The Sun. — London, England, 1841-11-01 00:00:00

m MORNIN G SUN This is indeed a remarkable occurrence almost at the end of the first half of the 19th cer.titry? As the Counsel of Alexander M'Leed, then, I shall have occasion to contend that there can be no such thing as murder charged f;ainst any of the persons who formed the expedition I _ l !eat to d es t roy t h e Caroline. And let me here acid, that he question as to w h et h er that act was a justifiable pro cedure o r not on the part of the British Provincial Go- Ifrument cannot lie, entertained by you. The facts, g entlemen, to '043 adduced will show that this party which m a d e s;ne attack upon the Caroline, consisted of the crew of seven boats—six of them containing eight • r i b l ,l rs6 us t and on e con t a i ne d n i ne — an d w hi c h w ere made "of l3ritish provincial soldiers then on duty at Chip- W a ; that Colonel M'Nab ordered the expedition ; e-r 4.: he acted under th e au th or ity o f Sir Francis Bond 8e r id, the Provincial Governor, who directed them to e IrAle out and destroy the Caroline, which he then be slacl to be in the employment of the party on Navy ,d, who had there raised the standard of revolt, for 'Ailed their camp, and opened their batteries on the 6 _nAtlian shore, When this party was thus circurn nbunced, and at a season of the year when navigation by 11 7 other vessel was extremely perilous, that boat tame down for the e x pr ess purpose of being employed 4.,the occupants of Navy Island, and in their that boat was from day to day engaged. f i eoat was then as li a bl e to destruction at Schlosser she had been moored at Navy Island, so far as esr ieeted individual responsibility. Indeed, it was now Pro ved that Schlosser was the very rendezvous of the ta):ty of the invaders of the Island, or of those who e ' ere continually carried over to the Island. We shall v`Jntend, then, that the boat, while at Schlosser, was 'there for as hostile purposes as if at Navy Island, and - that the British authorities were therefore as much Justified in destroying her there as if she had been at the latter place ; and I ask every American citizen if he . tould have r egar d e d t h e d estruct i on o f t h e b o at at Navy l and as an off ence ? Mi g ht not the Island have been Justifiably invaded, and the persons on it taken pri rtlers and slaughtered, without the persons so in (lading it being chargeable with the crime of murder, • , 1 •., 11. •:.Y other offence against the laws whatever ? Z' wailer the insurgents on the Island were right ei r l ; wr , 6ll g, is wholly immaterial. Whether the Bri tj:'s G overnment had been tyrannical, and had driven n ese peo su b je c tssp is wholly immaterial. The ‘janadianj of Great ' Britain had seen fit to revolt, end with thgt aid of American citizens had made open Z a r in Canada, and whether they were right or wrong, i NV" a war, and all the rights and immunities that be 21ged to those engaged in war, pertained to them. We ,g 1 shove oft to you, Gentlemen, that the Government United States took this view of the case—that r „„y,. t cir-At cognizance of this offence, and demanded i t e g` 9 :den from the Government of Great Britain, - that at a later day the British Government acknow ...letiged the responsibility of that act, and declared that it Was dou. in obedience to the British Provincial Govern . and j ustifie d it as a necessary act for the protection ° f the subjects of Great Britain, then living in Canda. 4 71 Federal qovernment, then under the constitution, taken full cognizance of the whole matter, embrac - tnot te only th e i nvas i on o f our territory, but also the ptruction of the steam-boat, the property of one of our Zitizans, and the taking away of the life of another. All, l t hose consid era ti ons were presented to the notice of Treat Britain, and our Government mindful of the na f„r, i s rights, and ready to vindicate them, had demanded t and entire satisfaction for the injury which our coun rY, has received. . But the individual who formed part 1 4. that public force of Great Britain, stands excused as e alw aYs must, from all the consequences of his action .• ..• Under those orders. As an individual offender he is not 'ans werable to an y t r ib u nal. Passing from this, I will -4 t ake up another branch of the case, on which I am 1 , 14 4 Persuaded th e i n t e lligent Judge who presides here, nl Yself will have no difference of opinion, whatever 4 . ` ea :Y be o ur respect i ve v i ews o f t h e other features of the • ei and thus unfold more deeply interesting ques . t o °ll W s of constitutional right, and that is the point as a ' t ether M'Leod had anything to do with this tran 11etiell or not. lam willing, and I intend to call ur attention m ore minutely to the evi wence sustai n i ng t h at groun d o f d e f ence , than that per ;belling to the other position which we have assumed ; per ' co g that evidence sustaining the latter is not in any ,g r ee susceptibl e o f di s p u t e . E ve ry word of evidence C , h en eu the part of the prosecution has gone to estab our case , and what is yet to come will only confirm Zuat co cas been shown a lready. But the point to which to - F You now is, that Alexander M‘Leod had no more ki n . ° With the destruction of the Caroline, or with the aw: g Durfee, than either of you, Gentlemen of the th at ' Not any More. And I speak.with knowledge of is e u li et % and willteatisfy you that what I have now said , *um elr and literabr true. I confess that lam somewhat et ,,Z l. Lsed by the results of this trial which we hare yet , of (e I anticipated much greater strength on the part litprosecuton. lam here to defend a man whose , 1.,', C t1 L 3 .4s dear to hi m as y our s is to you, and to whom I ,are bound t o g i ve a f a i r t r i a l—a patient hearing— endll,, a'faithful an d i mpart i a l ver di c t, j us t as much as if C W ere an Am er i can c iti zen . I as k no favour at your wh t aN because he is a foreigner. We expect nothing • ateYer from your hands, on account of the difficulty which your verdict may place the Governmen ts of The two countrie s . We ask only that you will listen to evidence cautiously weigh it, and then pronounce whe ther - Alexander, k ' APLeod is a murderer or not. First, 45 1 in 7 e- Vart of the defence we have Col. M'Nab, who proves th e tisuitee of the orders to Captain Drew, the individual t W- : ) , had -Charge of the expedition. Col. .11‘Nab states e L L Ihee ,exped:ti pn, when planned, was a profound ;:4'ret, unknown to any except himself and one or two • ikt i ee 4 "tial officers. The party collected on the shore, tt et, oeee, i t : expedition was declared when the party was on Way to accomplish its object. When the expedi blueluretureel, Colonel Al 4 Nali ordered a list of all the t em: engaged in tho expedition to be made out, in antrg to bestow upon them some mark of appro for their hardihood and successful conduct of the ei t t e4i tlen. In the li s t s th us ma d e ou t, the name of M'Leod, a,h • o er -Alexander nor Angus, does not appear. Col. M'Nab emb a s ys that he w as on th e shore when the expedition ed,•.and th a t h e did not see M.Leod, whom he ke en' '‘ Most intimately. Then every boat's crew were th - n i nteel with each other, and they respectively testify th: l PLeod was not among them. This is in substance that eld ic we have taken on commission, and wi „ Will be first laid before you in our defence. You ,trils.,:teetioluebyldeLfk Ina " listen to that reading with attention, although it not be so satisfactory as the evidence of witnesses euue, o h nr e eow b . efore you personally. But we will also you living witnesses, who will speak of At hC ur ` 6 close of the Learned Gentleman's remarks, the N u Was adjourned until Thursday morning, at fifteen ,Utes to eight o'clock. FOURTH DAY. UTICA, OCT. 7. hj o h e Cou r t re-assem bl e d t hi s morn i ng at 15 m i nu tes r e eight o'clock. elle fir s t w i tness called upon was Al ex . C. H am ilt on , ono c kyrlao was exam i ne d by Mr. Spencer, to contradict to et th e w i tnesses for the prosecut ion, who deposed Conversatio n between him and Raineock and N t "cod, after the affair of the Caroline. I reside at h v ia gata, in Canada. Raincock, the person spoken of /s - z e c ' ne of the itnesses esterday, had left Canada in "vernber y ear 1837. I was married in January of that and 1 , a ' u went t o E ng land. 1 returned in November, Llttineock bad left then. I had been on hai e,s of 4' -a CY with him, and I think he could not have been g Q re without my knowledge. I understood he had elt n e e e t c' England. The Canadian outbreak occurred r e retund. is then '', l °3B 'examined by the Attorney-General—Raincock '' e PutY-colle c t or of Customs. I don't know rile- . bt ie. '' .4 acoek was a Patriot or a Royalist. The out %lt leek place after ho had left. a,oktte following will be found to contain the main and Gat imPortant facts proved by the witnesses examined e , the Commission in Canada, to which the Learned ",,Illeman alluded in his opening speech : The testimony of Sir Allan M'Nab was taken at b e l f 9i i a tea, in Canada, on the 13th of September, 1841, Co ra James E. Small and James Harvey, Esqs., elilat4issioners—Joseph Center, Esq., being present 4, approving for he people, and Hiram Gar ner, I') for th e accuse t d. He said—l am a barrister. li ra el de at Dundwin, i n the Gore District, in the tbeT c o of Canada, about forty•five miles from nof Niagara. I know a body of militia bur assembled at Chippewa in the month of Deeem twre','B37, and January, 1838, to the number of h r'o thou san d and three thousand, to repel an a s —e ted invasion from rebels and American brigands near Schlobled on Navy Island, and on the American s hore, tesser. They were ordered out by the Lieud lirleati,t•Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bon for the purpose aforesaid. I was the officer in co mmand of the forces then and there assembled. ie z 15 - Head was at Chippewa more than once dur be e s e me months named. 