Correspondence 1817

To: William Hone	Date: 1817 (probably after June)
From: Charles Pearson	Source: Ogden. 73(2), fol. 11
Contents:
Notes: The letter is cataloged but missing from Ogden collection.

[top]:

To: William Hone	Date: 1817 (probably Nov. or Dec.)
From: Thomas Rodd	Source: Ogden. 73(3), fol. 39
Contents: "Dear Sir "I send you herewith all the things I have found for you as yet, of these I am not certain that they all come within your plan, of those that do you most probably have the major part already. I have marked the price of each as you request; you are however welcome to keep them to make any extracts from them which you may have occasion for, without putting yourself to any needless expence, as long as they are of any use to you. "I have made out a list of some few others which I recollect, and may possibly have some few of them by me though I do not know where to find any of them at present. I shall not forget you when they fall in my way. I am glad to hear you are better and hope to see you soon in Newport St. [appended:] The Cavalier Litany A new [merry?] Litany Presbyterians Creed and Commands Chronicle of the Gipseyites and law " " " Wm the Son of Geo " " " Pretender " " " Riots of London There is a Litany in Cotton's poc [taped over]
Notes: The content of Rodd's note suggests that he was helping Hone with antiquarian research in preparation for his trials in December. (Hone defended himself against charges of blasphemy for parodying the Church of England liturgy by citing numerous earlier examples of such parodies.)

[top]

To:	Date: 1817 (British Library estimates May or June)
From: signed S[amuel] Shepherd	Source: Add. MS 50746, f. 3
Contents: Legal document: "London. Sir Samuel Shepherd Knight Attorney General of Our Lord the King for our said Lord the King prayeth a Tales de Circumstantibus to be granted by the Court here according to the form of the Statute in such Case made and provided for the Trial of the Issue joined between our said Lord the King and William Hone late of London Bookseller for certain Misdemeanors whereof he is impeached lest the Jury to be taken in this behalf should remain untaken for default of Jurors. By the Controlment of Trinity Term 57 Geo 3rd Dealtry & Barlow Clerk in Court for the King (Sinecurists Creed)
Notes: This is a standard legal document required in order to impanel a jury. (A "Tales de Circumstantibus" is the act of supplying people to serve on a jury.)

[top]

To: Francis Place	Date: 7 May, 1817
From: Sir Richard Phillips	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 56-57
Contents: Phillips writes to tell Place his opinion regarding ex officio informations. The basic contention is that such informations are illegal because "Several statutes have provided that no man shall be called on to answer except [by] the indictment of a Grand Jury." Nonetheless, there is some slippage between precedent and statute. The precedent, while not overturning the statute, has been to accept ex officio indictments, esp. since the passage of Fox's Libel bill. The upshot, according to Phillips: "It behooves a man therefore who is thus unlawfully ---------- against not to act as a defendant--not to plead or parley--but to consider his assailants as the ---- culprits to oblige them to exert force towards him, & then to proceed against them severally and collectively by actions for damages in the Courts of Common Pleas, & by indictments in the courts of sessions." In short, Phillips lays out a plan for publicizing the "wrongs inflicted" by the agents of faulty policy. The aim is to get cases before a regular jury in Common Pleas rather than just take the edicts of Grand Juries as final.
Notes: The letter is evidence of some of the legal machinations at work behind Hone's arrest (5 May) and his refusal to enter a plea without having written copies of the charges against him. Place and Phillips were long-time acquaintances of Hone; it seems plausible that Place (at Hone's urging?) had asked for legal advice from Phillips. The response seems to have been passed along to Hone.

[top]

