Star. — London, England, 1819-11-17 00:00:00

; . •, C• 1 •'. , • : • • tir • , . L. t:d ;.:7•3 6. • ` I, rCi 0r .. 3 r di •! • foi 13...; pea:. 011 cff lowel pent His 1,77: I • V:: !I IV; , i, CI ILI Si WA' 2,;ain ri rut ite.itr • M lt I teen Iwc is rift to of )1 " Ki Mr. 1• ficie *he • the Llf Li, pa L. , e.: • - t • •, tr• el h, st • In d it was not necessary to say, in an in . -rv, that it was against the Statute. BAytry here remarked, that it would the nature of the offence, whether or ci clergy should be prayed. resume d.. —The whole offence here am' printing against the Ho ly and this came within the express words , ittne of William. This Act provided a va .` ucw disabilities,. and distinctly limited the, : , cut that a defendant convicted under it' he , ü b ec t to. It disabled hint from holding Cmplovineat of public trust, to sue, to execa,ur, or take any legacy, and enacted su!ier imprisonment for three years.— il.at the person before the Court came rise Fu risions,ol that Statute, and ought to. proceeded against under it. It applied , t h• to nil persons born in this country, and who ore rthlcated in, or had professed, the Chris c!icion. Had he been Counsel on the.trial, he .1 have been able to prove that this was the situation,de s and brought him fully within the : i tr aid operation of the clause referred to. He rieht, therefore, now to bring this question. u .J, because this Act of Parliament, whilst it T.! a :articular punishment, likewise conferred ;a r i‘ileges. By its second section it. was pro ; t;iat ;1 time should be limited for commencing •cutions under it—that was, four dayi should he a llowed for giving information after the offence, hree months for carrying the prosecution into . This referred to advised - speaking and ; and he subniitted that no distinction could lie between that and the case of printing. By J clause also it was treated as not being a temporal offence, but as a heresy subject to i,dittien of the Ecclesiastical urt.s. Now, e y was proceeded against Ihr errors of a aarure, he, on a renunciation, was relieved those disabilities to which lia..had subjected !h; provided that renunciation was made with mr months. This was a very peculiar Act of ament, and framed in a marmer very unlike or. St.oxes. As he understood it, it entirely re- the common law. Certainly he never meant tend that the crime here charged had not been !ffence•abcommon law before the Statute. The ,)f Taylor, which had been tried before Lord !, and which was to be found in Strangis Re which was for words spoken, was complete i.rity upon that point. The Statute or William, ' .ver, was not then in existence ; it was subse alp to that that the Legislature had interfared.— whole argument was, that there was a Statute, 'f which the Court could not travel, without de• ng the subject of those benefits and privileges which he was fenced round, and by one of .h it was necessary that he should be convicted ,e oaths of two or more witnesses. The next case that of the King v. Weolston ' " for a libel list the miracles of Christ. He had not lately the case, but he understood the work to have ,ea those miracles as an allegory. Ir. Justice BAYLEY observed, that the case might and in Fitzgibbon. Ir. DENMAN resuming, observed, that it was not tr whether in that case, the offence came within ,tot of Parliament. The publication contained denial of tie truth, or at least of the divine autho of the Christian Religion; nor was the . Statute IViliiam refined to on the trial. Justice BAILEY-- . .There was 2.:cist" Of the 1. *bete the objection nostinade by . De..man was suggested and eonsateied. The ,art then ruled, that the case of Taylor was a suf tent precedent. Mr. DENMAN TIMEAEIked, that it diel not appear tether the offence in- that case had beost-Inid as :ainst the Statute or not. - • Mr. Justice 1-16rAtovn said, that in Vicusigon!scase, !argument had been over-ruled"; altd it was held ,t to lie necessary to describe the a$ against S:aiute. . - DENUAN continued—lt might not have been 'cc-sary in that particular case, and it did not ap -ir to have been strictly within, the Statute. In no ~e where the objection had hitherto been inci :Nally mentioned, was there a resemblance to the Relying upon the argument which he had use ofared to the consideration of the Court,. and ion :he circumstance, that in the cases of Williams his present objection had not been taken, :;1(1 cimcluJe his observations, leaving to the :a.:Liant to urge whatever matter he might think the way of mitigation. rise Low CHIEF JUSTICE immediately pounced .s (Thiinn—drat the Statute referred to,did not take way the common law. Its title was, " For the more • preventing if Blasphemy," &c. His Lord ;+ Pere read the Act, and observed, that it specified -,.:liar disabilities, several of. which were. of very . Iderable severity. The general rule was; that ao I . ...demeanour, at common law, could be repealed, 'xtept by the clear intention and express words of the Justice BAYLEY rennarkell, that the point had, , rolt.r cases, been pressed upon their attention, and icceived the decision of the Court. It was, in the same objection as had been argued is (. 