he would comply with the expectation. As for the character of the
prisoner, he had nothing to say about it. He would neither admit that
it was good, nor claim that it was bad; whatever it might be, it had
nothing to do with the case. The question was, what was done at the
meeting? All the witnesses agreed that the prisoner interrupted the
proceedings. True, they disagreed in respect to the exact words, but
take the testimony of any, and sufficient was made out to support the
prosecution. Here he dwelt upon a criticism of the words, coming to
conclusions precisely the opposite of Tippit's, and contending they
were both profane and reviling. "It was preposterous," he claimed, "to
say that Holden meant merely to criticise the book. The language was
not addressed to the book, but to Davenport: the book was not called,
'man of sin,' but Davenport. The words, 'man of sin' had a peculiar
meaning. They were designed in the Scriptures to express condemnation,
and horror, and wickedness. They were not synonymous with 'sinful
man,' though even these words might be considered words of reviling,
had they been used in the same circumstances. The contempt affected
by his brother Tippit was so much powder and shot thrown away. Nobody
believed he really felt it. It was like the grimaces of a culprit,
trying to hide his apprehensions by forced smiles." He concluded by
apologizing for not being a poet, like his brother Tippit, nor as
familiar with goddesses. He knew that his friend was a gallant young
man, and fond of the ladies, and he would confess to the weakness
himself, but as for goddesses, they were a touch above him, &c.

The court had listened with patience to both testimony and speech, and
was now to pass sentence, acting up to the advice of a shrewd English
lawyer, to one who without much legal learning had been appointed to
a judgeship in a colony, never to give his reasons when he pronounced
judgment, for although the judgment had an equal chance to be right or