might himself have been a distinguished moral essayist. As well may be supposed, his general vein was grave. The high idea he entertained of the dignity of his profession, and the earnestness with which he gave himself to it, alike precluded either levity or carelessness. However, he was fully able, quite ready upon occasion, to avail himself of a keen wit, that was all the more effective, because it was dry and sarcastic. It occurs to us to mention an instance, well known to his circuit, not illustrative of his severity, but of his pleasantry, in a criminal prosecution. He, as prosecuting attorney, was opposed by two gentlemen of ability, whose pathos had been so great as to draw abundant tears from their own eyes. One of them, a gentleman who has since filled a distinguished national position (Hon. A. H. H. Stuart, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, 1850-53) was noted for the facility with he could cover over his brilliant eloquence with the liquid varnish of his tears. On this occasion he had been singularly lachrymose, and supported by his colleague, General, afterwards Judge Baldwin, in the same way, the sensation produced was very considerable. Mr. Peyton commenced his reply by regretting the disadvantage the Commonwealth labored under in being represented by him who was a very poor hand at crying, and certainly was not able to cry against two at a time. The ludicrousness of the expression completely neutralized the pathos of his opponents. He was not averse either to a bit of farce, now and then, as is shown by a story told of him. In a remote part of the circuit a lawyer wished to adorn a moving passage of a speech he was just rising to make, with an apposite example, and applied to Mr. Peyton, sitting beside him, to help him to the name of the man in the Bible who would have his pound of flesh. With imperturbable gravity, he answered Absalom! The effect of thus confounding Shakespeare and the Bible may be imagined.