We have made this long quotation for two reasons; first, to show the reader the style and spirit in which this champion, Aristides, manages his subject; and secondly, to show his regard for religion and the characters of men. He says of the witnesses, "They knew a person of her name, and there might have been forty;" that is, of her name. But would it not have been a little remarkable if there had been "forty" females of the same name? But we would ask, If the testimony given did not go to identify the girl who was found dead in the stack-yard, why did the jury agree in their verdict on the testimony? Why did the Court allow it? Did they not sit on the case to prevent improper testimony from being given? But above all, if the testimony was so irrelevant and loose, why did not the sharp-sighted prosecutor for the State discover it? Was there an agreement between all these and the witnesses to put the dead girl on trial, and to admit corrupt testimony and a perversion of justice?

Was not the girl of whom they spoke identified by many witnesses as the person who was expelled by Mr. Avery from the Methodist church in Lowell, and as the sister of Mrs. Lawson? Will Aristides assert that the Providence girl was so expelled, or that she is the sister of Mrs. Rawson? If Aristides is a man of truth, let him give his name, in connection with the assertion that no "witness was called upon to identify the murdered girl." But, let it be noticed, that the whole weight of the charges against Mr. Avery rests on the fact that the Sarah M. Cornell found dead at Fall River, is the same person as the Maria Cornell who was excluded from the church under Mr. A's. charge in Lowell. That person is directly proved to have been guilty of the basest crimes that stain human nature; and Aristides himself, when it suits his purpose, argues that they are one and the same. The name of the Providence girl was not given to the public till after the trial at Newport, and yet, providentially, the evidence of identity is most complete, in the testimony given at that time, and published to the world in the reports of the trial.

But one fact dashes the precious chalice from his lips. The Providence girl is now about seventeen years of age! Of course, she could have been but about seven years of age, when the other commenced her career. Aristides must have known these facts. We now ask the writer to produce one other-we will not say "forty "-of the same name; and till he does this, we shall set him down as the slanderer of men better than himself. Reader, what is your opinion?

But the spirit, design and object of Aristides are still more manifest from his manner of representing the characters of S. M. Cornell and E. K. Avery. His object every where is to extenuate her crimes, and to make her appear, if not absolutely immaculate, yet as having only the faults of youthful indiscretion, and as being unfortunately led astray by her seducer. Now why this attempt to palliate the crimes of one who stands unrivalled in complicated wickedness! The history of abandoned females will hardly produce an instance of one so young being so adroit in all kinds of wickedness and obscenity,-in İying, stealing, deceiving, both with her tongue and pen; in fornication and hypocrisy. Her deeds of lasciviousness, according to her own account, were sometimes committed on the Sabbath, and at noon day. She was afflicted with a filthy disease, the abhorrence of

all flesh; and her conversation was so obscene that the pen has never written it, nor the tongue pronounced it audibly. Add to all this that when Mr. Avery expelled her from the church and prevented her return into it, she swore revenge on him and the Methodists. What wonder that a female so abandoned and wretched, should be frequently tempted to destroy her own life, and several times actually attempt it, before she finally succeeded. And yet this person has found a zealous advocate, nay more, a friend, to palliate her crimes, though proved by the most irrefragible testimony. And this, too, to criminate a man, as a seducer and murderer, who has sustained an unblemished character-against whom, all his enemies have been unable to prove so much as an impropriety of conduct; whose character the Attorney General himself acknowledged, stood fair and unimpeached, up to the affair of S. M. Cornell.

Can the man who takes this course be entitled to the consideration of his fellow citizens? Can he have a fair mind? Can he be influenced by any honorable motive? Will his course prove beneficial to the community? Or will it prove subversive of all law and order, of justice, charity and truth? How exactly has an inspired writer drawn the character of such men, where he says, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; whose feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."