01 the force assembled there (II,'" directions I assumed the command by his order, )if e r c !ed to me as Colonel of the 3d regiment of Gore 1,1 1 1 41 a, The Governor-General of the two provinces rer a g e n° , t at Chippewa at the time mentioned. Ido 4,411nr the last time the steam-boat Ctroline came Its w t ? previous to her destruction. From the infer thattlaL I received. I had every reason to believe ie e . , 8 " 6 Came down for the express purpose of assist -4;110 rebels and brigands on Navy Island with T a men, am mun iti on , p rov i s i ons , stores , &e. 3 ._ ascertain this f ac t. I sen t t wo o ffi cers w ith in ti`ortoections to w atc h the movements o f t h e b oat, to the s aw same, and report to me ; they reported they Chercal land a cannon, (a six or nine pounder), cove hatiTl armed and equipped as soldiers, and that she uraPped her anchor on the east side of Navy fromlid ; on the information I had previously received to'! l ,ghlY respectable persons in Buffalo, together d es , 'ue report of these gentlemen, I determined to exiled ` r oy her that night ; I entrusted the command of the D ee it ,'", for the purposes aforesaid, to Captain A. left 17 ' "al Navy ; seven boats were equipped, and rums Canadian shore ; I do not recollect the number n each boat ; Captain Drew held the rank of thender of her M a j esty ' s R oya l N av y. I ord ere d At i , r x P e dition, and fi rst commun i ca t e d it to Ciptain e "I' Drew, on t h e b each, where the men em b ar k e d , D rew time previous to their embarkation. Captain v „, b __ was ord ere d to take and destroy t h e C aro li ne ofi ` c rcrer . h e could find her. I ga ve the order as th e " i n command of the forces assembled for tu ant r r Peses aforesaid. They embarked at the they embarked the Chippewa river. I was there when h andotiuceeedu , an d when the boats shoved off, there s about a quarter o f an hour. me t of t h e persons going into the THE .SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1841. boats; I stood within ten or twelve feet of most of the boats as the men west on board ; and while they were preparing I was walking about among than, which afforded me the means of knowing who em barked. I know Alexander M'Leod, late Deputy SI - ..eriff of the Niagara district. I did not see him when the boats shoved off to destroy the Caroline ; he was not in my presence this evening. I made a return to the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, of the officers and men who destroyed the Caroline. I am sure the name of Alexander M'Leod was not among them, because he was not one of the p art y ; therefore his name could not have been in any return made by me. I was not in command when the forces took pos session of Navy Island. Captain Drew is now at Woodstock in the Brock district of this province. Shepherd M.Cormiclt, Esq., of the township of Lon don, in the district of London, Canada, aged 49 years, being examined on the part and behalf of the defendant (M'Leod) says •—" The first time I ever saw Alexander M'Leod was on the night of the 28th of December, 1837, when he was introduced to me by Captain Graham. I never saw him until the time before men tioned. I was in Chippewa at the time of the destruc tion of the Caroline, and for some days prior to it. The persons who went to destroy tl.e Caroline embarked :t the mouth of the Chippewa R.ver. I think they were standing there about half an hour before they em barket). I was getting the beets ready. I took the list of the names, and went round to get voluntr era by direction of Captain Drew, as I was second in com mend. When the boats went to destroy the Caroliee Ido net know where Alexander M'Leod was. I did not take down his name, and am positive he was not of the party. I was the second man on board the Caro line on the night of her destruction, and in different parts of her. I was wounded and put into one of the , boats before the other assailants left the Caro line. I did not see Alexander M'Leod among the assailants, and am positive he was not one of them. Alexander"M‘Leod called on me shortly after the de struction of the Caroline, and expressed his regret that he had not heard of the expedition, as he would have accompanied it ; further than this I know of nothing more that may tend to the advantage of the " said Alexander M'Leod." To ;the cross -interrogations he says, " I am a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy ; I was third in command of the naval brigade at Chippewa, under Captain Drew, until Captain Graham left, when I was second in command. I neither commanded nor was attached to any vessel. On the night of the 28th December, 1837, Alexander M'Leod accompanied me in a boat around Navy Island. I did not again see him until after the destruction of the Caroline. I ne ver conversed with him, nor did I ever hear him con verse with any person on the subject of the Caroline previous to her destruction. John Harris, of the town of London, in the Dis trict of London, Canada, aged sixty years, being ex amined on the pet and behalf of the defendant (Alexander M'Leod) says :—I have no personal ac• quaint nee with Alexander M'Leod ; I am net eer tain that I ever spoke to him in my lite. I knew him by sight not for a longer period than a week. I recol lect the destruction of the Caroline. 1 was in Chip pewa about that time, end about a week or ten days before she was destroyed. Those who went to destroy the Caroline embarked at the mouth of the Chippewa Creek, in the district of Niagara. The men were in the boats half an hour before they started. They were ordered into the boats as they arrived. I was amongst them engaged under Captain Drew, in manning the boat e I had every opportunity that an officer has of seeing and noticit g those engaged in an expedition under his command. I saw the Clroline on the night of her destruction. I was one of the boarding-party. I hoarded her abaft the wheel house ; went forward to the forecastle hatchway, and was after wards in her cabin. I went on at the same time as the other assailants. 1 believe I was the last person who left her. Alexander M'Leod was not with the assail ants, and had nothing to do with the destruction of the vessel. I know of no other matter or thing, nor can I say any thing touching the matters in question in this cause, that may tend to the benefit or advantage of the said Alexander M'Leod, besides what I have been in terrogated unto. All I can say is, lam positive Alex ander M'Leod was not in the boats, as I was actively employed as aid-de-camp to Captan Drew, in superin tending the manning of the boats. Angus M‘Leod, of the township of Kingston, in the Midland District, aged twenty seven years, being sworn. and examined on behalf of the defendant; says— Ido know Alexander M'Leod. He is my brother. I have known him since he came to this country, ex cept when he paid a visit to our family in Scotland, He came to this country in 1831, since which time I have known him intimately as my brother. Ido recollect the time of the destruction of the Caroline. I was at Chippewa at that time. I went to Chippewa the day previous to the destruction of the Caroline, in company with my brother, Alexander M'Leod. I was not con cerned in the expedition, and did not know of it unt 1 they had started. I do not know when the expedition embarked and pushed off from the Canada shore. To wards the evening of that day I saw Alexander M‘Leotl on horseback. As I think, he told me he was going on horseback to Stamford, distant about three and a half or four mile., L JeulA that evening for Stamford. He was not in my pre sence from the time that he was on horseback as I have before stated, until the next morning ; I was not on the beach when the boats started, and did not go in any boat from Canada to Schlosser upon that occasion ; the nearest I was to the Caroline on the night of her destruction was at the bank of the Chippewa Creek, being distant two and a half miles from Schlosser ; with regard to the presence or absence of Alexander M'Leod during the attack upon the Caroline, I can say nothing more than what I have already stated ; I have reason to believe I saw the men who were engaged in her de struction, as I saw them land from the boats that came to the Canada shore from that direction, after I saw the boat on fire ; I did not see Alexander M'Leod among them, and I believe he was not among them. I did not think of looking for him, knowing where he had gore. Ido not know Sir Allan M'Nab by sight. I do not know where he was when the expedition started, nor do I know who commanded the expedition, or by whose command the expedition was u ndertaken. I saw Alex ander M'Leod about nine o'clock in the morning after the destruction of the Caroline, either in Stamford or on his way from Stamford to Chippewa. This was the first time I saw him after we had parted the evening before in Chippewa, when I either saw him on horse back, or