on the 4th of March next; and that Thomas Jefferfon is elected vice-prefident of the United States for four years, to commence on the 4th day of March next. And may the fovereign of the universe, the ordainer of civil government on earth, for the prefervation of liberty, juftice, and peace among men, enable them both, conformably to the conftitution of the United States, to difcharge the duties of thofe offices with confcientious diligence, punctuality, and perfeverance.

15. In the court of Chancery, the attorney general addreffed the court as follows:

My lord,

In the caufe of Burke and John Owen, I am humbly to move your lordship, that the defendant, together with his fervants and workmen, may be reftrained from publifhing a work, intituled, A Letter from the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, to his Grace the Duke of Portland, containing fiftyfour Articles of Impeachment against the Right Honourable Charles James Fox.' That the defendant and his fervants may be reftrained, by the injunction of this court, from publishing fuch work, as alfo fuch other of the plaintiff's letters as are in his hands.

It is ftated, my lord, that in the year 1792, the plaintiff compofed a work, confifting of a letter to his grace the duke of Portland. That it was never printed by the order of the plaintiff; that he never gave the defendant order to print or publish it, and that the plaintiff never parted from his property therein; and that therefore he ought to have the poffeffion thereof; that the defendant obtained fuch letter, and has advertised the publication,

.

and is now publishing and making fale thereof.

My lord, I do not trouble your lordthip with any obfervation of mine upon this cafe, my mind is hardly equal to framing obfervations that would fufficiently describe this tranfaction. I have an affidavit of these facts. They are pofitively fworn to, not by the plaintiff, for he is at present in the country.

The affidavits were then read. Lord chancellor.-Thefe injunc tions have been very commonly granted, I believe, for printed works or publishing private letters. -Take your injunction.

18. The London gazette announced the capture of the Buonaparte privateer, of 17 guns and 82 men, by the Efpion, capt. Dixon; and of the Jean Emilie, of 10 guns and 62 men,. by the Triton; and of the Recovery, French privateer, of 14 guns and 46 men, by the fame.

21. Announced in the London gazette the capture of the Difficile privateer, of 18 guns and 206 men, by the Phoenix, Triton, and Scourge; of Le Tartane, privateer of 16 guns and 60 men, by the Greyhound, capt. Young; and of the Le Flibuftier, French lugger privateer, of 14 guns and fix fwivels, by the Eurydice, capt. Talbot.

22. In the court of King's-bench, Eften v. the duke of Hamilton. This was an action brought to recover damages of the defendant, for criminal converfation with the plaintiff's wife.

Mr. Gibbs opened the cafe on the part of the plaintiff; he ftated that this action was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. James Eften, against the defendant, the duke of Hamil ton, to recover compenfation for an injury which he had received,

in confequence of what the jury had heard flated from the declaration. The circumstances which ought to govern the conduct of a jury in ellimating damages in cafes of this fort, were different in almost every cafe from those which went before it; but the principle upon which thefe damages were to be estimated was always the fame. The jury would apply the circumftances of this cafe to that principle, and then they would examine what compenfation was in their opinion due to Mr. Eften; whatever they thought was due they would give to him, and with that he would be content.

Mr. Eften, in the year 1783, was the purfer of a fhip in the navy, and not opulent. He became acquainted with Mrs. Eften about this time, and in the year 1784 they were married; they lived together in England, where they had a daughter, the iffue of the marriage; in the year 1787, they went from hence to Dublin; during all this time there was no imputation upon either Mr. Eften, or Mrs. Eften's honour; he continued to fupport himself and his family from his fituation, which, as had been obferved already, was that of a purfer, and not a very opulent one. Mr. Eften was at this time incapable of making for his wife and daughter fuch further provifion as he could have wifhed; and Mrs. Eften imagining the had, and as it appeared he had, talents for the flage, the tried fuch talents at Dublin, and he was fuccefsful, and confequently was foon enabled to fupport herself handfomely; but Mr. Eften not chufing to be a bur. then upon his wife, and his embarraffment having increased on him, and finding that he was incapable of fupporting his wife, and thinking it improper, if file was ca

