pending destruction; it legislated wisely and boldly; it resuscitated confidence in an unprecedented degree; but still it did not banish all fear and uneasiness. It yet remained to be proved, whether there were resolution to administer the laws; whether anonymous intimidation could deter from duty; and whether attempts at assassination, directed against jurymen and all the civil authorities, might not have staggered the determined, and paralyzed the loyal. The proof we The proof we so anxiously expected has not been wanting. Chester has nobly supplied it; and Exeter has invested it with a character peculiarly calculated to restore public confidence.

As it is impossible for the self-same writings to be both blasphemous and not blasphemous, it follows of necessity that of the two parties that espoused these directly opposite opinions, one must be in error. It is incumbent on me, therefore, in declaring for one side, to give the reasons of my election: this I can do by merely repeating what I have already urged in defence of your verdict. Blasphemy, gentlemen, according to the allowed interpretation, is "the

G

act of speaking or writing reproachfully of the Divine Being or his Holy Ordinances." Give this definition to a poor, illiterate man, read Hone's Parodies to him, and then ask him whether or not they are blasphemous. Common sense would be sufficient to reply, "If the definition of blasphemy you have given me be correct, they are blasphemous throughout, they are a tissue of continuous blasphemy." Thank Heaven, we are not compelled to suppose cases, however clear, to support our argument. The Nation has distinctly and unequivocally branded Hone's diabolical Parodies as both blasphemous and seditious; that charge was repeated against them in Parliament, not only by the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, but by many distinguished individual Members, who, in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown, deplored the acquittal of their publisher; and finally, to consummate the whole, you, gentlemen, on your oath, in your capacity of a Jury pronounce them to be libels of the character so universally attributed to them. These are the authorities that defend me in the opinion I first formed of the publications in question; without such support, common sense, of its own unbi

assed decision, gave a verdict against them; with it, I am bold to put that verdict upon record in the face of the world.

But, gentlemen, we have an authority opposed to us: a dotard and a greenhorn shake their escutcheons in our defiance. To be overwhelmed with execrations for making a purse in behalf of a libeller by trade, roused the latter to a sense of shame just sufficient to compel a haughty attempt at justificatory explanation. But Pride is a bungling apologist, and the dotard was compelled to cover his comrade's retreat with a joint assumption that the " parodies were not blasphemous." As a preface to your verdict, gentlemen, this assumption cuts an awkward figure; as an excuse for misplaced patronage, it leaves sedition alone as its mag

net of attraction.

The anomaly which established a charge of misdemeanor in one Court, and refuted the same charge in another, will have its use. It will read a lesson to Juries to consult solely the innate principles of truth and justice, and not suffer themselves to be wheedled into erroneous

conclusions by the quirk and chicane of a cunning counsel. They will have the warning example of a judgment in opposition to the expectations and prayers of the people, converted into a by-word for lamentation and reproach; and they will see it contravened and nullified, as to its purity and justice, by a directly opposite judgment. As the press is the most efficient engine of disaffection, it is evident that the chief guardians of social order are our Juries. If, therefore, they allow blasphemy and sedition to do their work of demoralization, we shall infallibly be reduced, ere long, to make choice between the alternatives of civil anarchy, or military despotism.

JULIUS.

SIR,

LETTER XVII.

TO J. G. LAMBTON, ESQ. M. P.

March 2, 1820.

You have given notice of a bill you purpose introducing into Parliament the ensuing session, one of the grand features of which is the substitution of Triennial for Septennial renewals of Parliament. Oh, sir! if you only knew how you are laughed at, you would take my advice, by burning the draft of your bill, and holding your tongue for three times three

years.

Between you and I and the post, I must tell you, for I do not approve of a joke's being carried too far, I heard it hinted, that a large paper pig-tail is in actual preparation to be appended, by a dexterous wag, to the collar of your coat, on the day set apart by you for courting the popularity of a defeat in Parliament. The length of your destined decoration is exactly three feet; it is split into three divisions, each three inches broad; and it has three