when he stated he was going on horseback to Stamford. Evidence of F.' Clevely, Esqe—The first time I ever saw Alexander M'Leod was on the evening of the 28th of December, 1837, when he was preparing to accompany Captain Graham round Navy Island ; he remained during the greater part of the night at our quarters ; I was present when he embarked and when he returned, hut have not seen him since ; I perfectly recollect the time of the destruction of the Caroline ; I was at Chippewa about that time ; I had been there three days when it took place; the persons who went to destroy the Caroline embarked at the Chippewa river, near its mouth ; they were standing on the bank about half an hour before starting; I was there during the time, and saw most of the men embark ; when the persons who went to destroy the Caroline embarked I do not know where the said Alexander M'Leod was. He was not in the boat with me. I have never seen the said Alexander M‘Lcod since the morning of the 29th of December, 1837, when be returned from the expedition round Navy Island with Captain Graham. When the boat pushed off to destroy the Caroline I went in the boat commanded by Lieutenant Beers, of the Royal Navy. I saw all the persons in the boat, I went in from Canada to Schlosser. Alexander M'Leod was not one of them. I did not see him on my way from the Canada shore to Schlosser. I was on board of the Caroline on the night of her destruction, and went into most parts of her. I boarded her at the same time as the other as sailants, and left her about the same time they did. I did not see the said Alexander M'Leod among the as sailants, neither do I believe that he was one of them. I saw all the men who composed the expedition. Alex. M'Leod was not one of them. In answer to the cross-interrogatories, he said—l re side in the town of London, in the district of London, and province of Canada, and I have resided there be tween six and seven years. lam a native of England, and a barrister-at-law. Edward Zealand, of the town of Hamilton, in the Gore District and Province of Canada, mariner, aged 45 years, deposed as follows :—I do know Alexander M'Leod, and have known him since about January or February, 1838. I was not acquainted with him in December, 1837. I knew his person by sight in De cember, 1837, but did not know his name was M'Leod until 1838. I think him a native of Scotland and a British subject. Ido recollect the destruction of the Caroline. I was in Chippewa at that time and had been there from about the 25th December, 1837. The ex pedition embarked from the Chippewa Creek. I think those who embarked were engaged in the preparations on the-beach for about an hour before starting. I was, among the others, assisting in the preparations during that time. I had no opportunity of noticing those who went except the persons in the boat in which I went. I do not know where Alexander k now M‘Le l d was he at the time mentioned in the interro g atory ; was not in the boat in which I was ; I went on the ex pedition in a boat commanded by Captain Drew ; I saw all the pet sonsin the boat I went in from Canada to Schlosser. Alexander M'Leod was not one of them, and I did not see him on my way from Canada to Schlosser. I did see the Caroline on the night of her destruction. I was on board of her, aft in the cabin, and on the larboard side of the deck. I got on board of the Caroline about the same time with the other assailants. I left her nearly the last. I did not see Alexander M'Leod among the assailants, and I do not believe he was one of them. There was a dead man lying on the dock at Schlosser, but he was riot conveyed there. The man referred to met his death during the attack upon the Caroline, but I do not know whether he received the shot on the Caroline, or on the dock. I think the shot which struck him proceeded from the direction of the tavern on shore. He could net have been carried or conveyed to -the dock without ray knowledge. In answer to the cross-intern tgotories be said—l re side at Hamilton, and have resit led there about 6 years lam a native of England, and have resided in Canada since the year 1813 ; I am aged 45. years ; I am a mariner Hamilton Robert O'Reilly, Esq., of the town of Ha milton, in the Gore District, Ca nada, says--I have known Alexander M'Leod about nine years or upwards. I have met him in his character of Deputy-Sheniff, anti transacted business with him, and had occasioteally met him while travelling at inns, and at several 'sittings of the Assizes, and I have no doubt he is a native of Scot land, and a British subject. I was at Chippewa on the 26th day of September, 1837, and continued there un til some time after the destructicn of the leant. We embarked from near the mouth of; the Chippewa creek. We were upon the beach about. fifteen nainntes before our embarkation. During that time I was in the boat, with the exception of a short period while in search of oars. I had not a good opportunity of knowing all persons engaged in the expedition, but speak positively with regard to those persons in the beat with me. as it was my duty to determine the 'number by counting them. I know not where Alexande r M'Leod was at the time of this expedition, but I know that he was not in the boat with me. Ido net know where he was at the toe: mentioned in this interroga.tory. He was not within my observation, and I think I should have seen bins had he been on the expedition. I saw a majority of the persons engaged in the destruction of the Caro line upon their lending upon the Canada shore, or im mediately afterwards. I did not see Alexander M‘Leo'l among them. I did not see the said Alexander M'Leod among them at any time that nig ht. In answer to cross interrogate tries he said—l reside in the town of Hamilton, in Canada. I have resided here since June 1839. I am a native of Canada. lam past 30 years of ege, and am a barrister-at-law. I held in December 1837, and January 1838, the temporary rank of Lieutenant at Chippewa, in an independent volunteer company. I was for a few days at first at tiched to the land forces, and was afterwards removed to a schooner under the command of Lieut. or Capt. Graham, of the Royal Navy. William Srnartlight, of the township of North Ox ford, in the district of Brock, and province of Canads, was in one of the beats commanded by Mr. Elmsby, and he deposed that M‘Leod was not in it. In other respects he corroborated the other witness. He did not see M'Leod, nor did he believe he was in the ex pedition. Thomas Hector, of the city of Toronto, in his exami nation pare an account of the transaction in agreement with the statements of the preceding witnesses. Amongst other things he said :—He was in command of one of the boats, and Alexander M'Leod was not in that boat, nor did he sec him at all that night ; the boat l which be commanded was one of the boats which did not reach the Caroline, he having returned to change the rowers ; after the expedition they supped together at a tavern where he saw a list of those engaged in the enterprise, and M‘Leod's name was not one of then,. Duncan Cameron's deposition contained no ne w fact. John Gorden commanded one of the boats, and he deposed that M`Lood was not in his boat. His exami nation closely resembled preceding once. Christopher Beer, a naval officer, who commanded another boat, gave similar testimony. Colonel John Chisholm, of the 7th Gaze Regiment, of the township of East Flamborough, Canada, was on the beach when theexpedition started, and raw and knew most of the men composing it. He said I cannot state of my own knowledge where Alexander M'Leod was at the time mentioned. I have reason to believe that he was on his way ,to Queenston. I have reason to believe so from the following circumstances :—I was then eat ing as Assistant Quarter-Master General, at Chip pewa. The horses of all bearers of despatches were fed at my quarters. Amongst them Alexander itl‘Lectel arrived at my quarters on horseback, in the afternoon of the day on which the Caroline was destroyed. I understood at the quarters of Sir Allan M‘N ab that M'Leod was to leave Chippewa with despahches for Sir Francis Head, at Toronto, and saw M‘Le orl's horse taken out of the yard at my quarters, before sunset of the same evening, and at the weme time 1. saw M'Leod within the Square, and I have no doubt but he left with despatches, and I have no doubt '.bat be was not among those who embarked on the extredition. John P. Batterby, Esq., of the Gore district, Canada, who commanded one of the boats, gave the same ver sion of the whole transaction as was given by others, and deposed that M'Leod was not in his boat. His boat did not reach the Caroline in consequence of his crew being bad rowers. Neil M'Gregor, of Chippewa, who was one of the expedition, and sailed in J. P. Batterby's boat, was ex amined, but no new fact was elicited. Robert Armour, of the town of Cobourg, in the New Castle District, in the province of Canada, was one of the expedition, and he deposed that AP Leod was not in the boat in which he was, nor did he think that M'Leod was upon the beach at the embarkation. He sailed in Capt. E l mesley's boat. He, with all the other witnesses whose depositions were taken, deposed that he did not see M'Leod at all in the transaction. Hewlett I.ott, a Justice of the peace, from Pennsyl vania, examined by Isle. Opencer.