now is, not whether the House of Lords, and your Lordship's house, will pass the Bill of Pains and Penalties, but, whether the army will be gallant enough to support a grossly injured and insulted Queen, or suffer itself to be disgraced by attempting to crush the public determination, to keep her in her high rank and becoming station. This is the question, my Lord, all others are but minor ones, and scarcely worth looking at. The army must be acknowledged to have the casting vote, and if but a portion of the military express itself determined to play the part of men and support the Queen, your Bill of Pains and Penalties may be turned to a tailor's measure. It is of no use to blink this question; the people of England, the whole country, look to its army for support, for union, for co-operation, in this measure. It is not a party or a factious cause, it is the support of the established laws of the country, which your nominal master, yourself, colleagues, and bribed supporters, are endeavouring to make subservient to your several dispositions and gratifications. The army forms the executive, and has done for a long time; all your new fangled laws have been rejected by the nation, but enforced by the bayonets at your command; but can it be in the breast of a soldier to turn his bayonet to the bosom of his Queen? You may cause the Queen to be assassinated, you cannot degrade her. The idea of degradation and respect is not to be conveyed on parchment, or voted by a few hundred persons for a price, it rests with the mass of the people, and unless you can shew them a just cause, your endeavours are futile. It matters nothing to the Queen whether she be supported in a becoming splendour from the Exchequer, or whether the people form another Exchequer by a voluntary tax. I am of opinion, that the latter would be the more splendid and the more honourable support. All means of supporting a government come primarily from the mass of the people, whether they are bayoneted out of that support, or give it voluntarily; therefore you can neither degrade nor impoverish the Queen. Mark the contrast between your puppet of a King and the people's Queen, the latter can ride through the most populous parts of the kingdom without fear or trembling, but with a reception of sympathy and applause that starts the involuntary tear: the King cannot step from his carriage into a boat without being exposed to the execrations of his people. It is well known that private as was his intention to embark at Brighton, the mere accidental by

standers heaped their execrations upon him, and one of them was committed to a gaol for it. He now hovers about the coast almost afraid to land any where, and this at a moment when there can be no real pleasure on the water from the danger of the equinoctial gales. This aquatic excursion is not for pleasure, it is the impulse of fear, and an escape from the dangers imagined by a guilty conscience. Thus, my Lord, I have frankly stated your present condition and the consequences of your conduct both abroad and at home: your difficulties are entirely of your own seeking and fabrication, they are the result of your own vice and ignorance; for the better part of your supposed ability has been impudence, a daring perseverance in opposition to public hatred and contempt. I may or may not have occasion to address you again, it entirely depends upon the length of time you have to reign. At least you will not be lost sight of by

Dorchester Gaol, Sept. 25, 1820.

R. CARLILE.

PUBLIC DINNER TO CELEBRATE THE SEVERAL REVOLUTIONS ON THE CONTINENT.

We are happy to see a dinner announced for the 2nd October at the Crown and Anchor, in the Strand, to celebrate the triumph of civil liberty in Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Portugal, and to convey to the Continent the sentiments of the English nation on this subject. We perceive the names of the Stewards are composed of men of property in the several counties, and the meeting might be considered as a deputation from the whole country. Such an expression of feeling is due to those who have so gloriously struggled on the continent, and more particularly to the union that has been displayed, and continues to be displayed, in those countries. Portugal may be said to have finally gained her object, although, no revolution has as yet, been known in this country to have taken place in Lisbon, the accounts in the French papers having been fabricated: still the old Regency has thought proper to comply with the demand of the army and inhabitants in Oporto and its neighbourhood, and to summon the Cortes to an assembly. Another advantage will be derived from such a meeting, it will convey the sentiments of the different counties to each other, and concentrate the general will and opinion as to the present govern

ment in this country. On this ground we hail the meeting as doubly useful, and must vainly wish that we could partake of so rich a feast.

EDITOR.

ACQUITTAL OF WADDINGTON.

The renowned Samuel Waddington has had the good fortune to be a second time acquitted, on the charge of exhibiting seditious placards. The first trial was last year at the Surrey Sessions, the second has been lately at the Clerkenwell Sessions. This little hero having a knowledge of the Bible, before some of our priests, turns it to his advantage by making a defence out of it, and has twice managed to get an acquittal by it, for neither the bench nor bar durst interrupt an appeal to this Holy Book as irrevelant, and its language makes an impression not to be resisted by weak minds, or those trained up to reverence it. We would be bound to defend any vice or any virtue from the Bible; for it is a string of such contradictions, and turns upon so many subjects, that as Shakespeare says, "the Devil may cite scripture for his purpose.' The steady ardour of Waddington must not be read in his countenance as a Radical he has suffered as much persecution as any one in London, and always manages to triumph over it. The following is a copy of the placard which contained the charge:

"ENGLISHMEN!

