We have no hesitation in saying that our English Judges, as far as our inquiries have gone, invariably lay down the law, in these cases, with clearness and unfaltering firmness. The only approach towards a departure from this rule of right, is one which we trust has no other foundation than an erroneous report of what fell from Baron Hotham at Maidstone, in the year 1794, in trying a Mr Purefoy, who shot his late commanding officer, Colonel Roper. That Judge, according to Mr Townsend[42]--who also intimates a hope that the judge has been incorrectly reported--concluded his summing up, which produced, as might have been expected, an instant acquittal, by the following extraordinary passage:-- "It is now a painful duty which jointly belongs to us; it is mine to lay down the law, and yours to apply it to the facts before you. The oath by which I am bound obliges me to say that homicide, after a due interval left for consideration, amounts to murder. The laws of England, in their utmost lenity and allowance for human frailty, extend their compassion only to sudden and momentary frays; and then, if the blood has not had time to cool, or the reason to return, the result is termed manslaughter. Such is the law of the land, which, undoubtedly, the unfortunate gentleman at the bar has violated, _though he has acted in conformity to the laws of honour_. His whole demeanour in the duel, according to the witness whom you are most to believe, Colonel Stanwix, was _that of perfect honour and perfect humanity_. Such is the law, and such are the facts. _If you cannot reconcile the latter to your consciences_, you must return a verdict of guilty. But if the contrary, _though the acquittal may trench on the rigid rules of the law, yet the verdict will be lovely in the sight both of God and man_."