—.l would nut beltuse the witness Quimby on his oath. By the Attorney-General—lnquiry was made of me about the standing and character of Quimby, and that led to my being here. He had known Quimby since the summer of 1838, but any man being near Quimby would soon form an opinion respecting his reputation. Lansing Whetmore (examined by Mr. Spencer)—l live in the borough of Warren, Pn_ ; I know Quimby ; from what I know of him I would not believe a word he said on his oath unsupported by other testimony. He has been a pretty regular attendant on our Courts, and has been in law himself. By Mr. Spencer—lt was generally said by Counsel, that if a witness was necessary they might send for Quimby. David C. Bates, examined by Mr. Spencer—l reside at Canandaigua ; I know Samuel Brown ; I had a conversation 1 think in February wills him respecting his knowledge of this matter, and he said ho was sub poenaed to go to Lockport in the M`Leod case ; basked him what he knew about it ; he said he did not know much about it, or not enough to do M'Leod good orharm. Mr. Spencer proposed to inquire into Drown's gene ral character for moral worth. The Attorney-General objected. The Judge said this question bad been elaborately argued, and Judge Oakley had decided that the inquiry should be as to the witness's character for truth and honesty. This was the rule which he (Judge Gridley) acted upon—truth and veracity was considered too limited. If a man is dishonest, he is not a man of truth. Examirasion resumed—For the last two or three years Drown's character has been pretty good ; for merly it was rather bad. By the Attorney General—He was formerly dissi pated, and he was considered rather dishonest. He could not be relied upon, owing to his bad habits. It was seven or eight years ago. Since that he has been a pretty good citizen. He was in Canada two years. I believe be had reformed before he went there. He reformed some years ago, and then fell into bad habits again ; and then he reformed again. James A. Sears, examined by Mr. Spencer—l re sided at St. Catharine's, in the district of Niagara. 1 resided there on the sth of December, 1837, when the rebellion broke out. After that I entered the service as a Captain in the Incorporated Militia, and was at Chippewa. I was in command of the in.line picquct guard, from outside the main guard, which terminated at a little bridge near Davis's tavern, to the point opposite the end of Navy Island. I was there at the embarkation of the expedition. I was mixed up with the party. I then knew M'Leod. I had known him very well since 1834. I was acquainted with him as with a man in a public office. I did not see him in that party. When they embarked they began to row. Then some of the sailors landed and " tracked." I received directions that when the sentinels saw boats approach they were not to challenge, lest it should be heard on Navy Is land. I instructed the guard to that effect, and to pre vent mistake, an officer of Co!. M'Nab's staff rode up the line of sentinels as the boats went up. The expedi tion was to be kept as secret as possibl-. I went with the expedition as far as I had charge. When the ex pedition retired I went amongst them, I had some friends and acquaintances in the p :sly, and I wished to learn the result. I saw all the men as they disem barked respectively, and I learned these were the five boats which had reached the Caroline. I did not see M'Leod among the number. I was frequently in Da vis's tavern in the night and also in the morning, I saw nothing of M'Leod there. I saw him about noon of that day. I and another officer had gone up the river to near the residence of Captain Usher, who was murdered. While standing there, looking across to Navy Island, to observe their movements, we saw them bring out a cannon from behind a pile of cord wood, and prepare to discharge it. We looked down the road, -and the officer that was with me said, " Here comes Colonel MeNab." Two men were coming on horseback. I said "No one is MeLeod." They passed on. The Navy Islanders fired at the horse men, and that fixes it on my recollection. There had been cannon fired from Navy Island almost, I think quite daily, and frequently in the night. They fired at the people on the Canada main, and people were killed. The Attorn-General objected to this course of ex mn d they were not trying the Navy affair.alslainadtn. li Mr. ex amination. Spencer 444 he should show yet that two hun dred stand of arms had, been stolen from Buffalo. These circumstOpqN unknediately in connexion with the affair, were • hu i.;tent io be given in evidence. He was surprised ill- V!`etiell Attorney-General should be so restive on this itkeet. Mr. Jenkins argued tb,at the evidence was inad missable. • Judge Grieliby` i e'A)d 4C . ,'''opirrion of the Supreme Court would be binding On him, - and would govern him if the prisoner's counsel should offer testimony on the quetion raised last night, to which be supposed the counsel Would except that he might carry it up to another tribunal. The killing of persons on the Ca nada shore, therefore, was not admissablt. in proof on this trip). Mr. Spencer—We propose to show that three per sons were killed on the Canada shore. Judge Gridl y—l overrule it. Examination resumed—l resided in St. Catherine's ten years. I was a political writer for a newspaper. I was a Reformer, and was out in opposition to the Go vernment ; but circumstances have changed. The militia with which I was connected was raised by en listment, and they were stationed like a regular army. The persons I enlisted were coloured men. I suppose they were natives of the United States. I had this company at Chippewa. The recruiting officers were not coloured men. No coloured men were allowed to be officers. I was commissioned by Sir F. B. Head in person. There were Indians in the service. The Court now tock a recess for dinner. On the re-assembling of the Court, the cross-examination was lesumed and continued at great length. Mr. Spencer—We now propose to put before the Court the following papers : First—The action of our Minister in Eneland. Second—A communication from the British Go. vernment to Mr. Fox. Third—lnstructions from Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Ste venson, given shortly after the affair of the Caroline. Fourth—Letter of Mr. Stevenson to the British Go vernment, demanding satisfaction in this matter. Fifth—Answer of Lord Palmerston, who was Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Stevenson. Sixth—A letter of Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox. Seventh—Letter from Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth, with accotapan3ing documents. Eighth—Letter from Mr. Fox, 12th March, to Mr. Webster, Secretary of State. Ninth—Letter of Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, dated April 24, 1841. Ile (Mr. Spencer) did not know but these woul I be all that might be necessary. There were others which he desired to introduce. These had all now been pub lished, and were public property, which was not the case when the argument was had before the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General asked with what intent ? Mr. Spencer thought the gentleman could scarcely .misapprehend him if he recalled his (Mr- Spen cer's) opening. It is with a view to present the question in such a state before this Court upon the traverse of this issue, that having established the fact that this was the exercise of the pubic force of Great Britain, and being acknowledged as an nct of the public force on the cart of Great Britain, the indi viduals who acted in obedience to their orders are not individually responsible. Substantially upon the prin ciple contained in llr. Fox's letter to Webster in March ?est, and the acknowledgment of Mr. Webster in that matter—both Governments insisting that there had already been an invasion of their respective terri tories. Attorney-General—Thetis, a state of war? Mr. Spencer—Such a state of things that when they were there the whole of the party were acting in obedience to the orders of the Government, and are not individually responsible. Although the Sie premc Court could not look into the whole case, y here upon the traverse of the indictment we arc en abled to do so, and by means of this documentary evi dence to show the extent of the state of the war. We intend to enlarge very considerably, to show that a very considerable amount of arms and munitions of war were concentrated upon Navy Island ; to show that the ar senals all along the frontier had been plundered, and the military stores taken to Navy Island ; that the very arms which were taken and returned in the car, were, with the knowledge and consent of the Mayor of Buffalo, allowed to be taken out of the arsenal by the patriots, and taken to Navy Island. That, in short, if your Honour please, there was such a state of things on the frontier, that the whole fron tier was acting in subserviency to the attacking party on Navy Island. Not that there were not many ho nourable exceptions there, but the authorities of New York, as a Sovereign State, were utterly pa ralyzed ; and with respect to the authorities of the United States, they had no officers or troops ; but that there was a state of war. Now, Ido not say a solemn war, but, as between the belligerents con tending, there was a state of war emphatically— a war to all intents and purposes. It needed not the declaration of war by Great Britain ; it was enough that the dependencies of Great Britain, charged with the duty of defence, had an assail ant —that their territory