e folly of having instituted it at all. I did not
hear the second trial, on which they gave a verdict of guilty,
after consulting for about half an hour. The jury in each case
consisted of eight special jurors and four talesmen. Afterwards
there was a _crim. con._ case, which I did not stay out, but
which was amusing enough from the translations of the counsel,
the Judge, the witnesses, and the interpreters, for some of the
witnesses were French. Lord Tenterden has a comical way of
muttering to himself half aloud as the counsel are speaking,
either answering or commenting on what they say. Scarlett was
saying (in this last case) that he could not prove the fact, but
he could prove that the defendant passed the night in the lady's
room, and the jury might judge what he did, when Tenterden
muttered, 'If he did nothing, what was he there for?'

The prosecution finished with the trial of Bell (of the 'Atlas'),
who made a very good speech (it was about Lord and Lady
Lyndhurst), and the jury found him guilty of publishing only,
which I take to be an acquittal; the point, however, will not be
tried probably, for it is not likely that he will be brought up
for judgment. He will be contented to get off, and they will not
like to stir such a question. The result of the trials proves the
egregious folly of having ever brought them on, especially the
Duke's. One of the verdicts is, as far as he is concerned, an
acquittal; the author showed himself to be so contemptible that
he had better have been treated with indifference. He has been
converted into a sort of martyr, and whatever may have been
thought of the vulgar scurrility of the language, ruin and
imprisonment will appear to most people too severe a punishment
for the offence. Then the whole press have united upon this
occasion, and in some very powerful articles have spread to every
corner of the country the strongest condemnation of the whole
proceeding. The Government, or rather the Duke, is likely to
become unpopular, and no good end will have been answered. I do
not believe that these prosecutions originate in a desire to curb
the press, but merely in that of punishing a writer who had so
violently abused him; not, however, that he would be sorry to
adopt any measure which should tend to fetter free discussion,
and subject the press to future punishment. But this would be a
fearful war to wage, and I do not think he is rash enough to
undertake such a crusade.

Dece