4 .: the " King r. Robinson," in aurrovei' That arose in a case of disobedience to an ot Sessions, and this disobedience bad been a ir.i,derneaaour by a particular Act of Parlia ment, being previously a similar offence arcommon 14 w. Lord Nlansfield took the tame view of the Yleginti which the Court now entertained. If an Act Parliament made a new offence, it could only "A proceeded against in the particular way pointed r'tt; but it the Statute only acted on what wasps ly . ciiminal, and provided a specific punishment en class of cases, then it did not !irate as c , .inn of the common law. The Me would be different if the Act went to reduce the crin as to make what was felony a misdemeanour, It' -2er3a, a misdemeanour a felotiy,then the corn rn law would be superseded. It was not, however, in the case which had frequently happened, of a making that felony which seas already felony. 1 1 , e) had also before them the cases of Williams and ; and if the proceedings on the present occa sii,a wcre erroneous, great injustice had been done in t!:(%! Übtances. N.r. Jus , ice HOLROYD observed, that the rule, as 6 1 down by. his Learned liruther, was plat upon which the Court had cnngantly acted. The Statute did not alter the nature of the crime, but only alleal particular penalties to those already in existence. The Court had been guided by the same rule, in a late case of Sir M. Lopez, upon the objection that an Ait of Parliament required that the' prosecution should be within two years after the offence. The Court held it to be clear, that bribery was an offence at common law. Mr. Justice Besr remarked, that although this ap -plication was easily determined by the first principles of law, he was glad that it had been made. If any one, even the defendant himself, were before dissatis fied that he had not been permitted to pursue a cer tain line of defence, his objections must be removed on finding, that, in the opinion of an able and itztelli; sent advocate, such a defence could not be legally admitted. No statatable remedies took away, unless by express words, or by clear and manifest intention, the principles of the Common Law. The Learned Counsel had fallen into some mistakes in his - allusion to the Statutes respecting Perjury and Forestalling. The remedies given by such Statutes were accumu lative, and not abrogatory. In fact, this was a settled principle, to be found in all the books most coma' monly read. The object of the Act of William was, he thought, obviously to confine the toleration then afforded to Christians of every class, not-only so as to prevent libels directly attacking the truth of Chris tianity, but also, whether wisely or not he would not say, the discussion of certain topics in religion, lest it should lead to the unsettling of men's minds on sub jects of such deep importance. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then read his notes of the second Trial, for publishing Palmer's Principles. of Nature; 'after which, The defendant rose, and began by observing, that he had little to offer in mitigation of punishment, but would make some remarks to shew why no punishment should be inflicted on him. He should, however, make no reference to the books which had been the subject of this prosecution—a prosecution which would hereafter be considered as unwarrant able, but which, from its good effects upon the people of this country, would still be viewed as a fortunate occurrence. It had excited a spirit of free discussion, and called the reasoning powers of man into exercise. It would hereafter be regarded as casting a stain and blot on those tribunals before which it had been con ducted-- The LORD Cuter JtisTier here interposed, and in formed Mr. Carlile, that if he had any thing now to offer, it must be in the way of mitigation of punish ment, or in extenuation of his offence. It was not competent to him to stigmatize the prosecution. By the law of the land, the Work which he had pub lished was an offence; and that law, whether right or wrong, it was the duty of the Court to administer. The defendant resumed.—lf Christianity were; as was asserted, a part and parcel of the law of the land, and the foundation and security of all its establish ments, he trusted that the judgment which the Court was about to pronounce on hits would be formed on the same grounds, and be guided by the same prin ciples. which that religion inculcated. He conceived that he ought to endeavour to shew the impropriety of inflicter any punishment.in his case. Whenever Courts of Justice had taken cognizance of matters of opinion, they had gone wrong, and their proceedings had afterwards been condemned. He would mention the case of the celebrated Galileo, who, for maintain ing the true doctrine respecting the motion of the earth round the sun, had been puni.hed as maintain ing what was contrary to the Christian religion; yet,,, afterwards, the descendants of his prosecutors wil- , lingly embraced that doctrine which their ancestors had condemned. In all countries there were nume rous instances of persecution for matters of opinion. In those where the Romish faith was professed, these instances were most abundant. What they called heresy, was classed among their most enormous crimes. What, however, was called heresy in one age, was orthodoxy in another. In this • country, the national faith, at one time, consisted of the mytho logy of the Romans; at another, of the pagan wor ship of the Saxons; and, subsequently, of the super stitions of the Roman Catholics. At each of those periods, the form of worthip was said to be a part of the law of the land, and that mode of Aseash* which was sow described as such was different from all. All that he had done had been done upon his firm