to lying-and that the practice of lying is the high road to perjury.

But swearing and blasphemy, though contrary to every principle of religion—of morality of decency-and to the laws of our country, has, like all other vices, its advocates and its apologists-and it is said by way of excuse, that without knowing it, or meaning any harm, men frequently fall into the commission of this crime.

That so silly an observation should ever have been made, may well excite surprise; and much more so, that it should be so often repeated.

Where is the man, whose conversation is ever so much polluted with swearing, that does not immediately refrain from it, if brought into the presence of a king, or any other distinguished character, whose rank and station produce an awe upon his spirit? What is the reason that the most abandoned swearer lays aside his infernal dialect, standing before a court of justice, and answering in the capacity of a witness, juror, or the like?

The experience of every day is sufficient to convince us, that the same man, who, in pri

vate life, is in the perpetual habit of swearing, is yet able entirely to overcome it when engaged in the discharge of a public office, where it would be incompatible with every idea of decency and dignity. A late celebrated English Chancellor,* who, as a private man, had long challenged an infamous preeminence in this vice, was never known to violate on the bench in a single instance, by a rash or improper expression, the public decorum due to his rank and station. For my own part, I should believe it might quite as easy be proved, a man could break open his neighbour's desk, or debauch his wife, without knowing it, as that he should make use of profane and blasphemous language, without being conscious of it.

But in the name of wonder, why is the apology that he means no harm, confined to the swearer? Why not extend the benefit of so happy a discovery to the habitual slanderer, liar, drunkard, and so forth? Nay, Gentlemen, it would be difficult to adduce any good reason, why the thief too should not be

*Lord Thurlow. See the British and Irish Charac ters for 1798.

allowed to come in for his share of it pecially an old thief, who had destroyed all sense of shame and remorse, by the frequent repetition of his crimes. For then he would bring himself precisely into the situation of the offender who thinks no harm.

case.

I dismiss the subject with the following reflections. It is deeply to be deplored, that so many persons of influence and fashion among us, are addicted to this vice. Vain are all hopes of a reform, while this is the Their pernicious example, like a torrent descending from some precipice, spreads desolation and ruin through our land. What pity is it, that the noble motives of obedience to God, and regard to man, are inadequate restraints on a crime which does them no good-but, alas ! is the source of incalculable mischief to their fellow creatures.

UPON DRUNKENNESS.

[DELIVERED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OF

LUŻENNE COUNTY, APRIL, 1801.]

Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,

HAVING prescribed to my

self the the task of explaining the act for the prevention of vice and immorality, with a view to recommend obedience to every part of it, as the surest means of preserving the liberty and happiness of our country; and having in former addresses to Grand Juries, gone through the first and second sections, I now proceed to make some observations on the third, which is expressed in the following

terms:

"And be it further enacted, That if any person shall intoxicate him or herself by excessive drinking of spirituous, vinous, or other strong liquors, and shall be convicted thereof,

he or she shall forfeit and pay the sum of sixty-seven cents, for every such offence-or, if such person shall refuse or neglect to satisfy the said forfeiture, or goods and chattles cannot be found whereof to levy the same by distress, he or she shall be committed to the house of correction, of the proper county, not exceeding twenty-four hours, there to be fed on bread and water only, and to be kept at hard labour.

Intoxication is a term of such familiar use, and instances of it are so frequently to be seen, that it may be deemed unnecessary to define it. It is an expression of very vague and indefinite meaning; but in our law-books, it is always represented as an artificial and voluntary madness, the effect of vicious indulgence; and therefore affording not the slightest palliation for any violation of the laws of the land. Being the author himself of his own insanity, he is called voluntarious demon, a voluntary madman, and having committed. one crime, he shall not be allowed to urge it as a plea to justify another. In such abhorrence is this voluntary renunciation of reason held by the laws of our country, and in ordre