WILLIAM THE THIRD.

9

day of his life he saw'Kirke. Kirke implored forgive-ness; and the dying man declared that he forgave as hehoped to be forgiven. There can be no doubt that aperson who kills another in a duel is, according to law,guilty of murder. But the law had never been strictlyenforced against gentlemen in such cases; and in thiscase there was no peculiar atrocity, no deep seated ma-lice, no suspicion of foul play. Sir Edward, however,vehemently declared that he would have life for life.Much indulgence is due to the resentment of an affec-tionate father maddened by the loss of a sun. But thereis but too much reason to believe that the implacabilityof Seymour was the implacability, not of an affectionatefather, but of a factious and malignant agitator. Hetried to make what is, in the jargon of our time, calledpolitical capital out of the desolation of his house andthe blood of his first born. A brawl between two dis-solute youths, a brawl distinguished by nothing but itsunhappy result from the hundred brawls which took placeevery month in theatres and taverns, he magnified intoan attack on the liberties of the nation, an attempt to in-troduce a military tyranny. The question was whethera soldier was to be permitted to insult English gentlemen,and, if they murmured, to cut their throats? It wasmoved in the Court of King’s Bench that Kirke shouldeither be brought to immediate trial or admitted to bail.Shower, as counsel for Seymour, opposed the motion.But Seymour was not content to leave the case in Shower’s

cnip

xxv.

1699 .