pable, that Mrs. Eften fhould fupport him, although fo well able to fupport herself, determined looking out for means whereby to better his fortune. Had Mr. Eften been left to his own choice, nothing would have contributed to his happiness fo much as that of living with his family, but it became neceffary for him to try to improve his fortune, and, therefore a temporary feparation between him and Mrs. Eften took place. Mrs. Eften was accordingly left with the child at Dublin, and Mr. Eften returned to England, purfued the line of life which had been already mnentioned, and continued from that time to the prefent without the leaft imputation upon his character. In the year 1789, Mr. Eften went as purfer in his majefty's fhip the Europa, from England to Jamaica, and from thence to St. Domingo, and entitled himself by his conduct to the regard of thofe under whom he acted, and was advanced to a fituation of truft and profit, by which his fortune was much improved, which improvement he might have enjoyed with his wife, but for the conduct of the duke of Hamilton. But for the act of that noble duke, Mr. Eften might have enjoyed the fociety and comfort of his wife, and with that refpect which he wished. Eften continued on the flage until the year 1793. She quitted the theatre in Dublin and came to Edinburgh, and from the time the weat on the ftage to the moment he was was about to speak of, the breath of fcandal had been never directed towards her name; no imputation had been caft upon her, that the had been faithlefs to her hulband's bed; and Mr. Eften hoped he would have been able, as he would have been but for the conduct of

the

the defendant, to return to the domestic comfort which it was his object to prepare when he separated for a time from his wife; as he fairly left, fo he hoped upon his return to find the honour of his wife. In the year 1793, as he had itated already, Mrs. Eften appeared on the stage in Edinburgh; there the duke of Hamilton met her; what means he used to corrupt her, he knew not, but the facts he had to ftate of her were thefe: that the duke of Hamilton went from his palace in Scotland to the theatre in Edinburgh, and openly, publicly, and in the face of day took Mrs. Eften into his carriage, and carried her with him in triumph to his palace, where they afterwards lived together publicly and avowedly as man and wife, and from that time to this the duke of Hamilton had cc-habited with Mrs. Eften as his wife. The means by which he practifed on her virtue he could not state, as he knew nothing of them. He was ftating only the facts, for he knew of nothing elfe in the matter. Thefe being the circumftances of the cafe, the only queftion for the jury would be, the damages they would give to Mr. Eften for what had happened. In fpeaking upon that fubject, he fhould not deferve credit with the jury if he stated this as one of thofe aggravated cafes which fometimes appeared before a jury. This was not a cafe in which the defendant, the duke of Hamilton, had become the acquaintance with the plaintiff,

been received into his house as a friend, and then, under the mask of friendship, had converted the opportunity which the plaintiff's hofpitality had given him to the ufe of feducing his friend's wife, and afterwards had carried her away from that friend's houfe in which

he had been received as a gueft. It was not a cafe in which there was that fpecies of malignity. But the defendant was a man of high rank: he trufted the jury would think on the effect which the conduct of great men was fure to have on the morals of the lower claffes of the community. It had been justly faid by the noble and learned judge, that it was in vain for the higher ranks of fociety to expect their inferiors to be correct in their morals by mere precept; the great fhould fet to them an example of good morals. It was their duty to do fo; every intelligent man expected it of them, from the advantage of their education, and from the comforts which their fortunes fo eafily procured for them, so as they had lefs diftrefs they had lefs temptation. He defired the jury to look at the fituation and conduct of this defendant, and alfo at the fituation and condu& of this plaintiff, at the time when this injury happened.-The plaintiff's wife, it was true, was not torn from his bofom; but while be was commendably endeavouring to improve his fortune, and had hopes of returning to his wife to enjoy it, this injury was done, which destroy. ed all his hopes. That he had great hopes of enjoying happinefs with his wife, was evident, which he wrote to a friend when he was informed of what had happened. He faid in that letter that he could fcarcely give any answer to his friend upon the fubject. He faid that the temporary feparation from his wife was abfolutely for his fortune. He thought he should have been happy to return to a wife whom he adored. That he had always thought her immaculate. God only knew what means had been used to accomplish her ruin,& c.

It might be faid that Mrs. Eften was left in a fituation where the was expofed to attack: that her hufband left her on the ftage, where fhe was much expofed. He did not know whether it was to be infifted upon, that a woman being left on the ftage, without her hufband, was a reafon for the damages being mall, for that much levity was natural to that condition; he knew the good fenfe of his learned friend would not induce him, of his own mind, to urge fuch a topic for defence to fuch an action as this. The theatre, like other fituations in human life, was much diverfified as to the morals of those who follow it as a profeffion. He knew many of that profeffion who were excellent examples for the practice of virtue and conjugal fidelity, and therefore he was confident the jury would not think that the damages fhould be the lefs, because the plaintiff's wife was on the stage at the time this injury hap. pened. Had it not been for the conduct of the defendant, this lady's character might have been ftill immaculate. He had nothing extraordinary to urge on the part of the plaintiff for large damages in this cafe; what he had chiefly to urge upon that topic, was for the fake of example to the public. It was not very important to the plaintiff what the damages were, for they would never reffore to him that which he had loft.-He was now in a fituation that placed him above want, and that, in the prefent condition, was almoft all he cared for. But although the quef. tion was thus indifferent to him upon the fcore of damages, it was by no means fo with regard to the public, of whofe good morals juries were the guardians. Here was a noble duke, who, in defiance of 1797