conviction of its truth. With respect to the af fidavit of his having admitted that he sold 3,000 co pies of The Age of Reason, at half-a-guinea a piece, he felt it necessary to state, that they were not all sold at the same price. All that he had admitted was, that this was the general price ; that it was known that a reduction was always.made when sold to the trade. He should now proceed to justify his conduct, and to read a paper containing reasons why no punish ment should be inflicted upon him. • The Louo Cuter JUSTICE asked whether the paper in his hand was written by any other person? Mr. Carlile said, that he had received it by the post on the preceding night. It purported to be from one who declared himself an enemy to his principles, a supporter of the Bible and Missionary Societies, and a true believer in the 'Christian worship. Yet he (Carlile) was willing to rest upon this document for his justification. He then proceeded to read the pa per, which appeared to have been drawn up in the first person, and intended as a defence or apology for the publication of the two libels. It stated, that if he had been found guilty of any cr ime, of an y in jury-done to another in the heat of passion, lie should bow with submission to his sentence. But this was not a case in which the Court had authority to inquire. Justice was always the same. She sat above the clouds, and held the balance equal at all times, and for all men, and her decrees could net be altered.— Hs trusted that the Court would pause before they Consigned him to a dungeon, to poverty, and to un triefited disgrace. The intention was the essence of e very crime, and the proper object of justice, the correction of the offender. Why shouhi the Court act upcn principles, when considering libel as a cri initial act different from those by which they were regulated in civil cases ? There the truth of the publication was deemed fair matter of inquiry, and if the truth were proved, the complaint was dis misse,l, In criminal proceedings, the inte rs i on, and intention only, ought to be considered. Llow many nice distinctions were there drawn between the cases of wilful murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, I and accidental killing? Yet, in all those cases, the' difference was only made by the intention of the party accused. By the same merciful rule, did he wish his, case to be determined. Ile had but little mere to offer to their consideration, but lie begged to remind them, that it was nbt because his opinions differed from theirs, that theirs Must necessarily he right; or because they deemed his injurious to society, they therefore were so. Those who agreed with him might still be' pious worshippers of their GOD, just and moral in all the relations of social life, and loyal and obedient subjects. He might be as little likely to commit per jury, or disregard the obligation of an oath, as the firmest believer in Christianity. All he had de manded was a fair trial—a trial at which the odds should not be so much on one side, as they were be tween the dungeon and the mitre. Truth was great, and would prevail ; and a time would come, when he should no longer be considered as having disseminated moral poison. The waters were now gathering, and though slowly rising, would ultimately overflow, and force their passage into the vale. If the Christian religion were true, the present prosecu tion was a libel upon it. .Jesus Guam-had himself said, that his kingdom was not of this world ; and when on one occasion, a disciple drew his sword in his defence, and cut off the ear of one of those who had come to apprehend him, he was rebuked for the act, and his Master ordered him to put up his sword, adding, " that they who lived by the sword• should perish by the sword." Upon what a different spirit was the present prosecution instituted ! The LORD CHIEF Annex again interposed, ard intimated that the defendant could not be allowed to cast aspersions on the prosecution. Mr. CARLILE.—If the Court were to act upon principles of justice, he was satisfied that they would dismiss him from further confinement. He would state his reasons for this conviction. They certainly were the reasons of a Deist. He did not now mean to impeach the truth of Christianity, but contended that no man oug.ht to be punished for abstract opi nions. The interposition of human tribunals in such matters had led to much of persecution, much of cruelty, and much of absurdity, in every country, which made a succeeding generation blush for that which had gone betbre it. Mr. Cathie then went on to argue at some length on the injustice of being brought before a criminal tribunal, for the assertion of opinions, for which, he contended, he ought only to be accountable to his Creator. In the course of his observations he said, that they who should wish to punish him for uttering his opinions, would sanc tion the crucifixion of him whom they called their Lord and Master. . The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said. that the defendant was pursuing a course which could not be tolerated in any Court, and which he .would not sanction. Mr. CA RLILE denied that he had intended to speak irreverently of the founder of the. Christian religion, : or.disrespectfully of the Courtss. The Loa° CHIEN JUSTICE replied, that he had done so ia.saying,.that they who prosecuted him would be sanctioning the-crocifizion of Jesus Christ. Mr.CARLUJ said,that Jesus Christ had been perse cuted todeath for preaching a doctrine which was contra, , to the then _law of the land in which he lived, sand he intimated that it woulAje.. nearly equally unjust to punish him (Carlile),fotisis consci entious opinions. Ile then went on to call upon all those who worshipped an Eternal God .not to make ' themselves parties to a charge which, he said, nothing ' but the absurdity of the common law would have en abled 114 prosecutors to proceed in. