They will smile at these remarks because they are unsupported by any authority. But these gentry _may_ receive a graver and heavier rebuke; such as, from its eminent and official source, shall convincingly teach them, that to conspire against the future prospects of any man, by raking up a groundless charge of felony against him, when his character is untainted, and his pursuits _even in the imputed felony_ are useful and honourable, is _in itself_ so very _contemptible_, and yet so _heinous_ an offence _against common society_, as to require a _direct rebuke from the Chief Magistrate_, and to deserve that severe punishment which would follow an action at law. Give me leave, Sir, to request (if, indeed, in acknowledging your authority, I am not rightly entitled to demand) that you will, at some convenient opportunity, signify to my prosecutors, (whose legal superior and whose fellow-parishioner you are) your strong sense of the impropriety of their conduct. You cannot be in error, for you are preceded by the voice of Mr. Justice Park, and by that of the Court of King’s Bench, and you will be echoed by the loud and equitable cry of the public in general. Pardon me, Sir, if I press my solicitation upon this point, as firmly as courtesy will allow me; probably, however, it needs only to be mentioned.――As a man you will be indignant at such shameful proceedings, and as a magistrate you will feel it your duty to reprove them. Can there be a gentleman, can there be a scholar, can there be a Christian, among my persecutors? Gentlemen scorn dishonourable actions, scholars are liberal toward science and the students of it, and Christians are just at least, being commanded not to “bear false witness against their neighbour.” Can they possibly, can _any learned individual_ among them, find texts to justify the accusing a man of a disgraceful offence, when he knows that none has been committed? There _is_ that, however, which “makes all doctrines plain and clear,” and it is the duty of every man to acquire popularity――his interest at least――and if his interest, then his duty: because, if it be the duty of a citizen to promote the _general_ good, how can he do that in a readier way, than by promoting his _own_ good? For, the whole consists of parts, and he is, undoubtedly, a part of the whole. Wherefore, by consulting his own individual good, regardless of irrelevancies, (for such, in this scholastic view of things, honour and honesty must be allowed to be,) a man is evidently, and _bona fide_, playing the part of a good citizen. This is perfectly clear. It appears an irrefragable syllogism, as fair as some of ours in physic, perhaps as some of yours in law. For _Divinity_, I have not a word to say about it. I leave it (_and the present argument too_) in the pastoral hands of _any Divine who may have already busied himself in it_. Is it then, possible, some persons may inquire, who are less acquainted with the world and its