had been invaded that near them was an intrenched enemy, who pro fessed to establish a provisional Government, which would effect the dismemberment of the kingdom of Great Britain, and lead to the formation of an independent Government in one of her provinces. To subvert the British Government was this armed force employed. We propose to go farther still, and to show that it was a necessary act of the Provincial authorities in self defence. We propose to show it by establishing the proposition, and in confor mity to the well settled rules of war,.that this steam boat was in the hands of the assailants, or the attack ing party that it was an aogino of floctrnetinn and annoyance more potent and effectual than any other thing in theifellploy. We are to look at the surround ing circumstances. What was Schlosser? Suppose the Niagara river were no wider than from Navy Island to the Canada shcre, this whole army instead of being on the island would have been at Schlosser, and receiv ing arms and munitions of war from the whole surround ing country, and they were there accordingly, as at Navy Island, and opening a war upon the British dependen cies, and threatening to invade the Provinces, these Provinces would have as much right to defend themselves by working the destruction of the assail ing party, as they would have had at Navy Island ; and if so, this boat, passing back and forth, was subject to destruction, as a course of necessary self defence. Now what are the rules of war in relation to this ? In any warlike movement that the party assailed is bound to wait till the attacking party have reached them and opened their batteries on them ? Not at all. Whenever an army is approaching with a view to an noyance, the assailed party has just as much right to work the destruction of that army, as after they have reached and are ready to open their batteries. If the fact was known that she (the Caroline) was coming down the river —if the Canadians knew that she was coming down with munitions of war, to annoy them, they had just as good a right to work her destruction on the passage as at any time after arriving in the Province of Canada. It is a great mistake to suppose that we are to apply the principles of an assault and battery in a war movement. It is a fundamental error to ap ply any such doctrine. You cannot apply the doctrine of retreating to the wall to get rid of an assailant, it being the fundamental doctrine that, when open hostili ties have commenced, they have a right by stratagem, or any other means, to get advantage and make a de struction before they have an opportunity of doing an injury. The Canadian party were assailed, and had just as much right to defend themselves as at Navy Island or the Canada shore. Does it make any diffe rence between Navy Island and Schlosser, or between Navy Island and Chippewa ? Suppose a lodgment had been made at Chippewa, and this steamboat had been running to Schlosser and that point to give aid, and strength and succour, I would ask whether as between the American people and Great Britain, that persons on the Canada shore would not have a right to work the de struction of that boat wherever they could find her, whether in their own waters or ours. Would it not be a proper matter of self-defence ? Where was this warlike movement ? We are to look to the surround ing circumstances. They were divided by a rapid stream, and but little above the mighty cataract over which no human being ever went alive. It was, therefore, extremely perilous to navigate that stream with row boats at any time, and, particularly at that season of the year. They flad no steam-boats or armed vessels. A steam-boat came down, say for hostile purposes. How was it to be guarded against ? In the day time, when the ?team was up, what would be the use for a few row boats to make an attack ; with her steam she could run away from them, or she could run down and run over any boats which might be brought against her. They could not come out in the daytime, when the boat was in active employment, with steam up, with any prospect of success. How were they then to come at her ? 1 ask whether they were bound to let her be, running continually to strengthen the post, so that they might make a descent upon Canada ? Could this boat have been assailed with any hope of success in the daytime, in the vicinity of. Navy Island or Schlosser ? I trust not. Where, then; is that boat to be destroyed, if at all? Here in Canada were the commanding officers—were . they bound to lie by and be destroye d t hrough the instrumen tality of that bolt ?—let her go on, and do nothing ? They had a right to work her destruction for their own security and self-defence, to prevent a descent, for they knew they intended to . work it revolt in Canada. They knew that they would have many of the discon tented rallying to their s t a n dard. It was not whether trno eras to a spot where th e y couldas to be ma d e u p on the — nucleus or rallying 500 or even 2, 000 were u p o n the island. They had orpanollilyry, fThiserectreffiw wastihi i e eh aadghen standardeasteeurg Province of Canada. They had erected the standard, ' to which the discontented were ready to fly ; a revolt had been already attempted at Toronto, and put down by the militia. It was intended again to enter Canada. How was it to be done ? By collecting sufficient materials at Navy Island, and through the instrumentality of a steam , boat, to make a descent upon the Canadian main: Now I would ;submit to your Honour whether they. had not a ,right. to put it out of the power of this party to destroy an instrument which was calculated to p romote and fUrther the views of the attacking party. Let us see h o * it i s i n our own country ? How was it withrespe c t t o ' one o f the Spanish Islands in Florid a, onl y a few years ago, per haps 1818, when annoyance was expected to the United States from the occupants ? They had not opened their batteries upon the United States. Not at all. It was a province belonging to Spain ; and what did our peace-loving President (Mr. Monroe) do ? Ile sent the public force of the country against them, for no other reason than that it was a medium of communication by which slaves were introduced into the United States. A force was sent with instructions to destroy the Island. The Spanish Authorities were so feeble, as not - to be able, or they did not exert their power, to dislodge those persons who had talien possession of the Island ; it was far from being a case Ike the one before us. There was not the slightest pretence of personal danger ; no other rea sons were assigned than frauds upon the revenue and the introducing of slaves. Suppose the possessors of the island had not voluntarily surrendered, and our bat teries had been opened,and they slaughtered,now let me ask, if it would have been tolerated had they taken the commander, or a sailor who obeyed orders, and hung him? I ask the Atforncy-General to sly if he knows, from the authority of the Supreme Court, or of any other nwhority, in which way they would be murderers. This was a case in our own country, and the President put it upcn the acknowledged law of na tions. I allude to the occupation of Amelia Island. It was earlier than that of St. Marks. We have the or ders here. It was not for the suppression of piracy, but to prevent the introduction of slaves, and frauds upon the commerce. Had the United States declared war against Spain, or Spain against the United States ? Was it the exertion of the force of the United States against Spain, which constituted war, and which worked the individual irresponsibility ? Never was a more heterodox doctrine put forth than that there should be a declare t' on of war, to work individual irresponsibility. When General Jackson had commanded, he had express orders not to enter any of the fortifications of Spain in Florida. The orders were given expressly, but what did he do? He deemed that the United States required it, and that the Spanish authorities were too feeble to con trol the Indians. He marched into Florida and took the forts of Florida. Was it ever dreamed of, or thought of, that General Jackson and his army were murderers—they killed men there. They took Am brista and Arbuthnot and tried them and executed them. It cannot be that an army acting by order of the Go vernment, whether right or wrong, are murderers. It is not so. It is revolting to every man. Compare this case with the one in question. It is evident that the United States and England are both desirous of maintaining peace. It was not intended to interrupt the friendly relations of the countries. It was intended for nothing more nor less than to work the destruction of an instrument of annoyance, which was threatening immod ate destruction to themselves. Because they could not reach it in the day time, they must seek an opportunity when they could reach it, and at such point as they could find most practicable in such extremities, and with such means as they were able to employ, and in the employment of such means she was destroyed. I will go further, and say that it is not a question at all whether this power and authority were discreetly and properly exercised—that is not the question. The British Government may have been in the wrong throughout, and our Government may demand repara tion or s itisfaetion, or find just cause of war on our part. It does not at all involve M'Leod, or any other one charged with being of that party. There