all morality, goes from his palace to the theatre, and in the public face of day committed this very immoral act; carried the plaintiff's wife to his own palace, and from thence to London, and lived with her afterwards in open and avowed adultery. He infiited very much on the neceffity of the jury correcting this fpecies of licentioufnefs in high life, by way of a wholefome leffon to all orders of the community, and to fhew that the law does not allow a man, on account of his rank or fortune, to fet public mo rality at defiance.

The marriage being proved,

Thomas Fairal, fervant to his grace the duke of Hamilton, was examined. He faid he had lived with his grace for upwards of twenty years. He remembered going with him from his palace in Scotland, to the theatre in Edinburgh, in Auguft, 1793. He believed it was in order to fetch away Mrs. Etten.-The noble duke brought her with him to his palace. They have lived together ever fince as man and wife. They are now in England, and have conftantly and publicly lived together, and a child was born fome time ago of Mrs. Eften.

Lord Kenyon afked, What was the age of the duke of Hamilton. He was anfwered that his grace was about 40.

His lordship afked, Whether the duke was divorced from his du chefs? He was answered that it was understood that his grace was feparated only, and not divorced from his duchefs, but that he had been feparated a long time before the caufe of this action arofe.

Mr. Erfkine faid he was, of counfel for his grace the duke of Hamilton, who was called into the court according to the procefs of (C)

the

the English law, to answer to Mr. Eften, the plaintiff in this caufe. There was no man lefs difpofed than himself to differ from his learned friend, who was of counfel for the plaintiff, in a great many obfervations he had made to the jury this day, nor lefs difpofed to differ from the learned and noble judge who fat upon the bench in the general fentiments he had uttered on the trial of caufes of this defcription. But the more weighty the general obfervations were, the more important it was that they fhould not be misunderstood or mifreprefented; that in the adminiftration of juftice, an example fhould be held up to the public in punishing any individual for an offence to public morals, growing out of an injury to another individual, was a doctrine to which he readily fubfcribed. But however deeply that was impreffed upon his mind, yet when any individual came into that court to complain of a civil injury, he must have his cafe determined by the rules of the English law and upon that broad principle he denied that the duke of Hamilton could be called upon to answer for this charge as the prefent cafe ftood; and however the moble and able judge might lament the conduct of the duke of Hamilton in this cafe, and he did ftand in that court to defend that conduct, yet he was perfuaded his lordfhip would find himself called upon by the rules of law, which were more important in a court of juftice than the conduct of any individual, however exalted he might be, to fay that the plaintiff could not maintain this action. He admitted that the noble duke had been guilty of a breach of moral duty, but ftill the cafe must be difpofed of according to the rules of

the law of England. He was not inftructed by the duke of Hamil ton to attack the character of Mr. Eften. He was ready and willing to admit that he became the huf band of the lady because he loved. her. It was extremely natural he fhould, for he was eertainly a very handfome woman, and highly accomplished; he had, as well as many others, had occafion to admire her talents, as the had given public proof of them upon the stage. He did not accuse Mr. Eften of any thing difhonourable.. He did not mean to fay, that at the time he left his wife it was not neceffary he fhould do fo, in order that he might go to other parts of the world to increafe his fortune. He admitted to the full extent the obfervations of Mr. Gibbs upon the virtue as well as vice of perfons upon the ftage. He had the pleasure to be acquainted with the greatest and the brightest character. ** that ever appeared upon it; fhe was a pattern to others for her conjugal fidelity and her maternal affection, as well as for her tranfcendent ta? lents; fhe was an ornament to her fex as well as to her profeffion. There were many others whofe virtue was unquestionable; nor did he mean to infinuate that damages ought to be fmall, because the perfon alleged to be feduced had appeared upon the ftage; no fuch illiberal idea had ever entered into his mind, and he hoped it never would. But the queftion here was, what was the fituation of the party complaining? Upon that he maintained that the plaintiff had no right of action in this cafe. He might, however, if that was his object, go with his nonfuit before the house of lords, and he did not apprehend that that would be a reafon for parliament refufing to grant him a divorce.

Не