To: John Hunt	Date: 8 May, 1817
From: William Hone (King's Bench Prison)	Source: Add. MS, 38108 f. 189
Contents: "Sir Your kind conversation with my wife on Monday sensibly affects me-- I am often backward in expressing acknowledgments of services but I am never insensible of them. On the present occasion, however, many untoward accidents have combined to prevent me from dropping you a line until now. -- I was ill when I came here, seriously ill. My application to the Court for leave to sit until the second Information was read proceeded from real indisposition. I was ready to fall & I believe had the Court dolivered it in civil terms I should have fallen--But Lord Ellenborough's NO! -- (you might have heard it to the entrance door of Westminster Hall from the Palace Yard) -- was as good as Thieves' vinegar; it startled me and recovered me till I was taken out of Court. I have met with very little accomodation too at this place -- so that, though I am in general pretty adaptable to circumstances, no great comfort has been my portion. The prison is full and decent rooms not to be had but at an enormous price. I think I shall have one tomorrow which though dark & not very airy will be better than wandering in the area or idling in the coffee room without the power of writing in it. Like the Seer of old I shall get a table & a chair & a stool (& a few books withal) and make myself happy as I can. If my conduct have the approbation of such men as you I desire nothing further--I have no wish to goad Government to extremity but were all their force in array against me and if I stood single handed, in a just quarrel, I should defy their efforts and say as the man did to love "Ah Jupiter! you are in a passion--you are wrong and you fly to your thunder." I have received so many kindnesses from you and I owe you so much of service on the Fenning account that nothing I can say on paper or verbally will put you in possession of my feelings. There is an abundance of the heart which the mouth cannot utter; when all that a man hopes for is the power which the mouse had of shewing hers, as we read in the spelling book, to the fine old lion who was caught in a net after he had been kind to her. All this, by the by, is to apologize to you for not writing as soon as I heard you had called in the Old Bailey -- Will you do more? -- drop me a few lines directed there unless you reckon upon coming this way before "the first day of next Term" & do me the honour of a call. -- I want your opinion of the stand I take to obtain Copies of the Informations before pleading. This you see is refused on the ground of custom--precedent--which I say would be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. When the powers that be encroach so much & so daily by new precedents against us, it is worth trying, surely, to make them go back a little and create a precedent for us.-- I am, Sir, with great respect, Your faithful servant, W Hone
Notes: The letter is largely self-explanatory in light of Hone's current plight. It is worth noting, however, that the letter also indicates a long familiarity with Hunt who, with his more famous brother Leigh, was editor of The Examiner--easily the most influential of the liberal periodicals.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 18 May, 1817
From:	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 58
Contents: The writer discusses a piece of paper he had seen in a shop window--supposedly when the paper was held up to a candle it would cast a silhouette of Christ. The writer then asks "Why is this allowed" since the second commandment forbids such iconography. The letter puts great emphasis on the complex notion (and the legality) of "Likenesses."
Notes: The emphasis on "likenesses" would suggest that Hone already was developing an interest in the theory of parody.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 26 May, 1817
From: Major Cartwright	Source: Ogden. 73(1), fol. 8
Contents: "Sir I receiv'd your message by Hardy, and will furnish you with what passed in the ... Parliament, on the subject of Informations ex-officio. If ... your imputed crimes, a paradying [sic] of the Athanasian Creed be one, I can also send you an extract or two on that subject. In addition to the four numbers which confirm my eleven letters to the Lord Mayor, I mean to publish an analysis of the House of Lords, because as they must concur in an Act for Parliamentary Reform it is fit the Public should be enabled to judge of it chance of a Statute, unless it raise its Voice very high. Hopin' your present situation is not prejudicial to your health, I remain your obed't... PS--I think Mr. Brougham gave notice of an intended motion, respecting the illigality of Informations Ex Officia [sic]. Mr. Cobbett describes their numerous and pernicious effects, in terms which must prove to sound understanding that they cannot be English law. Sir Vic. Gibbs's very modern Act for giving effect to Informations, will of course be pleaded for shewing that Informations are themselves legal, how unjust soever that inference may be.
Notes: Obviously, Hone was considering the tactics by which he could challenge the legality of his arrest, in this case concentrating on the questionable practice of ex officio informations. It is, of course, revealing that Major Cartwright--already a veteran reformer in the agitations of the 1790s--is involved with Hone's case.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 6 June, 1817
From: Alexander Galloway	Source: Ogden MS 74, fol. 28
Contents: "Dr. Hone, I have received your letter, and the Gentleman whom it introduced to me, I fully concur in your opinion of the propriety of raising a subscription in behalf of the wives and children, and that your late shop is an excellent situation for the purpose. Since reading your letter I understand from Mr. Watson that you have altered your opinion as to propriety of letting your Shop to him. I am sorry at his vacillation because I am sure no increased inconvenience would [accrue?] to you from it. You have nothing to expect in the shape of kindness and it would be perfect affectation to talk of mercy coming from a quarter where it does not exist. Nevertheless I should be sorry to advise you to a line of conduct [torn] does not meet your [torn] sense of its propriety. Wooler has set the country a noble example and by his individual exertion has done more to combat corruption and more to serve the people that 10 Regts of soldiers could have atchieved [sic]. I shall call on you on Sunday and I regret that a pressure of important circumstances have kept me thus long from waiting upon you. I shall want your introduction to Wooler.
Notes: Alexander Galloway was a reformer who had been one of the mainstays of the London Corresponding Society in the 1790s. He had known Hone for many years. Interestingly, the letter suggests that Hone was also acquainted with T. J. Wooler, the fiery editor of The Black Dwarf who was also facing charges as a result of an ex officio information.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 17 June, 1817
From: [Hudson ?]	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 59
Contents: The letter contains discussion of some research Hudson had been doing into Biblical parodies. Apparently, at this point H had already decided on his line of defense and was actively engaged in collecting such parodies.
Notes:

[top]

To: F. Place	Date: 26 July [for June?], 1817
From: William Hone (King's Bench Prison)	Source: Add. MS 37949, f. 46
Contents: "Place "No circumstance has befallen me of more real concern since I came into this place than the delay of your shorthand writer with Mr. Wooler's Trial. Mr Wooler has been wholly precluded from obtaining and publishing a Report as he had originally purposed and certainly if there was a strong interest anywhere to prevent the gratification of laudable curiosity and feeling in the public when at the heighth the disappointment could not have been more effectual-- If the object was to serve Mr Wooler by this report -- it has robbed him of �200 or �300; if the object was to serve his enemies--it has been completed. Again I say I feel the deepest regret for this affair -- you must in justice to him & above all to the cause he has so eminently so nobly served make him reparation and atone to the public to the fullest extent in your power -- Wooler is a brave fellow. I am sick and savage at his usage. "W Hone
Notes: The simple "Place" salutation (to a long-time friend) and the lack of any closing but a "W Hone" signature suggests the extent of Hone's anger. The date--though taken from the original--seems questionable. Hone was released from King's Bench on 2 July.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 3 July, 1817
From: Mr. Aspland	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 63-64
Contents: Aspland volunteers assistance with Hone's legal defense.
Notes:

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 3 July, 1817
From: Major Cartwright	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 61-62
Contents: Cartwright invites Hone to dine on Tuesday "at 5 precisely." Then, "On conversing yesterday with Mr. Madocks on the subject of the letters, and mischievous handbills sent to yourself, Hay & Turner etc. of which he had not heard, he was very desirous of having affidavits from the several parties put into his hands, each party stating the facts relative to himself, for him to make use of in the House of Commons. "I have seen Hay & Turner, who have promised to draw up their declaration of facts this evening & proceed with it immediately to make [illegible] before a Magistrate to the Truth.-- "I can have no doubt of your readiness to do the same. I am to send my servant by noon at the latest tomorrow, to receive their affidavit & such others as can be had-- He shall of course call on you. "I have been, and still am, unwell, that I cannot follow up on this inquiry so well as I could wish; but if you could asist in obtaining the Declaration of Mr. Harvey, of Blackfriars Road, Mr. Molyneux in Tooks Court Chancery Lane, Mr. Hughes of Maiden Lane, or any others on whom these attempts were made it may be of the greatest use. "I will endeavour to secure the attendance of Members of Parliament when the Documents shall be brought forward by Mr. Madocks."
Notes: Cartwright's letter probably refers to an incident from March and April of 1817: A person visited several radical printers and publishers in London (including Hone, Hay and Turner, etc.) and asked if they would print copies of a highly inflammatory handbill. Hone refused, as did Hay and Turner. The sense among the radicals was that the person making the order was in fact a government agent who was, in effect, hoping to entrap the publishers in clearly seditious publications. Clearly, Cartwright is hoping to investigate the incident.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 30 July, 1817
From: "J. B. W."	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 65-66
Contents: The writer sends along some parodies of the 10 Commandments published in Bristol/Bath in the 1790s.
Notes:

