view, by the omission of her name in full, and distinct specification, in the recognised form of prayer. Her proposal to accept an equivalent for that omission will hurl back such misrepresentation in the face of those base enough to propagate it.

That the Primate of our Church should be responsible for an act founded on no exposition of ecclesiastical law, but on an Order of Council, founded on numerous precedents, which precedents were founded on the common law of nature, that a patriarch, or father of a tribe or clan, might remember or omit, according to his own discretion, any member of his family, tribe, or clan, in his prayers to the God of his worship; that responsibility for such an act would attach to such a person, is one of those sophisms with which shallow ignorance or party-purpose would addle the brains of the people of England.

Out of a perversion of that eternal principle of justice, which insists that "every one is to be supposed innocent till he is proved guilty," another sophism is tortured with respect to the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy.

This false reasoning brands the omission with the character of punishment before conviction, tending to engender prejudice against the accused.

An individual committed for trial, is considered entitled, by law and equity, to all the force of the foregoing supposition, till it be overthrown by incontestible evidence. The mere possibility that he may deserve conviction-not the establishment of his guilt-sends him to prison. till that trial shall come on, on which the supposition of his innocence is to give him its utmost latitude of benefit, as long as default of evidence leaves it any ways tenable. Yet he is imprisoned on a primâ fucie case; and in event of an acquittal, seldom has any appeal against the power that committed him-the common dictates of prudence demanding that any one subjected to very grave suspicion, must be forthcoming for trial; and, in consequence, not leaving it to conscious guilt, or even to nervous or negligent innocence, to get out of the way of judicial inquisition. The omission of which I am speaking is not to be compared, on the score of hardship, with this imprisonment; yet who ever had the audacity to stigmatize such incar

ceration as odious and vindictive, and caleulated to bias the minds of the jury? To labour under a serious charge is that which is at all likely to have such an effect; not the conduct necessary to be pursued towards the individual obnoxious to such charge.

The Council of sixteen, which decided that the Queen's name should-not be struck out→→→ but not inserted singly of itself in the Liturgy, had a primâ facie case against her, so strong in their opinion, as to make it impossible for them, in any conscience or consistency, to order the insertion of that name in a manner which betokens special consideration and favour, by bestowing an honour it was at their option to confer or withhold. It is assuming that a British Parliament will decide on a matter of facts from preconceived prejudices, to argue that the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy can operate against her on her trial. Those who promulgate such doctrine, in other words assure us that we are diabolical rogues, who dare sacrifice truth, in evidence before the world, to our prejudices and passions.

Any one who will take the pains to weigh these arguments must discover, that unless Englishmen are unworthy themselves, and judicial proceedings a mockery, the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy cannot operate one tittle against her on her trial; since the questiou to be decided not being one of speculation or opinion, nothing but matters of fact can have any thing to do with setting it

at rest.

From the Queen's petition for time to send for her witnesses,-being informed that she knows what witnesses she shall need, I am astonished, as I have already declared, that, coming where she was positively assured her presence would put an end to all negociation, she did not, on setting out, dispatch couriers without delay to fetch those at a distance that she did, at such a crisis, dismiss some she had in her service.

JULIUS.

LETTER V.

ΤΟ THE SAME.

July 22, 1820.

SIR,

IF the weakness of a cause is to be gathered from the wretchedness of its defence, I imagine the credit of those who prejudge the Queen both innocent and injured, will be found in an odd predicament. These illogical geniuses have of late been wasting a world of toil in elaborating deductions from palpably false premises. They find it necessary, I judge, to supply want of proof by impudence of assumption. I will put a specimen upon record of the nonsense for which the era of 1820, to its shame, affords a market:

"We have heard that the letter which her Majesty's Council addressed to the Secret Committee contained most material evidence on her behalf;"-a noble premise for the deduction which ensues, after stating that this "packed and inquisitorial Committee refused to receive