, that she had often heard the prisoner vow and swear he would kill any person that offended him. That he conversed much with Janet Johnston, George Tomson and his wife (charged with being concerned in this murder), and used, after supper at his father's, to go to these persons. That she has frequently heard the prisoner curse his father, and express his hatred and abhorrence of him,

and say, he had hated his father these seven years; and this in his mother's presence. That the Friday before Sir James's death, Janet Johnston was a considerable time with the prisoner in his chamber. That she thought Sir James not so merry as usual the night before his death. That on the Saturday night when Sir James came home, he went to his lady's chamber, where he did not stay a quarter of an hour; and that his lady fell a quarrelling with him for going to another house before he came there. That the next morning when Sir James was missed, the deponent went into his chamber to make a fire, and found the bed in better order than usual, and the candle at the bed's feet, which used to be at the head. That the deponent desiring the body might be brought up to the chamber, the prisoner answered, it should not enter there, for he had died more like a beast than a man; and that it was brought to a cellar within the close, where was very little light. That she heard the prisoner cry and lament when his father's body was found, but saw no tears. That he would have forced his father's chamber-door open, but the key being found he entered, and took the gold and money out of his pocket, and then searched the cabinet; that, within the hour after his father was brought from the water he got the buckles of his shoes, and put them in his own. That a short time before Sir James died, his lady having fallen into a swoon, and afterwards telling the prisoner he was likely in a short time to lose his mother, he answered in the deponent's hearing, that his father should be dead first. That two nights after Sir James's death, the lady told this deponent that she had heard the prisoner had vowed his brother's death, and little less as to his father, upon his hearing Sir James was about to settle his estate upon his brother; and that the lady renewed the same expression to this deponent at Edinburgh, and added, what if they should put her bairn in prison.

Archibald Dunbar, merchant, deposed, that, having met the deceased at Cutler, and being with him and some other company in a room, Sir James was discoursing of his son's undutifulness, and they heard a shot at the outer door, and soon after another; and some of the company offering to go down, Sir James dissuaded them, and said it might be his distracted son Philip; and they asking why he should fear any harm from him, he told them that as he was going to Lothian Burn, he shot two pistols at him, and that if he had not been better mounted than his son he would have killed him and one saying there could not be ball in them, Sir James said he had too many proofs of his son's unnatural behaviour to him. That Sir James went not to bed, but the deponent sat up with him that night, and conveyed him to Edinburgh.

Mr. William Clark, advocate, deposed, that Sir James ordering him to draw a settlement, in order to dispose of his estate to his son John, the deponent dissuaded him from it, saying, his son Philip might be reclaimed: but Sir James answered, he had no expectations of it, for when he was at the Lead Hills there was a pistol shot at him, which he was sure came from his son Philip.

The next witness, Mr. John Bell, minister of the gospel, aged forty years, having been sworn, and also solutus, or released (apparently from some restraint against giving his testimony held to be imposed by his clerical character), was not examined, but produced the following written declaration of what he knew relating to the murder, which he declared to be the truth, as he should answer to God. It is declared, in the title, to

have been emitted "in answer to several interrogatories proposed by his Majesty's Advocate before the Lords of the Committee of the Council;" and will be found to be a very curious and characteristic effusion-characteristic of the time as well as of the individual.

"Imprimis, I declare that, at Sir James Stansfield's earnest desire, I went from this town with him to New Milns; and that by the way I discerned nothing but sound judgment and reason in Sir James, for his discourse was both rational and pertinent, and that both at supper that night, and after supper, his discourse was rational, and his carriage most civil, and was pleased to accompany me to my chamber, and sat with me there (as I supposed) until it was about ten o'clock at night, discoursing pertinently, and to good purpose.

"2. I declare that, having slept but little, I was awakened in fear by a cry (as I supposed), and being waking, I heard for a time a great din, and confused noise of several voices, and persons sometimes walking, which affrighted me (supposing them to be evil wicked spirits); and I apprehended the voices to be near the chamber door sometimes, or in the transe [passage] or stairs, and sometimes below, which put me to arise in the night, and bolt the chamber door further, and to recommend myself, by prayer, for protection and preservation, to the majesty of God; and having gone again to bed, I heard these voices continue, but more laigh [low], till within a little time they came about to the chamber window, and then I heard the voices as high as before, which increased my fear, and made me rise again to look over the window to see whether they were men or women: but the window would not come up for me, which window looked to the garden and water, whither the voices went on till I heard them no more: only towards the morning I heard walking on the stairs and in the transe above that chamber where I was lying.

"3. I declare that I told the woman who put on my fire in my chamber that Sabbath morning, that I had rested little that night, through din I heard; and that I was sure there were evil spirits about that house that night.

"4. I declare that, about an hour after day, Philip came to my chamber, and asked if Sir James came to that chamber this morning, and told me that he had been seeking him upon the banks of the water; unto which I replied, I have not seen your father-but what mean ye by the banks of the water? Whereupon Philip, without answering, went down stairs immediately, and within a little time I followed, to see what he meaned; and having gone without the gate, and up the causey that leads to the manufactory, one came running, and said, they had found Sir James lying in the water: whereupon I was stricken with such astonishment, fear, and trembling, that I could go no further, but returned trembling to the chamber; and, having sitten down on the bedside, I said to an honest man who accompanied me, This is the saddest day that ever I saw my affrightment in the night was terrifying to me, but this is more grievous. And, having gone to an honest man's house, where I took horse that morning, I said, If the majesty of God did ever permit the devil and his instruments to do an honest man wrong, then Sir James Stansfield has received wrong this last night, which the Lord will discover in his good time.

"5. I declare that, after my return from Moreham that Sabbath evening, Philip told me that he had advertised several friends at Edinburgh,