is a wide distinction betvve:n a Government being wrong and the soldier Icing wrong, and is it not intolerable and revolting that individuals should be thus held responsi ble ? Let us change tables, and see what would be thought by our Government and country if the Cana dians had seized upon Grand Island, whilst we were at peace with Great Britain, and fortified it. Why, there is no war—Great Britain has not declared war— Canada has no authority to declare war. Would it not be justifiable for the American Government, if they had it in their power, to send an armed force to drive them away? I ask if the Attorney-General would deny that authority ? And could they not do it without waiting to have the British Government de clare war against the United States ? Would not they have a perfect right to do so? I apprehend they would have. And if a company, or regiment, were sent there to dislodge the invaders, should they be taken and treated as murderers? If our Government had ordered a regiment of men to take possession without declaring war, and they had opened their batteries, they would have been held to be murderers, notwithstanding they acted under the authority of the Government, and in obedience to the commands of their officers, It is a strange doctrine that you have got to work up a war in all its forms before individual irresponsibility can be re cognised. Thus far I have presented this case as one when the proceedings, so far as respects M'Leod, would be entirely justifiable, because of the defence of the inhabitants. But I have yet another view to sub mit ; it is that the public documents to which I allude show that this matter is already taken possession of by the Government of tha United States as an entire transaction ; that they have taken cognizance of it, and hese a right to take cognizance of it ; and having taken cognizance of the mstter,which is within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is not in common with any in ferior jurisdiction. What is the duty of the Execu tive when an outrage of this kind has been com mitted? It is to ascertain the facts, and when they are ascertained, to decide upon the matter, and this decision is decisive and conclusive. That must be the law, or the Government of the United States is a rope of sand. They have this subject at this moment in a state of treaty—in a state of negotiation j between the two Governments, and will it be denied that the United States have as much right to demand satisfaction for the killing of Durfee as for the destruc tion'of the steam-boat Caroline. Have they not a right to demand satisfaction for the invasion ? Let us witness the case where the Leopard made an unjusti fiable attack upon the Chesapeake. There was no declaration of war between Great Britain and the United States. They were making inroads and com mitting depredations. At, that time the Commander of the Leopard insisted on taking and carrying measures so far as to take bands from on board the Chesapeake, claiming them as British subjects. No war had been declared, but was the commander held as a murderer ? So far from it, that you have only to look at the facts, to see that the British Govern ment made provision for the support of the fami lies of those individuals who had been destroyed. It is in conformity to the usage of nations. When, such public force is exerted, it becomes a subject of public concern, and is a subject of treaty and as such is within the jurisdiction of the executive department of the Government. They had a right to take cognizance of it, and having so done, they have ex clusive jurisdiction, and others cannot interfere. It is in this double respect that we offer this evidence—it will entitle the defendant to a verdict of not guilty, be cause we are now traversing the indictment ; and if it cannot properly be taken cognizance of there, he will be acquitted for that reason. The. Attorney-General rose to reply, but Judge Gridley said—Mr. Attorney-General, I think I can relieve you. I have considered this question so far as I have any right to decide it. This indictment has been brought into the Supreme Court, and it has been sent down here to be tried by the Circuit Judge, like any other issue. While pending there a mo tion was made for the discharge of the pri soner ; in the first place, on the ground that the Court had powers to look behind the indictment. Tac Court considered that question, and came to the con clusion that they had no such right on habeas corpus, and the motion was denied. But if they had the right, they decided that this was not such a ease as woule induce them to exercise it, and that the motion should be denied for want of right, and on account of the absence of any thing like war, and for the reason that there wcs nothing in the pending negotiations between our Government and Great Britain which took away the jurisdiction of New York for an offence against its laws. . This opinion has been arrived at by the Judges of the Supreme Court, on all these questions being deliberately argued before them, and which, although written mainly by one, was the united expres sion of the views of the whole Court—after the most solemn and deliberate consideration—on such an opinion. Ido not feel authorised to entertain, or express, if I entertaircd, a different opinion. Their opinion in th's matter is law with me, and briefly stated, is this :—A baud of men—Canadian refugees and citizens volunteering with them, took posses sion of Navy Island—it was a hostile force for the in• vading of Canada. Navy Island was a portion of Ca nada, and I have no doubt that the Canadian authori ties had a right to repel the invasion, suppress the in surrection, and use all means which nations may use for the suppression of that invasion and insurrection. But while that was true, our citizens had the right, so far as regards their obligations to their own Government, to expatriate themselves, and join the insurgents, being subject to the same punishment ; so, too, any citi zens of our Government had a right to carry ammuni tion and provisions to either of the two belligerent parties, and to Navy Island, subject, however, to the penalty of forfeiture in the event that they were cap tured. If this boat was a portion of the armament of Navy Island, at Navy Island, or on the high seas, it would be subject to capture on the part of Great Britain. But with regard to ' the United States, Great Britain was at peace, and Great Britain, or any subject of her's, had no right to molest it ; and I car, conceive no more right in the British Government sending an armed band to make an attack on that boat and destroy it, for the fear that she ,might become a great nuisance to them, than that they have a right to send armed men to Buffalo to destroy the arsenal that contained the munitions of war, and kill the Mayor for fear be would send the arms there to be used against them. These are the doctrines of the Supreme Court, not an opinion, but an authoritative decision which is binding on me ; and I have no discretion to set it a side. I ern administering law in the Circuit Court, subject to the decision of that very tribunal which has settled all these questions, and after a more full argument than we have had here. I therefore feel bound to reject the proposition to offer these matters in evidence, on the brief grounds I have stated. The Attorney-General reminded the Court of the de cision of Chief Justice Spencer, in a case lath Johnson, to show that this decision of the Court would be found on examination not to be a novelty. Mr. Bradley said there was one point in this case which had not been presented to the Supreme Court. There was a class of cases in which even neutral terri tory may be entered for a hostile purpose —nominally neutral, not really so. That class of cases is referred to in the celebrated letter of Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, in the last paragraph but one, which states what will be necessary for the British Government to show, in order to justify the attack on the Caroline. Now, we suppose that if the defender t can comply, and show such facts as would exonerate his country from the act that be would be discharged. It can be shown that it was a necessary act of war. Judge Gridley—Equivalent to lawful war. Mr. Bradley—Not equivalent to lawful war, but a case where even private individuals may undertake, and, as necessary to repel impending danger, may act of their own mind and will ; under the necessity of self defence, instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice of means ; then he would be exonerated. We offer to comply with this case. That point was not raised in the Supreme Court. Judge Gridley did net think it appeared a case of that description. On an indictment for murder, who ever heard that it might be shown that in self-defence ' a man may cross the Niagara and destroy his adversary for fear he might destroy him. I think it would not approach a case of self-defence. That will not justify the murder of Dur!ec. Mr. Bradley said the point which they proposed to establish was, that the Navy Islanders were the striking party, and were within striking reach. Judge Gridley—Suppose the Navy Islanders, if they could get a forty-two pounder, could do immense injury to those on the opposite shore, and an individual has possession of that ; and the Canadians for fear that the Navy Islanders will obtain that forty-two pounder, go and find a body of men who