h. In May, 1732 the
remains of William Lord Archbishop of this province were taken up by
permission in their cathedral, the bones of the skull were found broken
as these are. Yet he died by no violence! by no blow that could have
caused that fracture. Let it be considered how easily the fracture on
the skull produced is accounted for. At the dissolution of religious
houses, the ravages of the times affected both the living and the dead.
In search after imaginary treasures, coffins were broken, graves and
vaults dug open, monuments ransacked, shrines demolished, Parliament
itself was called in to restrain these violations. And now are the
depredations, the iniquities of those times, to be visited on this? But
here, above all, was a castle vigorously besieged; every spot around
was the scene of a sally, a conflict, a flight, a pursuit. Where the
slaughtered fell, there were they buried. What place is not burial earth
in war? How many bones must still remain in the vicinity of that
siege, for futurity to discover! Can you, then, with so many probable
circumstances, choose the one least probable? Can you impute to the
living what Zeal in its fury may have done; what Nature may have taken
off and Piety interred, or what War alone may have destroyed, alone
deposited?

"And now, glance over the circumstantial evidence, how weak, how frail!
I almost scorn to allude to it. I will not condescend to dwell upon it.
The witness of one man, arraigned himself! Is there no chance that to
save his own life he might conspire against mine?--no chance that he
might have committed this murder, if murder hath indeed been done? that
conscience betrayed to his first exclamation? that craft suggested his
throwing that guilt on me, to the knowledge of which he had unwittingly
confessed? He declares that he saw me strike Clarke, that he saw him
fall; yet he utters no cry, no reproof. He calls for no aid; he returns
quietly home; he declares that he knows not what became of the body, yet
he tells where the body is laid. He declares that he went straight home,
and alone; yet the woman with whom I lodged declares that Houseman and
I returned to my house in company together;--what evidence is this?
and from whom does it come?--ask yourselves. As for the rest of the
evidence, what does it amount to? The watchman sees Houseman leave my
house at night. What more probable, but what less connected with the
murder, real or supposed, of Clarke? Some pieces