"Love the brave Soldiers, for they are your brothers, natives of the same country, sufferers in the same calamities. They have achieved victories which no soldiers, either ancient or modern, perhaps ever equalled -certainly never excelled. However reprehensible the motives which caused the war in which those victories were achieved, still the conduct of the British and Irish soldiery reflects immortal honour upon the arms of your country. But what is the reward of all these victories? Are not these brave men confined in barracks?—cut off from all communication with society?—Never permitted to see the faces of their fellow-countrymen, unless it be with fixed bayonets or drawn swords in

their hands?

"The Soldiers to a man love your injured Queen; they are determined to support her rights-to protect her honour: and, depend upon it, the hour will shortly arrive when they will show themselves equally determined to support the rights and liberties of their country. Remember Spain and Naples and love and respect the Soldiers.

"Eighteen hundred dollars per month paid to two Italian swearers. How many soldiers would this money make comfortable:?"

TO MR. JUSTICE BAILEY.

Perhaps you will permit me to enquire by what means you have become so intimately acquainted with the ways of Providence and the future fate of mankind, as you appear to be, from your address to the wretch who was convicted of murder the other day at Carlisle.

In the first place you assume, as an unqualified certainty, that the crime of murder subjects the perpetrator to eternal punishment. This you lay down with as much confidence as though you were the author of the decree, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the idea that a single crime (whatever its magnitude) should blot out a whole life of virtuous actions, or the question, whether eternal punishment, be more than commensurate to the largest catalogue of crimes committed by one individual, does not appear to have occupied your attention. Now, I recollect meeting somewhere with an opinion, or a suggestion rather of a more merciful cast, viz. "Whether the term of 9,999,999 years of torment in fire and brimstone might not be presumed a tolerably adequate retribution for the most sinful course of one short human life?" If Mr. Justice Bailey, on the contrary, had employed his whole life in adding figures of 9 to this number of years of torment, still he could not allow himself to close the account with an ad infinitum. No-to satisfy him and divine justice it must be ad eternum.

But, I ask again, how you can have the presumption to pretend to a knowledge of what may or may not be the fate of your fellowcreatures after they have ceased to exist here? If you really know so well the future penalty for the crime of murder, it is but reasonable to conclude that you must, of course, be acquainted with the quantum of punishment, or duration of suffering apportioned to lighter offences. But this is not all-you even put the criminal in the way of evading and shifting this mountainous load of responsibility in the course of the few remaining hours allotted him to live. You first make the Deity a monster of cruelty and vengeance, and then a capricious, unreasonable undoer of his own unchangeable doings, and this by a sort of hocus pocus process, contrived between you and the priest (i. P.) you leave an inconceivably happy alternative open to the eternally condemned criminal as a matter for his own judgment and choice, and merely on the condition that he listens to certain words, and repeats certain other words which are to be put into his mouth to indicate a supposed sudden mental regeneration. So it appears it is not the commission of the murder at last, that is to subject him to eternal punishment, or any future punishment at all-it is the omission, forsooth, of these few goods words.

What, now, if no good priest, and no good Mr. Justice Bailey, were near to jog his memory, and instruct him what these good

saving words are? Pray, does it never occur to you, when you are employed in sentencing others (honest men too) for blasphemy, to ask yourself whether that term blasphemy might not, with far greater propriety, be applied to your own presumptuous language and conduct, rather than to the writings of those who merely expose those glaring follies, absurdities, and deceptions?

If the makers and executors of penal laws really know, or really believe that a culprit going out of this world, without having yet conformed to the directions of the priest, incurs eternal punishment, then I ask you whether these legislators and executors of such laws are not more atrociously cruel, and criminal, than the murderer of a million of innocent men?

This is the predicament in which you have professedly involved yourself, but the thing is impossible-no human being was ever so depraved as to be instrumental in consigning an unregenerate fellowcreature to death, with a considerate bona fide belief in the monstrous doctrine of eternal torments, to say nothing of the justice and con sistency of a Deity who can be supposed to leave the eternal destiny of one man in the hands of another. Thus much in charity from your very obedient servant,

London, Sept. 19, 1820.

GOOD INTENT.

We again feel an inducement to fall in with our corres→→ pondent, and lash this political, priestly, and fanatical judge. The first time that Mr. Justice Bailey began his career as a political judge, was in the summer of 1819, at York, when, in addressing the Grand Jury, he made his famous sermon on the benefit of the national debt and a starving system of taxation, on the shallow pretence, that it kept up a large circulation of money by the heavy pensions, sinecures, salaries, and dividends, that were paid out of it. It is evident here, that Mr. Justice Bailey spoke as he felt: he felt himself warm and comfortable, and he had not the capacity to perceive that the case was dif ferent with any portion of the community. We rather incline on the side of pity towards him, and take him as a legal dotard. However, it was evident in that summer, that all the judges had received instructions from the cabinet to make those discourses on the political state of the country, as one and all fell upon the "seditious and blasphemous" publications. It is far from being the duty of a judge to take any notice whatever of the state or affairs of the country, and the modern mode of addressing Grand Juries, has grown out of that prating disposition which has lately characterized the bench, and first began with a few complimentary observations to the Grand