possessed by the persons, under whose inspection they were acting. The precedent adduced by the Chief Justice was one of a very flagrant character, in which the wicked intention of the person accused could not be doubted, and which was not in the remotest degree analogous to the case in hand, as being in no way concerned with religious faith or opinion. The worst construction, which Mr Emlyn's language could possibly admit, with any show of justice, would have been to call it heresy; but then the prosecution must have been abandoned, as heresy was not cognisable as a crime at common law. And here it may be remarked, that the indictment designated the offence to be a libel, because no crime by the name of blasphemy was known in the English law; hence the use of the phrase "blasphemous libel" in the indictment.

From what has been said, it is easy to imagine that the jury would return the verdict of guilty. Mr Emlyn was immediately committed to the common jail, where he remained till he was called up to receive sentence from the lord Chief Justice. It was ordered, that he should "suffer a year's imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the Queen, and lie in prison till paid; and find security for good behaviour during life." This sentence was accompanied with the consoling assurance of the Chief Justice, that the pillory was the punishment which he deserved, but in consequence of his being a "man of letters," he had been treated with lenity. To carry the farce still further,

and expose the mockery of the whole proceeding, the Queen's counsel moved that he should retract, and thus escape the punishment. With this proposal, for a good reason, he would not comply, as his conscience bore him out in all he had done. This suggestion on the part of the counsel, however, proved the barefaced injustice with which the whole affair had been conducted, for how was the nature of the offence to be changed in the eye of the law by retracting? When the sentence was passed, a piece of paper was fastened on his breast, and he was led round the rooms of the court, by way of making his disgrace the more conspicuous, and his affliction the more severe and cruel.

In speaking of himself Emlyn observes, "after sentence I was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner for something more than a quarter of a year in the subsheriff's house; but upon complaint I was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where I lay among the prisoners in a close room, filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then by a habeas corpus I was, upon my petition, removed into the Marshalsea for my health." As it was impossible for him to pay the fine demanded in his sentence, he remained here a prisoner for more than two years, visited by none of his former brethren among the clergy of Dublin, except Mr Boyse. This gentleman was always his friend, although by the popular voice and influence he was moved sometimes

to act with less discretion and firmness, than could have been desired.

Emlyn's friends in England and Ireland interceded to have his fine reduced; at first there appeared no hope of success, but after a petition to the lord chancellor, he decided that "such exorbitant fines were against law," and the thousand pounds were in the end reduced to seventy, which sum was paid into the Queen's treasury. This was not all, however, for the archbishop of Dublin demanded in addition a shilling on the pound as the Queen's almoner, and he insisted that this amount should be paid on the original fine. He relaxed a little at last, after much altercation, and consented to take twenty pounds as a compromise for the whole. Emlyn was then released from prison, having given bonds for his good behaviour through life. This was on the 21st of July, 1705, and he went immediately to England, never again returning to the country where he had endured such unparalleled scenes of trial, suffering, and danger.

During his imprisonment he occupied himself with writing some of the pieces, which have since been published, and also in preaching on the sabbath in a large room, hired by him for the purpose. His audience consisted of such of the prisoners as were allowed to attend him, and a few persons of his former congregation, who were willing to brave the popular odium that they might profit by his instructions, and prove the affection with which they still regarded

their former spiritual guide, even in the midst of his bonds.

Arrived in London he was soon employed to preach to a small congregation collected for this object. To this service he was devoted several years, receiving very little compensation, till by death and other incidents the congregation was dissolved. His being suffered to preach in London gave offence to a few, who made extraordinary professions of orthodoxy, and a formal complaint was carried to Dr Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. But he knew the character of Emlyn, and was too wise and too charitable to molest him, notwithstanding the lower house of convocation represented it to the Queen as a grievance, that "weekly sermons were preached in defence of the unitarian principles." Mr Charles Leslie attacked Emlyn in a public manner, and complained that he should be permitted to preach. A controversy on certain theological points was for a time kept up between them, in which our author was particularly successful in elucidating and defending his sentiments.

Leslie had talents, but a slender stock of theological knowledge; he had a furious zeal and dogmatical temper; he was boisterous and sarcastic; but he had little of the meekness of a christian, and less of those moral refinements of character so necessary in a fair and serious disputant.

Being thus retired from his ministerial charge, Emlyn preached no more except occasionally by invitation

to a Baptist society at Barbican. He lived cheerfully and contentedly in retirement, deriving a sufficient income from his small fortune to supply his wants, and make him independent of the world. On the death of the celebrated Mr Peirce of Exeter, about the year 1726, it was in agitation by the people of his society to ask Mr Emlyn to become his successor; but when our author heard of this movement, he requested them not to proceed, as there were weighty reasons, considering his advancing age and infirm health, why it would not be expedient for him to accept their invitation.

He formed an intimate acquaintance with Dr Samuel Clarke, who, as soon as he learnt the purity and disinterestedness of his character, treated him with marked kindness, and as a most confidential friend. For many years he seldom undertook or meditated any important project, without consulting Mr Emlyn, and asking his advice. Our author has rendered a just and affectionate tribute for these acts of friendship and confidence, in a short memoir of Dr Clarke, in which he has explained and triumphantly defended some points in the character of this truly pious, great, and learned man, against the suspicions of jealousy, and the calumnies of open hostility. Among the great and the good, who adorned the age in which he lived, few can be placed on a higher eminence than Dr Clarke.