Mr. Southey says, in continuation of his Defence of _Wat Tyler_, p. 7, ‘It was written when republicanism was confined to a very small number of the educated classes:’ [Is it more common now among the intended hearers of Mr. Coleridge’s Second and Third Lay-Sermons?]—‘when those who were known to entertain such opinions were exposed to personal danger from _the populace_‘; [The populace of course were not set on by the higher classes, the clergy or gentry, nor can Mr. S. mean to include the Attorney-General of that day, my Lord Eldon, as one of _the populace_.] ‘And when a spirit of anti-jacobinism was predominant, which I cannot characterise more truly than by saying that it was as unjust and intolerant, though not quite as ferocious, _as the Jacobinism of the present day_.’—Why not the _anti-jacobinism_ of the present day? ‘The collusion holds in the exchange.’ The business is carried on to the present hour; and though it has changed hands, the principal of the firm is still the same. Mr. Gifford, the present Editor of the _Quarterly Review_, where Mr. Southey now writes, was formerly the Editor of the _Anti-Jacobin_ newspaper, where he was written at. The above passage is however a sly passing hit at Mr. Canning’s parodies, who (shame to say it) was as wise and as witty three and twenty years ago as he is now, and has not been making that progressive improvement ever since, on which Mr. Southey compliments himself, congratulates his friends, and insults over his enemies! How nicely this gentleman _differences_ himself from all his contemporaries, Jacobin or anti-Jacobin! No one can come up to him at all points. ‘The lovely Marcia towers above her sex!’ The Letter-writer goes on to say:—‘When therefore Mr. Smith informed the House of Commons that the author of _Wat Tyler_ thinks no longer upon certain points as he did in his youth, he informed that legislative assembly of nothing more than what the author has shown during very many years, _in the course of his writings_ ... that while events have been moving on upon the great theatre of human affairs, _his intellect has not been stationary_.’—[Mr. S. here confounds a change of opinions with the progress of intellect, a mistake which we shall correct presently.]—‘But when the Member for Norwich asserts that I impute evil motives to men merely for holding the same doctrines’ [No, only a tenth part of the same doctrines] ‘which I myself formerly professed, and when he charges me with the malignity and baseness of a Renegade, the assertion and the charge are as false, as the language in which they are conveyed is coarse and insulting.’ p. 9.