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 29 September, 1817
From: [Garten ?], at the Guardian Office, in Chester	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 67-68
Contents: The writer is apparently an acquaintance of Hone who admires his "candour, Magnanimity, and correctness of principle" though he thinks some coldness has come into their relations. Garten feels his own position is "critical"-- . . . still "I proceed in the right road, blundering [illegible] away among briars and thistles, but still going on. I meet with no open opposition--the Cowards!--but clandestinely every nerve is employed against me."
Notes:

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 1817 [?]
From: Sam Jones	Source: Ogden 74, fol. 1a
Contents: Dear Sir, Williams is to be brot [sic] up on Monday for Judgment. Can you furnish me with the loan of Mr. Finnerty's Trial, in that I believe is an account of all the sentences that was passed for Libels up to the time of his judgment. Or can you refer me to any work which will inform me of such sentences. I think the John Bull people had only 3 [printed over "6"] months for Libels and Blacow 6 Mo's. Yours Very Truly Sam Jones
Notes: The "Williams" in question here is perhaps James Williams, a printer from Portsea who was convicted on libel charges for publishing Hone's 1817 parodies. Williams came to trial one month before Hone.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 9 November, 1817
From: Lord Tipton	Source: WSU container 1, fol. 4
Contents: Tipton encloses �10 "which is at Mr Hone's service."
Notes:

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 22 November, 1817
From: Charles Pearson	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 69-70
Contents: "My Dear Sir, "The devil is again at work -- The accompanying [notices?] I have just received. They have rained them upon me supposing me to be the attorney employed. I shall be happy however to assist you in any way my professional avocation may admit of--whether in reference to the jury or in any other manner you may permit me--
Notes: Pearson had worked with Wooler earlier in 1817; his service to Hone--especially his investigation and then challenge of the constitution of "special juries"--made Hone's successful defense possible.

[top]

To: Samuel Shepherd	Date: 23 November, 1817
From: William Hone	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 73
Contents: Hone tells Shepherd of his surprise at being called into court. He had received the summons on the previous night, and, until that moment, he had thought the matter dropped since he had stopped selling the parodies. The letter offers, in effect, a diplomatic protest against the trial.
Notes: The letter--a draft of the one in TS 11/44 (below)--is interesting in that it marshalls many arguments in support of his own case--the delay in calling him, the cessation of sales, etc.

[top]

To: Samuel Shepherd	Date: 23 November, 1817
From: William Hone	Source: PRO TS/11/44, book 164, ff. 95b-97a
Contents: "Sir Last night I was served with Rules for nominating Juries and notices of Trial for the Sittings after Term on the three Informations filed against me for the Parodies. I confess I was much surprised at this because after the waiver of the Juries and my liberation on my own Recognizance, I did not expect further proceedings. It has occurred to me that these measures, in the multiplicity of business, may have escaped your notice--for I can scarcely imagine that I should continue to attract the attention of a public officer on account of Publications of which I have not sold a single copy within the last nine months. As it would be extreme hardihood in me, with a very large Family and wholly inadequate means, to court a contest with the purse and power of the Crown, so I should feel no less pleasure in being indebted to your liberality for putting an end to the Prosecutions--in that case I pledge myself not to reissue the Publications, and indeed the entire quantity in my possession may be disposed of as you direct. I might enhance on my having suspended their sale nearly three months before the Informations were filed--on my never having resumed it--on my two months' confinement in the King's Bench Prison--on consequent estrangement of connexion, and domestic suffering during that period. I forbear to say more than that the appointment of the Master of the Crown Office to nominate the Juries is for the day after tomorrow (Tuesday)--I am already indebted to you for the politeness of something more than a mere acknowledgment of a former communication, and I persuade myself that I may be obliged by a line, in the course of Tomorrow, (Monday) which favour, in my unexpected, unadvised, and wholly unprepared situation, I take the liberty of soliciting, and anxiously await.
Notes: On 97a, where one would expect to see an address: "Delivered to me by Mr Atty Genl 24th Novr. Wrote to Mr Hone thereon same day." The note appears to be in Shepherd's hand.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 24 November, 1817
From: Samuel Shepherd	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 74-75
Contents: "I have not heard it suggested that you have any connection with the republication of this work, nor have any reason to doubt your objections upon the subject; I am obliged to you for the communications you have made." Shepherd is apparently unmoved by Hone's protests. He acknowledges the validity of Hone's arguments, but does not venture any explanation about why the prosecution was proceeding.
Notes: This seems to be a response to Hone's letter of the previous day. Incidentally, the "republication of this work" likely refers to Carlile's edition of the Hone's parodies, published--without Hone's authorization--in August of 1817.