make this instrument and kill its owner, that would be justified by this doctrine. The illustration shows that the doctrine is unsound. The defence is on the other ground. Mr. Spencer—And in an application to the Court of last resort I hope no obstacle will be thrown in the way. Judge Gridley—You shall have every facility from me. The interrogatories and answers were then read and contested sevei ally by the Attorney-General. At six o'clock the Court took a recess for an hour. The Court re-assembled at seven o'clock, and the answers of Col. M'Nab to the cross-interrogatories were proceeded with. We have given his testimony in a more intelligible shape, and in a less verbose form, but with all neces sary fullness and accuracy. During the reading, tl.e Attorney-General objected to various portions, so as to bring the testimony within the rule laid down, and to make it applicable solely to the indictment for the mur der of Durfee. The various points were warmly con tested by Counsel on both sides. FIFTH DAY, t.TTICA, OCT. 8. The Court sat last night 'until near ten o'clock, and Judge Gridley appeared to be as much disposed to con tinue sitting as he has been at any period of the trial ; but the jurors exhibited symptoms of drowsiness, and the appeal was irresistible. One juror had tied his handkerchief about his head, and appeared to be en joying a sound sleep while the depositions were being read ; others were resting their weary beads on the front of the jury box, and altogether they looked more like twelve convicts, broken down in mind and body, under the dreadful sentence which dooms to an igno minious death, than a jury sitting to decide on the fate of another. The Court accordingly was adjourned until a quarter to eight this morning, at which time Judge Gridley took his seat on the bench. He wag, as usual, the first man in Court, and with all the freshness of joyous youth : he never fails, nor does he betray any fatigue under his arduous duties. The depositions read are those of Sir Allan M' Nab, John Harris, Edward Zealand, and Wiiliam S. Light. The Court-room is almost destitute of spectators. An incident occurred yesterday which created much amusement. The " Patriot" General Sutherland is here busily engaged in reporting the trial for a small pamphlet. While thus engaged a stranger quietly took up Sutherland's cloak, under the nose of one of the officers, and walked with it out of Court. Suther land's consternation was ludicrous when he discovered his loss ; and the vexation •f the officer was visible when he found a theft committed before his eyes; but in his justification he said the man walked away with it as though it belonged to him. There are many pick pockets in this neighbourhood. The Counsel got through the depositions by one o'clock, having read those of Sir Allan M`Nab, John Harris, Edward Zealand, William S. Light, Jahn Gor don, Christopher Beer, Hamilton Robert O'Reilly, Captain M'Cormack, Frederick Cleverly, Thomas Hec tor, John P. Batterb), and Neil M'Gregor, and the Court then took a recess for dinner. These witnesses were distributed amongst the seven boats of the expe dition, and from each boat there was one or more of them proved that M'Leod was not in the boat in which the witness was seated. William Press examined by Mr. Spencer—l now re side at Hamilton, in Canada. lam a tavern-keeper. 1 kept the Promenade House. I lived at the village of Niagara from 1535 to the Ist of last July. 1 was a tavern-keeper there. I knew M'Lead well at that time. I made his acquaintance soon after I went to reside at Niagara. 1 lived about 300 or 400 yards from him. I recollect the troubles in Canada. I was at Chippewa only once during those troubles. I was there on the 29th of December. I left Chippewa the evening of the 29th, a little after dark. I put my horses in a place a little way from Davis's. Mr. O'Keith rode down with me, and Mr. M'Leod rode with me to Stamford. I mean the prisoner at the bar. Stamford is about six miles from Chippewa. The roads were very bad from Chippewa to the Falls. They always are in wet weather. In the state in which the roads were then it would take M`Leod an hour and a hell to ride down. M'Leod left me at Mr. Morrison's gate. I knew Raincock, who has been spoken of, very well. He left Canada before the troubles. I ex pect he has not been back since. Shortly after I re ceived a letter from him from New York. I have heard of his being in England since, as a clerk on a railroad. I was told by a person who saw him. The proceedings of the Court were here interrupted by a terrific hailstorm. The Court-room became almost dark as night, and the rattling of the hail against the windows, some of which were much broken by the hail, overpowered the voice of the witness. The rain fell in torrents, the lightning flashed, and the thunder rolled for some time after, and rain fell through the ceiling of the Court-room in copious showers. When the storm subsided, the examination gas resumed. John Morrison, examined by Mr. Spencer, I live at Stamford in Upper Canada. I have lived there six years. I removed from Toronto. I arrived in this country from Europe in June, 1835. I know Alex ander M•Leod, perfectly. I made his acquaintance in 1836. I had seen him occasionally from that time. I heard of the destruction of the Caroline on the morn ing of the 30th December 1837, about eight o'clock. My boy told me that Colonel Cameron, late of the re giment that I belonged to, wanted to see me at the gate. I went to the gate and saw him, and he asked me if I had heard the news ? I asked him what it was ? He told me a party had cut out the Caroline, and brought her and sent her over the Falls. He said it was done the night before. 1 then said to him, your friend, M'Leod, is in our house, won't you come up and see him ? He begged to be e xcused, as he was in a great hurry. M'Leod was then lain)? cottage. lie came there at half-past seven the night before, and slept in our parlour. He drank tea there that night. He took his breakfast in the same room that he slept in at my cottage. M'Leod and myself retired to bed about half-past twelve o'clock. It wail pretty near the " wee hour," at all events. Mr. M'Leed was an old acquaintance. He was not used as a stranger, and I left him in the evening with the family. About half.past nine, or from that to ten, we sat down and had a tumbler of toddy. He bad not left his room that morning when I saw Colonel Cameron. When I re turned to the cottage from Colonel Cameron, I said, " M'Leod, what do you think has happened ?" I then told him Colonel Cameron had just told me, that a party had gone last night and cut out the Caroline, and se l nt s h a e id r o l ve u r nd th e e rst F oo a d ils. it H w e as sai s cl o ,." Y m o , u Le d o o d n't sa s i a d y , so." I would to God I had been there." Margaret Morrison, examined by Mr. Sp ncer—l am the wife of Lieut. Morrison, who i . e ms just g iven his evidence ; I have known M'Le o d s i x years ; 1 heard of the destruction of the steamboat Caroline ; I heard it in the morning ; I heard the boat had been destroyed the night before ; Col. Cameron, of Toronto, brought the intelligence ; he brought part of the boat ; I saw the small piece that Mr. Morrisos cut off; Mr. M'Leod was then in our parlour ; he came there the night before about 7 o'clock I think ; he took tea there that night ; he remained all night ; Mr. Morrison would not allow him to go away that night ; Mr. Morrison and Mr. M'Leod sat up to past 12 o'clock ; I was in the room with them sometimes ; they were taking a glass of toddy together ; I was the last to go to bed ; but Mr. M'Leod slept in the parlour on a" stretcher," that is, a bed that closes up and stretches out when required for use ; Mr. M'Leod's boots were taken from the parlour and put before the kitchen fire a good deal before bed-time. The next morning they were in the same place. At night they were wet, but the next morning they were dry. Mr. M'Leod did not leave our house that night after he came in the evening. He could not have left without my knowledge. He could not have gone without coming for his boots, and he could not have got them without my knowle d g e. I slept in a lit tle room just off the kitchen, an d I was kept awake by a sick child. There was also a By the Court—l saw Mr. swatch-dafotgertl Mr.er. e M'Leod Morri son went to bed. It was past twelve o'clock, or near one. By Mr. Spencer—l Baia him again about eight o'clock the next morning. I had been up about an hour. He was in the parlour when Colonel Cameron came along. Mr. Morrison came u p and told Mr. M`Leod what had taken place. I think Mr. M`Leod wished he had been _ _ monNiNb: SUN I cannot be mis takenas ha retu rne d afternoon: He acre. Hu went away after breakfast. . about the night. I saw him agai. from Chippewa, about three o'clock in the did not turn into our house. He went rigt..'t on to Nia.. gara. He was'on horseback, and had a can.lon ball in his hand. It was said it was fired at him from Navy Harriet Morrison examined by Mr. Spencer—l .gym daughter of Mr. Marrison. I was at home in the win ter of 1837. I have known Mr. M'Leod since about a year after we arrived in the country. I recollect hear— ing of the affair of the Caroline the morning after it had happened. I heard my father telling Mr. M'Leod in the parlour ; a friend of my father's had told him at the gate ;it was Colonel Cameron. I saw M'Leod the night before. I drank tea with hitn about seven o'clock. I retired that night betwixt nine and ten. He had not retired before I did, I spent my evening in the same room with him. The whole family was there. I saw him the next morning at breakfast. He left our house to go to Chippewa at nine or ten o'clock. Mr. Spencer here read the deposition of Duncan Cameron, which stated that he was 61 years of age. It corroborated the testimony of the Morrison family. SIXTH DAY. The Court re-assembled at the usual hour. Mr. Spencer informed the Court that he had many witnesses in attendance that he intended to produce, to show more extensively the nate. -c of the transaction out of which the trial has arisen. .He now wished the Court to understand that the evidence was now offered, though under the rule laid down it was excluded. Jared Stocking, examined by Mr. Spenc,er—ln 1837 I was stationed at Chippewa. I commanded a de tachment of dragoons. I know Wm. Press. He lives opposite to me when lam at home. I saw him at Chippewa on the 29th December. I showed hien the batteries. He dined with me. I knew Mr. 