You qualify it thus: " that such conduct is not likely seriously to affect the State." If a peculiar line of conduct “may certainly! in some cases seriously! affect the State," what rational man would account for the want of a statutable enactment to take cognizance of it, by the conclusion that "such conduct is not likely seriously to affect the State?" To be consistent in error, you must either retain your old unamended, false conclusion; or, adopting your new one, retract its concomitant concession.

Again, my Lord, you discover the flagrant falsity of the point blank assumption, that "domestic duties and domestic affections alone are of power"-(0 powerless sense of duty to God and man! O powerless pride and worldly prudence! O powerless circumstance! O powerless power!)" to keep a wife holy and safe from evil." Flagrant as is this falsity, it is nevertheless consistent with itself. In neglecting to substitute another word for "holy," when you put "danger" in the room of "evil," you but amalgamate aye and nay; the original falsity is preserved in the epithet "holy," and corrected in the substitution of danger for evil. Really, my Lord, we cannot refrain from pity

in beholding you acknowledge essential errors both of style and sentiment, in such a manner as absolutely to unite both their confession and repetition. For your own sake, my Lord, be consistent even in falsehood-for ours, mar that consistency by acting as you have just done; by making a list of errata repeat and amend the same fault in the same sentence.

Your quotation from Fox, my Lord, bears upon no case analogous to that of her Majesty, who is put upon her trial by a Plaintiff (the Nation) that may be equally ruined by suffering superficial short-sighted considerations or fears to deter it from prosecuting in such a case, as by a nonsuit grounded on any other basis than that of a "verdict," in its composite and literal signification.

I am, my Lord,

Your Lordship's sincere well-wisher,
JULIUS.

LETTER XII.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST.

August 28, 1820.

SIR, THE wicked Journalist who, with that heliotrope of filthy lucre, the excommunicated Cobbett, may be very justly denominated joint executor of the last will and testament of This tlewood, the murderer, of bloody memory, has prejudged her Majesty "spotless as unsunned snow;" and described the first witness brought against her so beyond conception abandoned, as only to be exceeded in villany by those who had "the effrontery" to bring him forward.

I am fully aware, sir, it is stooping too low to notice a reptile utterly beneath contempt; and should not have offended in so doing, but for the sake of contrasting the assumptions of outrageous disaffection with the deductions of undeniable fact. The cross-examination of Majocci, according to my immovable conviction, has tended to establish the guilt of the

Queen far more than his examination in chief. The palpable omissions of the counsel who crossexamined, or rather bullied this witness, speaks volumes against the righteousness of the cause he advocates; what, then, shall we say of the commissions by which he grants several main facts in accusation, on oath, to quibble us out of our senses on their degrees of indecency or turpitude? Toiling with labour in vain to make the beastly Mahomet sufferable in British eyes, he grants the damning fact of the exhibitions of such a black wretch before his immaculate client, and his being attached to her suite.

Feeling his way again about the positively twice used bath, he omits every query respecting the presence of her Majesty in or near it at such a time, with such attendant, though he unwillingly elicits that it was little likely to be Bergami's place to do what he did do, namely, to prepare the bath.

When a man of Mr. Brougham's talents spends half his time in bullying a witness to confusion by sarcastic insults and perplexingly repeated questions, irrelevant as insignificant, we cannot help mistrusting the goodness of the

cause he so wretchedly advocates. I was disgusted to nausea at the sneering questions with which this gentleman affected to learn for the first time Majocci's present residence, rank in life, and connections, both of kindred and kind. If the learned gentleman mistook that especial mode of address (the distinguishing characteristic of womanhood when it has the worst of an argument) for wit, he is certainly as ludicrously pitiable as he is despisable.

The answers of Majocci, in many instances translated" I do not remember," can only signify something he meant to convey far different to such indefinite rendering. From the very nature of some of the questions, it is most evident he intended to respond" Not to my knowledge"-" Not to my remembrance." For instance, Majocci has sworn on his first examination, that only such a number (suppose three) were present at such a time in such a place. Mr. Brougham, with all the artificial assurance which, if successful, is to impress the witness with the counsel's certain knowledge that that. number was greater, questions him thus:-. "Will you swear, sir, there were only three present?" and the witness answers, "Only