Second, the gentlemen of the defense now threw their weight against the indictment itself. They urged that it was too informal, too general, too indefinite; that it did not specify day or place, and only by far-drawn implication charged that the vessel pirated was the _Speedy Return_. Here’s the exact language of their protest: That the libel (indictment) was irrelevant, as being general and indefinite, not condescending (stating) upon the name, designation, or any other sign or evidence by which the ship alleged to be seized might be particularly distinguished, nor yet the persons’ names alleged to have been murdered, or to whom the ship and goods robbed did belong; which seem to be absolutely necessary in all such criminal indictments, not only as a requisite in form, but in equity and reason; without which, persons accused should be in great hazard from general and indefinite libels, and precluded from their means of defense, which otherways are obvious, when the accusation is certain, special and pointed. Strong, sane, splendid words! Cutting through the fog of passion and prejudice like a clear, pure beam of sun. Whatever may have brought them into the case, Davy Thoirs and his men are here the mouthpieces of the law in all its majestic wisdom. How did the Fiscal meet this smashing onslaught? He dodged. “He had informed as definitely and closely as the thing would allow,” he whined, “for what sense or reason is there, that the prosecutor should be made to state positively on day and place, in crimes that are crimes at all times and everywhere; unless it be for the very reason that the defender, acknowledging the crime, offers to purge himself by the exception of alibi?” Hardly credible, is it? A prosecutor should not specify the date and place of a crime lest the defendant prove he was somewhere else at the time. This is the atmosphere, surely, of Alice’s Wonderland. Why, a defendant might actually have been somewhere else than at the place of the crime, and what would a poor Fiscal do then? Sir Patrick Home at the bar rolled a pathetic eye up at Sir John Home on the bench. What will happen in Scotland if people are going to insist on such absurd propositions as that advanced by the defense? Well-a-day and two Alacks! The judges would consider the matter.