do, till Lamb, then Dean of the Arches, shot her through and through, with an arrow borrowed from her own quiver; for whilst the Bishops and Divines were reasoning the point with her out of Holy Scripture, he took a pen into his hand, and at last hit upon this excellent anagram, viz. DAME ELEANOR DAVIES: NEVER SO MAD A LADIE: which having proved to be true by the rules of art, 'Madam,' said he,' I see you build much on anagrams, and I have found one which I hope will fit you.' This said, and reading it aloud, he put it into her hands in writing, which happy fancy brought that grave court into such a laughter, and the poor woman thereupon into such a confusion, that afterwards she either grew wiser, or was less regarded."

This was certainly the most sensible way of animadverting on the poor lady's infirmities; but to this course unfortunately her judges did not confine themselves. "She was prosecuted in the High Commission Court, particularly for what was called an enthusiastical petition to King Charles; and was treated with great rigour and cruelty. She was fined three thousand pounds, and closely imprisoned three years in the Gatehouse, Westminster. She is also said to have been confined several years in Bethlem Hospital, and in the Tower of London; and she complained that, during part of her imprisonment, she was not

allowed the use of a Bible, nor permitted to have the attendance of a female servant." (Biogr. Brit. vol. iv.)

IDENTIFICATION OF STOLEN GOODS.

Webs of cloth and wearing apparel are articles, the identity of which it is often difficult to establish. A remarkable instance of this occurred some years ago, in a trial of one Webster, on the north circuit, for house-breaking and theft. The girl, whose chest had been broken open, and whose clothes had been carried off, swore to the only article found in the prisoner's possession, and produced, viz. a white gown, as being her property. She had previously described the colour, quality, and fashion of the gown, and they all seemed to correspond with the article produced. The house-breaking being clearly proved, and the goods, as it was thought, distinctly traced, the proof was about to be closed for the prosecutor, when it occurred to one of the jury to cause the girl to put on the gown. This appeared rather a whimsical proposal, but it was agreed to by the Court, when, to the surprise of every one present, it turned out, that the gown which the girl had sworn was hers, which corresponded with her description, and which she said she had used only a short time before, would not fit her person. She then examined it more minutely, and at length

said it was not her gown, though almost in every respect resembling it. The prisoner was of course acquitted; and it turned out afterwards, that the gown produced belonged to another woman, whose house had been broken into about the same period, by the same person, but of which no evidence had at that time been obtained. (State Trials, vol. xix. p. 494.)

THE OPINION OF A FRENCH LAWYER ON AN

ENGLISH CASE.

The opulent commercial family of Courten, about the middle of the 17th century, were ruined in consequence of the piratical seizure of their vessels by the Dutch. (Biogr. Britt. vol. iv.) Letters of Reprisals were in consequence granted by the English Government, in 1665, to George Carew, Administrator of the goods and chattels of Sir William Courten, &c. which were afterwards annulled by an express article in the Treaty of Breda, in 1667. The Chancellor Hyde, and Finch, afterwards Earl of Nottingham, decided that this revocation was good in law; and it was accordingly decreed in the Court of Chancery that the letters were void, that they ought to be resigned, and the record of them erased. This order of the Court was made absolute, February 27, 1682, when tipstaves and messengers being sent from day to day, to apprehend Carew, dead

or alive, his personal liberty became insecure; he therefore fled, with the letters in his possession, to France, and took up his residence at Paris, "until the people of England came to their right wits and senses again." To convince the English Courts of their error, he here, it appears, submitted his case to a French counsellor, who did not scruple to advise upon it, and who pronounced the following very curious

Opinion.

J'ay recu la vôtre, avec copie du procez de scire facias, au nom du Roy, et la réponse à icelle, tous deux en Latin, et l'ordre de la Chancelerie ensuivie, datée le 26 de May, 1682, et aye auprès de moy la copie des Lettres Patentes pour Représailles contre les Hollandois, pour 151, 612 livres sterlins, translaté en François. J'ay consulté cette affaire avec les premièrs conseillers du Parlement de Paris, lesquels sont d'avis qu'il est contre la justice naturelle et la constitution du Gouvernement d' Angleterre, que la méme Cour de Judicature d'où les Lettres Patentes sont issues, les pourroit abroger et anuller, sans premièrement faire satisfaction aux personnes injuriées ou en• dommagées, et ils tiennent pour fort deshonorable à aucun Prince, ou sujets, de chercher relief contre leur propres actes, lesquels sont en leur propre pouvoir d'accomplir; LE Roy de FRANCE ver

droit son lit de dessous soy, plutôt que de courir le deshonneur et reproche d'une telle action, si reflectant contre tous Princes Souverains.

FRANCOIS PERENOTT.

Paris, 16 Dec. 1682.

A CROSS-EXAMINATION.

On the celebrated trial of Elizabeth Canning, Mr. Willes, afterwards Solicitor-General in 1766, made a Judge of the King's Bench in 1767, and ultimately raised to the dignity of Chief Justice, thus cross-examined one of the witnesses for the prisoner.

"What time did she (Elizabeth Canning) come?-About twelve o'clock at noon.

Did anybody come with her that day?—No, nobody.

Was she in perfect health?-I never saw her better, as I know of.

What had you for dinner?-Some of a cold shoulder of mutton and potatoes, which was dressed the Sunday before.

Did she eat a hearty dinner?-She eat as hearty as she could; she seemed to eat as hearty as I did.

This being new year's day, what did you give her to drink?-She drank some ten-shilling beer, which I had in the house. I was at work in the afternoon.

Does your wife drink tea in the afternoon?—