The truth of these divine declarations will apply in the following extraordinary case. Aristides, knowing he could not succeed in a direct attack upon the court and jury, has recourse to flattery. He professes to be satisfied with the verdict of the jury, because the evidence was of such a character that they could not condemn Mr. Avery, though "they," the court, and jury, "most conscientiously believed him guilty." As the responsibility, in this case, rested chiefly with the jury, we have but a word to say respecting the court. Allowing that both judges and jury believed Mr. Avery guilty, it will not follow from that that he is guilty. Other men, of equal intelligence and candor, who heard the testimony, believe that he is innocent of the crimes laid to his charge. Besides, they are subject to like passions and prejudices with other men, and may have partaken of the same unholy excitement with their neighbors. As it respects the jury, we know that two of them, at least, acknowledged they had an opinion against him, but for the want of men who had no opinion in the case, they were taken. As it respects the judges, we leave it to a candid and intelligent public to say whether it be likely, even if they had an opinion of his guilt, they would descend so far below the dignity of their office as to lend their influence to a faction which has for its object the nullification of the decision in the case, and the subversion of law and order by means of popular excitement.

But as it respects the jury we have a little more to say. Aristides tells us they "most conscientiously believed him guilty." But when they were under the solemnities of an oath, they said he was NOT GUILTY. "True," says Artstides, "there was not legal evidence suffi

cient to condemn him." What is meant by legal evidence here? It cannot be positive evidence, for every one knows that positive evidence is not, and was not in this case required to convict of murder. Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence, and is of itself sufficient for this purpose, and in most cases is all that can be had. The question then is, how much circumstantial evidence is necessary to convict a man of murder? There is only one answer to be given to this question, namely, so much as will convince a jury of guilt, whether it be a little or much. But Aristides tells us that the jury in Mr. Avery's case "most conscientiously believed him guilty, although they rendered a verdict of not guilty." It follows, either that Aristides is guilty of unexampled slander, or that the jury stand perjured before the world, and can never again be believed, even though they speak under the obligations of an oath. This is a clear case; and it is no wonder that the man who concluded to write thus, should conceal his name. For though he appears to have no sense of moral right or wrong, yet he would blush with confusion and shame to be known as the author of so foul a slander. Was his name known, he would feel as though the finger of scorn was pointed by every one he should meet.

But Aristides says positively, the jury "believed him guilty," though they rendered a verdict of not guilty. For his assertion he has given no authority, not even that of his own name, questionable as that might be. But we are in possession of information that justifies us in denying as positively as he affirms, that "they believed him guilty." Our word we believe will, at least, go as far as his; and when he shall produce his authority for affirming, we will give ours for denying that they have so said.

Among the means employed by the enemies of Mr. Avery, to make him hated, is that of a print which has been widely circulated, and which the public are assured is a good likeness. It was this assurance which induced the writer to look at it the more attentively; and he hesitates not to say, that every one who is in the slightest degree acquainted with the man, will pronounce it a caricature, done with the design to impress the beholder that he is a savage and libidinous monster. The veriest novice could have given a better outline, while it required the hand of a master to give it the expression.

To cap the climax, the Rev. Mr. Avery and Miss S. M. Cornell have been brought on to the stage, in the Richmond-hill Theatre, in the city of New York. And it may be regarded as a singular act of divine providence, that this unhappy female should be exhibited on that theatre, which is reputed to bear about such a relation to other theatres, as she bore to the virtuous part of her sex. Thus, her involuntary associations after death, are similar to her voluntary ones before.

At length Aristides arrived at his eighteenth number, which contains a virulent attack upon the New England Conference, and intimates that the writer's resources had now failed him. Since then, an irregular discharge of small arms has been kept up in the ranks of the enemy, just to show that their sentinels were still at their posts. Aristides has insinuated that Mr. Avery's first wife died of a broken heart under his unkindness to her, and attention to other women,-though his present is his first wife, with whom he has always lived agreeably.

For want of other means to keep up the excitement, which has prevailed for eleven months, not only has the "factory maid" been brought on to the same theatre again and again, but fac-similes of her letters, and those said to have been written by Mr. Avery to her, have been printed and circulated, with comments. Thus the subject is attempted to be kept alive, and the dying excitement, like the last efforts of an expiring taper, emits but a feeble and trembling blaze.

On looking over the history of this business, it is easy to perceive that a systematic persecution has been carried on, and is to be carried on, against Mr. Avery. This, the variety of means employed sufficiently indicate. The most has been made of every circumstance however trivial. One day it is said that he has fled his country, the next that he is preaching still; then that his brethren have suspended him from his office, and then that they are pushing him forward and forcing him upon the public contrary to their wishes; now, that he has gone into a livery stable, having given up preaching, and anon that he is preaching.