[top]

To: Litchfield [of the Crown Office]	Date: 26 November, 1817
From: William Hone	Source: PRO TS/11/44, book 164, f. 101b
Contents: "In the King's Bench -------------------- Take notice that I intend personally to move the Court of King's Bench Tomorrow for a Rule to show cause why the Juries nominated last night to my Issues in these Prosecutions should not be set aside on the ground of such Juries having been illegally unjustly and partially nominated. Dated this 26th day of November 1817.
Notes: Hone's challenge of the juries nominated to hear his case probably rests on the work of Charles Pearson, an attorney from the Common Council who was investigating the procedures for impanelling special juries.

[top]

To:	Date: 26 November, 1817
From: Ellenborough [legal form]	Source: Guildhall Library MS 14,592
Contents: [A brief legal form] "Let the _______ Attorney or agent attend me at my Chambers in Serjeants Inn tomorrow at 6 of the clock in the Evening to shew cause why it should not be referred to the Master to tax the Plaintiffs costs in these Actions as between Attorney and Client to be paid by the Defendant Grubb pursuant to Agreement between the parties. Dated the 26th day of Nov. 1817 [Signed] Ellenborough
Notes: In a column along left margin is list of names apparently of persons to whom a like form is to be sent. The top name is Grubb, but Hone, Wooler, Pearson &c. do not appear. Exactly why the document is inserted in the Guildhall Hone archive is not clear.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 1817 [no date given, but clearly late November or early December]
From: Charles Pearson	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 71-72
Contents: My Dear Sir, Arrange the names of your jurors by wards so that I can had a copy to each of the different beadles to know which are citizens and who are not-- Bring the copies to me tomorrow . . . .
Notes: Pearson was continuing his research into special juries using Hone's jurors as evidence.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 1 December, 1817
From: R. L. Percy	Source: Ogden 73(2), fol. 11b
Contents: [Preparations for WH's trial, including a considerable amount on jury selection:] "Dear Sir I received both your letters--the former containing Wooller's [sic] list, some days after the time for its being returned--I was sorry to remark that he does not stand the least chance with such a set & the only hope is from Tolerance. Many of the Names are new on the list & the novelty may, I fear, induce attendance. The same observation applies to some of yours. I am sorry that my confinement prevents me from rendering you any service at present. I have sent some of the lists . . . to some persons of good intelligence, but it is singular that each of my friends had been previously canvassed [several words--illegible]. I have made some remarks, but I cannot venture further of my own head.--I know nearly half the list and should have no difficulty in ascertaining what we want by enquiries in the proper quarters;--but it is singular that knowing them only in business, I have no information upon this point, as many of them . . . never trouble their heads about Politics or make them a subject of conversation. Those of the Common Council you will have no difficulty about. [A postscript claims:] "You should make a point of calling personally on my friend Mr William Williams, Banker . . . . recollect how he interested himself before & sent me with a message to you offering subscription and council. Thanks are due from you to him."
Notes: The note is most revealing of the tactics of jury investigation that preceded Hone's trials.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 4 December, 1817
From: Thomas March (engraver)	Source: Ogden. 73(1), fol. 31
Contents: A bill for Engraving Octavo Plate Leopold and Charlotte " 9 " disc. for money " 1 " Received " 8 " [Note in corner in Hone's hand:] "Direct on Monday--or--end it till the day of Judgment!!"
Notes:

[top]

To: Samuel Shepherd	Date: 15 December, 1817
From: William Hone	Source: PRO TS/11/44, book 164, ff. 104b-105a
Contents: "It being my intention to defend myself upon the Trial of the Informations against me I shall be obliged by you acquainting me as soon as possible with your intention as to which you will take first--if it be convenient to communicate this by the bearer and to apprise me about what day it will come on the favour will be the greater."
Notes:

