The Express.
London, England, 1859-11-22 00:00:00

(Stamped id. Additional.) [TWOPENCE.

THE LAW OF BLASP26110(18 LIBEL.

The Lord Chancellor last night, u President of
the Juridical Society presided at its usual M-monthly
Maiiiner when Mr. wis, Q.C., read a paper upon the law
regulating the persecution of blaspharnotte libel, after which
a discussion of more than ordinary interest took place.
Mr. Lewis, is hie paper, after referring to the delicacy of
the inquiry, apologised tor iatroducing it to the society, on
the /mud that the law in referents to it had been assailed
by dile men in violent terms so ineompatible with that free-
dom of opinion which ought to prevail in • free eoustry.
Having given examples of the kind of speaking which the
law bold to be blasphemous, he remarked that such blas-
phemy wee indictable undd both the common and the SUMO
law, the malice of the person uttering it twang assumed u
en essential ingredient of the offence. Formerly non-
conformity and hertsy were indictable by statue,
but that law had bun repealed, and that being the
cam, he was ready to maintain that there was not
anything prejodteltl to free opinion In the state exercisiog
its poser to protect the Carious& religion from ribald and
scurrilous attacks. On the contrary,, it wee under a twofold
obligation to do so—Brat, fur the sake of protecting society
from the public evil that would ensue should the sanctions of
that creed be weakened; and secondly for she preservation
of tie law, which id based upon it. laving quoted the dicta
of Chief Justice Bile, Chief Juatios*Reyinund, Mr. Judioe
Ashanti, Chief Justice Best, mod Lords Hardwick* and
Eldon' is reference to cases which had been hrught judi-
cially before Mum he gathered from them that the reason of
the low makieg blasphemy an indictable offence wite--brat,
that Christianity was pert and parcel of the law, so that
wises Christianity wait attacked the Liar itself was at-
tacked • eseondly, because blasphemy endangered go-
vernsand and society; thirdly, that It was peju-
died to cur airy ; and fourtrily, that it laterfered
with the due administration of justice, inasmuch as a denial
of revealed religion implied • disbelief in a state of erten re-
wards and puttlinionts, the belief in which was the buts of
the oath administered in the courts of justice. Now there
were three chimes of which came before the tribunal, of
the country. in the declaim of which the fudges had, as the
repro/tentative, of the State, either to connive at the riddance
of blasphemy or openly diacolutUnance IL The first class
coutisted of such cameo a+ were matters of police, as the pro.
nectition of Carlisle nedWilharna for the pahliontion of Paine'
Age of Ileum." The woad sot or class related
to foundations for unchristian objects, as In the
ease of Lady Hewley's Charity. The third clam
comprised all thou in which the Court of Chancery,
on the doctrine " perdu pares t," deprived the parent of the
guardianship of his children when his principles were in an-
baptism to religion as it did in the cue of the poet Shelley.
After defending Sir John Coleridge from the attacks mace
upon him by Mr. John Stuart Mill and Mr. Buckle in refer-
ence to his conduct at the Bodmin seises when trying Thos.
Fridley, he proceeded at some length to show that it wee not
the tight of free diactuision which was interfered with, as It
wee clear front the ceso of the "Attorney-General v. Pear- '
mon " that the giving utterance to blasphemous expres-
dol7ll was not in suet en of hot was only so
when it bed • tendency to lead to prictleal results.
The Lotto CiattcaLt.oi observed that while he agreed
with a podded, ho did not agree with everything which
had fallen from the learned raider. There could be no doubt
that it we. • very grave offence to speak scornfully or in
terms' of ridicule or insult of the Christian religion, and he
hoped it would ever continue to be one punl'hable by the law
of England; but the views of Mr. Lewis went further, for he
would direct the powers of the state to the prosecution not
only of Pales, but also against men like Gibbon and Hume ;
but as had beret the owe with himself gl the time he bald the
aloe of Attorney-Oseeral, the law Allem of the mown had

to consider not oaly the character of the offence, but also
whet her it was F rodent to prosecute it—in fact, whether more
harm than good might not result from the proceedings. Hs
could not but think the defence of his lets colleague Si, John
Coletidge unnecessary, for all who knew him felt convinced
that in the new referred to be acted with the purest and most
honourable motives.

Mr. J. G. Pumunosi ohs/notarised the arguments of
Mr. Lewis as being those most frequently used in the came
of error, for pushed to their legitimate conclusion, they
would notify tho revocation of the Edict of Names. The
doctrine peyote patriot, acted upon in the Court of Chancery,
was a gross uaterptvion; sod, with regard to the "Shelley'
case, although he would not select him u the tutor of his
children, the very last person be would select to fill that
office wee Lord Eldon. He thought Christianity ought to
spurn heinf defended by weapons which were takes from the
arm
Mr. of
n error
BRA. KRELL wmplained that Mr. Lewis had
mode use of negative terms, such an infidelity and heresy,
which were norrelative of something ',centre which he bed
omitted to define. What he oonsidered truth and orthodoxy,
would in Constantionple be held as blesphemy, which the
mete wee under an ohligatiou to reprcas and punish. For his
own pert, he would, se a general principle, severely punish
say one whn would indulge in indecent or ribald attacks
upon the religion of soy sect, no matter bow few might be
he members.

/dr. THOMAS CHAMBER/. the Common-Serjeant, observed
that Mr. Lewis'. views were misuederstood, and, instead of
being at variance with those expressed by the leered berm,
were identical with them.

The Arroansv-Ciarream., in moving the adjournment
of the deco...ion, arid that Mr. Lento did not
intend to give his paper • general application, I
but confined it to the law of England. With
regard to tatters of religion, the duties of the state were of a
completely negative character, as it could neither teach re-
ligion nor enforce morality. With regard to the Toleration
Act, it was inapplicable in practice, and as such had lam
into desuetude, for it related only to those who had been
educated in the Christian religion, a iimitetion which ren-
dered it a nullity in practice. With regard to the
interference of the Court of Chancery in the case
of Shelley's children, then wee • greet deal of
misunderstanding. It was not because their father was an
unbeliever in Chriatianity, but became be violated and re-
fereed to acknowledge the ordinary 111144118 of morality.
The motion having berm agreed to, the thanks of the
society were, on the motion of Baron Bramwell, seconded by
Vice-Chancellor fituut, voted to the Lord Chancellor foe hE
kindneas in attending, and the proceedings terminated.