These pious souls have ransacked the country and moved earth and hell to find matter to blacken his character, and do not fail to give exaggerated accounts of the drunken rabbles that cry out "away with him, away with him!" and of every effigy that is made, hung up, shot, or burnt, with many that were never made, and then lay the blame on the imprudent Methodists, who, by supporting a murderer, have awakened the just indignation of the public." But they never tell us that this just "indignation of the public" has been rewarded with liquor, and promises of more made to the mob as often as they would insult the obnoxious Avery; nor yet that this zeal for good order has on some occasions included the leaders in the temperance reform, and made both the the objects of their "indignation" at the same time. And at Richmond-hill Theatre, in the city of New York, where the Fall River farce has furnished the entertainment for many a long evening "the murderer of Miss Cornell," and camp-meetings, and the tract entitled "A strange thing," "and temperance and anti-tobacco societies," have all come in for their share in the virtuous “indignation." And the time and the reader's patience would fail, were we to notice all the arts which have been employed to keep this subject alive.

Having thus far considered the history of this great excitement and some of its causes, we now propose to go into an investigation of the charges against the Rev. Mr. Avery, and the evidence on which they are supposed to rest. We have delayed this till his enemies should get principally through with their charges, that we might the better know what we had to do, and that we might ensure a candid hearing.

Mr. Avery was tried on an indictment for murder. In the indictment were three counts:-1st, strangling; 2d, beating and bruising; 3d, suspending or hanging. If convicted on either of these points, he was a murderer. His counsel go upon the ground that there was no murder in the case, that it was a clear case of suicide. While all the marks found upon and in the dead body will, to say the least, agree as well with suicide as with murder, there are certain marks and facts which will agree with nothing but suicide. These are :—

1. Seth Darling (government witness) says he saw the dead body in John Durfee's stack-yard, and that the "right arm was bent up. Writers on medical jurisprudence tell us that this position of the arm is produced by an involuntary spasmodic contraction of the muscles in strangling or suspension; but if, as the government suppose, this girl was strangled twenty or twenty-three rods from the stack-yard, where her comb was found, and then carried and hung up to the stake, the removal when the body was warm, must have displaced the arm: but if she hung herself to the stake, she was not removed, and of course, her arm kept its position.

2. The same witness testifies that "the distance from the knot on the stake to the knot on the neck, was something less than six inches.” Williams Durfee, another government witness, testifies that "the strings of her calash were under the cord that went round her neck." Hence it would appear impossible that the cord could have been put over her head without displacing her calash, especially if she made the least resistance. But she could herself have put the cord round her own neck without putting it over her head, made the knot, and fastened the other end to the stake, and then, through the opening in the cloak on the breast, which was probably left unhooked for this very purpose, she might easily have drawn the cord tight round her neck, and suspended herself upon it. The practicability of all this was exhibited in court to the full satisfaction of all present. That the cloak was left unhooked on the breast, see the first named witness.

3. Had she been suspended by another, the cord would have adjusted itself to the smallest part of the neck, as is found, in fact, to be the case in all instances of homicide by suspension; but in this case, the cord went round the neck not more than an inch and an eighth below the tip of the ear.

4. It may be regarded as a certainty that if she had been strangled and afterwards suspended, there would have been two marks of the cord round her neck, at least on the side where the knot would be drawn above its first position by her weight when suspended on it.

5. Seth Darling, witness for government, testified, "there was some green grass in the [stack] yard, and some fog (that is, dead standing grass). It did not appear to have been trampled. There was nothing that indicated a struggle. The fence was about four feet high." Here it should be remarked, that the fog, or dead standing grass, must have been of some height, as the yard does not appear to have been either mowed or fed; and at that season of the year, (the 20th of December,) it must have been frozen, and would have broken on being trodden, and retained strong marks of the foot; but the grass did not appear trampled in the least, as would have been the case if there had been a scuffle between them, or the dead body had been brought into the yard by another person. But how was the dead body got over a fence four feet high, without leaving some marks either upon the fence, or the body, her clothes, or the grass in the yard?

6. It is supposed that her murderer had, some time previous to this, made an agreement with her to meet her at 6 o'clock on this very evening, at or near this place. But is it at all likely that after such an agreement in writing, he would have shown himself on the spot near two hours before the time, while the sun was yet shining, and men all