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 15 December, 1817
From: Samuel Shepherd	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 76-77
Contents: In a brief, diplomatic note, Shepherd writes to inform Hone that he does not yet know what the exact date of the trial will be.
Notes: This seems remarkable, given that the trials started just three days later. In any case, it was probably already known that the trial would take place in the few Nisi Prius sessions following the regular Michaelmas term.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 16 December, 1817
From: Rev. John Lyons, F.A.S.	Source: Ogden. 73(1), fol. 40
Contents: Lyons apologizes that illness has prevented greater service, but . . . "I have, however, caused Fletcher's Paper to be very minutely examined, from the year 1786 to 1797, and find that during that period it contains no such article as you describe. It would have given me great pleasure had it been in my power to render you any service in relation to your approaching Trial, and I shall greatly rejoice to hear that your hopes respecting it are all realized."
Notes: Exactly what Hone was looking for in "Fletcher's Paper" is not spelled out; the context of the forthcoming trial might suggest that Hone was still collecting religious parodies to use in his defense.

[top]

To:	Date: 21 December, 1817
From: Francis Place	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 78
Contents: Place writes to outline his plans for a public collection intended to "defray H's expenses." Place is involved in organizing the public meeting, trying to get Burdett in the chair.
Notes: The meeting in question took place on 28 December, with Waithman in the chair. Eventually, the financial collection amounted to over �3000, though Hone claims that much of this money was embezzled by one of the "trustees."

[top]

To: "The Editor of the Times"	Date: 23 December, 1817
From: William Hone	Source: The Times, 23 Dec. 1817
Contents: 67 Old Bailey, Dec. 23, 10 o'clock p. m. SIR,—Information has this moment been given me that bills have been posted to-day, announcing the republication of the parodies upon which I have been tried. Permit me to assure the public, through the medium of your paper, that I am much disgusted, and may perhaps be much injured in public estimation, by this procedure; and that I have no intention of republishing those works in any other shape than in the report of my trials, which I am preparing for the press, and wherein their appearance is indespensable, as constitutiong the ground of the prosecutions upon which I was acquitted. I disclaim all knowledge whatever of those bills; and I desire to add, that if I did not think it necessary that a complete and accurate report of my trials should be upon record, I would not republish the parodies at all. I shall never write any work of the same tendency again; and when I come to publish that report, I shall feel it my duty most earnestly to exhort all my fellow-citizens to abstain from parodying any part of the Holy Writ, or the Service of the Church of England. I am, Sir, with great respect, Your obedient servant, W. HONE
Notes: Hone had this notice printed in both The Times and The Chronicle. It stands as evidence that Hone was seeking to step away from the contentious world of print-politics, and it drew some criticism upon Hone himself (see the letter from Martin, below).

[top]

To: Robert Waithman	Date: 24 December, 1817
From: Stewart[?] von Escher	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 79-80
Contents: Von Escher encloses a contribution to Hone's defense fund to accompany a very powerful and eloquent note on the nature of oppressive societies.
Notes:

[top]

To: Robert Waithman	Date: 25 December, 1817
From: Lord Darlington	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 81
Contents: Contribution and note of support for Hone.
Notes: Darlington's support for Hone particularly incensed the Wordsworths, who, at this point, were not at all sympathetic to the radical or reform movements.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 25 December, 1817
From: P. J. Martin	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 82
Contents: Martin sends Hone a fascinating letter of congratulation and admiration, but then adds: "It is with the greatest regret therefore that I have read the latter part of your letter in yesterday's Chronicle in which you express a desire that no one would hereafter parody any part of the common prayer or holy writ, thereby admitting in some measure the justice of the charges brought against you . . . ."
Notes: The letter Martin refers to was an open letter in which Hone admonishes those who would produce parodies of the sort for which he had been tried. Martin quite astutely points out the contradiction in Hone's logic on this issue. Martin was a geologist of some repute; he published a book on the geology of Sussex in c. 1828.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 25 December, 1817
From: Robert Aspland	Source: Add. MS 40120, ff. 83-84
Contents: Aspland offers Hone his congratulations, and then suggests: "you ought to make up a pamphlet (to sell say at 2/6) of the articles on your case in all the newspapers." Such a work, Aspland claims, would be both valuable and profitable.
Notes: Aspland, by the way, was a mnister of the "Gravel Pit Congregation," Paradise Field, Hackney.

[top]

To: William Hone	Date: 25 December, 1817
From: R. Phillips	Source: Add. MS 40120, f. 85-86
Contents:
Notes:

[top]

return to Correspondence page

BioText Home Bibliograhies Etexts Biographical ToC