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that no such epithets could be suffered to be applied to the law of the country. Mr. CA RULE then said, he should conclude, and de clare in the sincerity of his heart, that his object had been to promote the interests of morality. With this consciousness he claimed, at the hands of the Court, his immediate liberation from that unjust confine ment which he had already suffered. The , . ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, said, that though it might be supposed to be the duty of a person in his situation to address the Court, he should have abstained froM doing so, had it not been for the extraordinary circumstances of the present case. Nothing in .extenuation had been urged, and the offence remained as it stood when the verdict was pronounced. The publication was not one of calm and dispassionate discussion of particular doctrines, but a direct attack upon the truth of our Holy Reli gion. He would not _go over the painful and dis gusting passages which had been recited at the trial. !'hey were all summed up in one assertion—namely, that the Bible was a collection of lies, wickedness, and imposture. The question was not, therefore, whether the defendant had exercised the right of free discussion, and of forming his own opinions? In such a case, he should be the last man to call upon him to answer. For opinions so promulgated he could not so call upon him. But it was, whether he had not attempted to undermine the Religious Faith of the Nation; and whether, whatever ulterior objects he had in view, this wasnot one which he had clearly aimed at? With regard to his pretence of having been desirous only for the propagation of truth, he would ask whether the sale of 3,000 copies, at such a price, did not indicate something of a meaner mos tive ? • That number had been sold since December; 1818, which was after the period when he had notice that he was committing an offence. Former trials for the same publication had not sufficiently warned him of that fact, but he thought proper to continue it.— Vs ith respect to the high price of the work, one of the arguments upon which the defendant chiefly rested upon his trial was, that the work could not have cir culated among the poorer classes in consequence of the high price at .which it was sold. There was, therefore, no mistake in the affidavit. which had been put in respecting the sale ; and it clearly shewed how profitable a trade might be carried on in blasphemy. He was not aware what he could add, as a further inducement to their Lordships to visit with an ade quate punishment an offence of this description. He asked them only to guard against theevil consequences to which it lid, not to fetter religions distussion, not to cramp religious toleration. But if an endeavour had been made to annul our faiih, to cut off all those hopes of an hereafter by which we had been hitherto animated, and which had consoled uswnder the afflic tions of life, and to leave us without Ulm or anchor, in pursuit of any wild theory which should be ()tiered, then had all our great securities been struck at. — Their Lordships would perceive, that incalculable mischief to society might have been produced. "fhe defendant had this day orsred nothing in alleviation, but had avowed and repta:ed his (oroscr.scntiments, declaring that they mete tight, and that be was dra termined to maintain them. He now, therefore, called upon,their Lordships to pronounce their sentence upon him, satisfied that they would not forget those prin ciples of religion to which the defendant had referred them, in apportioning his punishment ; but that they would at the same time feel the necessity of holding him out as an example to those who might otherwise feel inclined to tread in the same fontsteps. - Mr. GURNEY rode, and also declared his intention to abstain from reading the libellous passages of the work for which the defendant had been found guilty on the second trial. The defendant's address, how ever, of that day, coinained matter quite as disgust ing, and was probably intended less for the consi deration of the Court than for the encouragement of others, if there should be found any who would dare ' to publish it. - It had been urged, i that Voltaire, Vol pey, and others had publi4ied similar work s in France with impunity ; bat how unfortunate it was that they had not been prevented the world had - since received an awful example. The history of their consequences was written in characters of blood, and seemed to shew what a beast mail was without the lights and guidances of religion. The Court would see, that they had before them an offender of no common quality. One who maintained that the crime of which be was convicted was no clime..." . Every other malefactor might, upan grounds equally just, maintain the same doctrine, if he could only add to his original transgression the audacity to justify it. He hoped that what was now done would serve to deter others from