two thereafter, before the effects of the liquor had worn off, and before they had time to come to themselves, and without any of them taking the most rational and obvious measures to make their escape. As to the case of George Robertson, it is not said that the inhabitants gathered together upon the streets, came there to save or rescue what was contained in the room; on the contrary, it was admitted on debate that the inhabitants of small coast towns are not very ready on these occasions to lend their assistance to the officers of justice; and if George Robertson had truly said to the persons whom he met on the street that he was by fear obliged to leave the house, it might very possibly have been true, and an argument of his innocence, and therefore ought not to be turned into a circumstance of his guilt. Our space will not admit of further argument. Suffice it to say that the jury unanimously found Andrew Wilson and William Hall guilty, and George Robertson art and part on the crimes libelled; and the Lords of Justiciary passed sentence of death on all three, which sentence they appointed to be executed on Wednesday the 14th of April 1736. Leaving the criminals in the condemned cells, where they are to remain five weeks before being executed, let us, in the meanwhile, in order to the better understanding the case, and forming a clearer opinion in reference to the nature and origin of the Porteous mob--one of the most extraordinary events recorded in history, and which arose out of the trial and sentence against Andrew Wilson and the others before narrated--let us endeavour to give a brief sketch of Mr Porteous' history, from his birth till the time of which we write, namely, the recording of the sentence of death against Wilson and his associates. John Porteous, one of the captains of the Edinburgh City Guard, was son of Stephen Porteous, a tailor in Canongate. The father held a fair character, and was esteemed a good honest man in the whole conduct of his life, his greatest misfortune was his having such a son as John. The father early discovered in his son a perverseness of nature, and a proneness to commit mischievous and more than childish tricks. The mother, out of a blind affection for her child, took them all for growing proofs of spirit and manliness, and as marks of an extraordinary and sprightly genius. Thus the family were divided upon the education of the son, and from being often thwarted in his measures about him, the father lost his authority, and for the peace of his family winked at the faults which the good man saw it his duty to correct. The loss of parental authority begot want of filial regard, so that the boy, shooting up with these vicious habits and disregard of the father, advanced from reproaches and curses to blows, whenever the unfortunate old man ventured to remonstrate against the folly and madness of his son's conduct.