'lain cock as collector of Niagara. I have entered golds with him as custom-house officer. He left Canada in the summer of 1837. lam one of his creditors. He went away, not being able to pay his debts. Mr. Spencer then rose and said, this Court having felt it its duty to exclude the evidence which we pro posed offering at the commencement of the trial, founded on national law, it, of course, leaves but a single question of fact to be investigated in this trial ; and that is, whether in truth M'Leod was one of the party who attacked and destroyed the Caroline. To this point, therefore, we have directed our attention, and produced all the evidence in our power to bear on it ; and it consequently closes the defence on which we rely for the acquittal of M'Leod. REPLY TO THE DEFENCE. The Attorney-General said, before we call wit nesses I will offersome documentary evidence. loffer first the enrollment, and the licence of the boat in Buffalo. Mr. Spencer—Let it be read, Sir. The Attorney-General--I will now also, if the Court please, read the statement of the prisoner. It is the statement of the prisoner, made before Mr. Justice Bell, when he was informed of his rights. Judge Gridley—ls it properly authenticated ? Attorney-General—Yes, Sir. Mr. Jenkins—And it conflicts with the statement of some of the prisoner's witnesses. The Attorney-General then read the deposition of Russell Inglis, bar-keeper at the North American Hotel, Toronto, Upper Canada, in which he swore that Alexander M'Leod came to the North American Hotel,. Toronto, on December 31, 1837, and remained there until January 3, 1838. This was offered to conflict with and discredit the Morrison family, who wore that M‘Leorl slept at their house on the night of Jan. 2. Rev. John Marsh, examined by the Attorney-Gene ral—l am acquainted with Sanders Drown. I have been acquainted with him in Canada about four years. I am a Minister of the Gospel, of the Methodist Epis copal denomination. I have no reason to believe that he is not worthy of credit under oath. I lived at Chip pewa during the whole time he did. Mr. Jenkins—We offer to show that the prisoner was not at Mr. Morrison's, by showing that he was at Chippewa the 29th of December, at night, and was there the next morning, and also the identical time when it was burned, that is when they were embarking and debarking ; and that he was at Chippewa on the morning afterwards, before sunrise, and from that time to ten o'clock. I wish to put that as a distinct offer, and I apprehend it does not come within the rule, so as to be excluded. Judge Gridley—l have a single remark to make, not assigning any further reason for the decision made ; but in rtlition to the judgment made, I am sorry to hear an argument that the decision will not be satisfac tory to the public. The Attorney-General—if the Court refers to my remarks, I beg to say I did not intend anything of that kind. Judge Gridley—Sitting here, as I do, independent of all public opinion, on a question of law, as I regard it conscientiously, 1 can entertain no motive whatever, whether the decision will address itself to the feelings good, or ill of others. I have in this very cause excluded from those depositions every portion which was not responsive, because I felt myself rigidly bound to de cide according to my own notion of law. I felt that I had no right in a capital case to enlarge the rules of evidence, as they existed. I mean this decision to stand, to exclude the evidence offered, but not in any way in support of Drown, who may have been impeached. The Attorney-General offered evidence to show that Drown. had told to several persons the same story as he had told here, and that he told it soon after the occur rence. Judge Gridley—l overrule it. William Defield, examined by the Attorney-Go:feral —I reside at Queenston, district of Niagara, Upper Canada ; I know Mr. and Mrs. Morrison ; I have not been at their house more than three times ; 1 saw Mr. Morrison on this side, at Lewiston, in 1840 ; I had then some conversation with him ; he said to me, in conversation at his own !loose, that he hoped the Ame rican authorities would get hold of Mr. M'Leod, and try him for his participation in the burning of the Caro line ; that was in September, 1839 ; about that time they were relating to me that I\l' Leod had seduced a daughter of Mr. Morrison's from her husband, and that Mr. Taylor, the husband, who was a wealthy mer chant from the Southern States, was gone in pursuit of them to Toronto ; I asked him when I saw him in IS4O bow he could prove an alibi ; and he said that he thought that Mr. M'Leod stopped at his place that eight ; I asked him if be was sure of that—he said he was not; but M'Leod was ore of her Majesty's subjects, and must be protected at any risk. Cross-examined by Mr. Spencer—l never aided the Patriots directly. 1 was at Detroit when they crossed from Prescott. I was on Navy Island when the Pa tricts were there. I was there eight days. M‘Kenzie took me as a prisoner, ansi kept me till the evacuation. He kept me at their head quarters. General Van Rensselaer was quartered there. I was permitted to go out sometimes by the permission of the officers. I saw the men on parade, and counted 344 rank and file, besides the guards. lam a school teacher. By the Attorney-General — l am a native of Canada. Mr. Spencer—And no great friend to it, are you Witness—Not particularly. Mr. Joseph Hamilton was called to prove that De field was not worthy of belief, and that Captain Mor rison was. I have known Defield since he was a boy. He has the reputation of being a quick, smart boy, but his reputation is not good. I halve known Lieutenant Morrison for several years • his character for truth and honesty is good. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General-1 live in Queenston. lam a native of Canada. lam not an associate of Mr. Morrison, but I lave been in the habit of doing business with him. He resides ou his income. The business we do together is the sale to me of bills of exchange for his pay. He resides about four miles from me. Defield was a serjeant of a company in Canada, and he deserted and went over to Navy Island. I am not aware of any civil prosecution hanging over M'Leod ; I have heard of one.:l know nothing about my brother's threatening to remove the prisoner from the office of Deputy Sheriff. I had the greatest confi dence in M'Leod. 1 heard my brother say on his death bed that M'Leod was not indebted to him. He thought their accounts were balanced. I have heara d, By Mr. Spencer—l am a banke r. ever since that unfortunate exhibitio n at the e , xatriin tion of Al‘ Leod, a year ago, of M r. Morrison s being perfectly abstemious. At 20 minutes to eight o'clock the evidence on both sides was understood to be closed. Judge Gridley then informed the Jury that it was necessary they should remain together over the Sab bath, disagreeable as that was, them not and h e a dvised only not to permit persons to anproach them and con verse on the subject of this trial,but not to read new t . aper reports of the trial. SE/TENTH DAY. UTICA, OCT. 11. The Court was opened this morning at fifteen minutes to eight o'clock, and for the first tim e d ur i ng the trial, ladies attended, r for whom seats were reserved b e hind the Jury box. The Jury all answered to th e i r names , and the summing up of Counsel was com menced by Mr. Bradley, who spoke as follows : M a y it please the Court, Gentlemen of the Jury— This cause which has probably to a greater extent than any other which Las ever been brought before a Jury, which has involved interests reaching far beyond individuals—which has endangered the peace and repose of nations, is now brought to a close. The testimony at all events is ended. After the excitement which it has created in this country, ex tending through a year, giving origin not only to popu lar tumult, but giving rise to exciting debates in the Legislature, and angry d e b ates b etween nations, it has now come to a close—to the prisoner for life or death this testimony is ended—to a country whose peace it en dangers, whose interests it involves, whose frontier may be desolated by adverse armies and navies, which may be called forth for honour or disgrace, it is ended To another nation, whose subject the prisoner is— a nation which avows the act charged on the pri- 0 1 4 0 Of f / 3 ° rive ° or ) ; n9' :s.s bo r ;, y ot ito iot, ss ;DO 0 11 1;.0'