pursuing the same course, and scattering the same pernicious notions through so ciety. He concluded by priying the judgment of the Court upon the second conviction. . • • Their Lordships then consulted together for a short time, after which, Mr. Justice BAYLEY, with much emotion, addressed the defendant :—" It is," said the Learned Judge , 1" my painful drity . to pass on you the sentence of this Court. The offenci-of which you have been Con victed is known to the laivs under the character ofblas phemy, and tends to undermine that faith on which all our hopes of future happiness are founded. You I have expressed a hope;That the judgment of the Gault will be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity; and I also hope, that nclt only the seineice of this, but .of every other Court, will be guided by that spirit. The laws of this country give to every Man the free enjoyment of his opinions; the law impbses no art Mes of faith on any man; and while he con fines his sentiments to his own breast, no earthly tri bunal can call him to account. But you have at tempted to introduce disbelief into the minds of others, and, it is to be feared, have succeeded to a great ex tent. If, unfortuaateiy for yourself and for others, you have stripped them of the dread of an hereafter, and thereby urged them to offences they would not otherwise have dared to.coMmit. you have much to answer for at a higher tribunal; but it is the ditty of the laws, which we are bound to administer, to pre vent as much a, possible the injurious consequences, in this life, of ofiences such as you have connni:ted. I observe that the libellous Works you have published are not written by yourself, but published a number of years ago. Neither of them, lam happy to say, are the offspring of our land. One of these publi cations had undergone judicial discussion, and the publisher was punished long ago; and yet, with the knowledge of that fact, you took upon yourself to_ republish a prohibited work, in defiance of the laws of your country, which had condemned it. It has been observed, by the Attorney-General, that this attack on Christianity has not been made in calm discussion, but that throwing in the back ground the divine precepts of the Christian Religion, and taking no notice of the great foundation on which our faith is grounded, you declaim against what you may net understand, and condemn, what you have not el,t mined : for, the parity of the contents of the hook, you have defamed, and the purity of; its precepts, must be admitted and admired by every man who has the slightest pietensions to reason. No man . can open a page of the Holy Bible, without finding in it rules 'of comfort for this life, and the best and surest guide to happiness in the life to ccme. 'Peace on earth, and good-will towards men,' are its god-like precepts. The King upon the Throne takes an oath, as Goo may so help him in this life and hereafter, that he will discharge the duties of his high office; the sanction under' which Courts of Justice are held is the same. Ydu, on your trial, had the most patienthearingwhich ever honoured a Court of Ju tice ; aad to-day you have been heard to an ex tent which pet haps some may blame. The Juries that convicted you, gave their verdict on their oaths, as they should hope for punishment or reward here after. It is on this principle that justice has been administered for centuries, and, I trust, ever will be. You tellhus, you do not believe in the doctrines of Christianity, and are entitled to disbelieve them—but can you think that you are conferring a benefit on mankind, when you release them from the sacred duties and obligation which religion has enjoined? And when you tell us that a man should be punished for his intentions only, are you not aware, that it is by his acts, that his intentions can be inferred ; and that offences are criminal, in proportion as they are injurious to the well being of society.—Our religion teaches us to forgive others, as we hope for forgiveness hereafter.; but when you teach a man that there can be no forgiveness hereafter, or that it can avail him nothing, to what an extent may you not injure mankind. You state that this is not a place to discuss Christianity ; and as it is not ne cessary for me to defend it, I shall not make the attempt, although I have examined its doctrines, and admired its precepts ; and, I trust, the result of such examination will be beneficial to me in this world, and to my eternal happiness in the world to come, since it has given me a r deemer. It is the object of tl c p ri un m is e l . n F e r n o t n , Itaon affidavitrefomQtlfriac'tnhti: it appears that profit has been , you have made it to a considerate, itOwever, the bounden duty alb( that crime shall not be p r ofi;al,) has been yoorobject, it shall is necessary: also that the punts as to deter others . frons;attempi .byldoctrines of the most dangerous ~.wurk was not one of discussior would have pointed out the al .divines,and those laymen who - 9.• • • ti 1 1 11 1 ;l i i i tfi ' 1 I' l . , . II:1 ' t., ) ~, • t 1 . r firm belief in my Re, I • k the law, in awarding der's, and, to present has been read in Court, your object, and that *Table amount. It is, '.the Court to take care able; and that it such not be successful. It ishment should be such piing to disturb society serous tendency. Your m; had it been so, you ible arguments of those 1 1, o have opposed the fat a l 1 0 • • A - I i II