The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-11-13 00:00:00

MR. CARLILE'S CASE.

Immediately after the Judges hid taken their
•eats this morning— _ .. . .. . .

Mr. Serjeant PEs.s. rose and said, lw would, with
the permission of the Court, move for a criminal
information, which would occupy but a small por-
tion of their Lordships' time. He was anxious to
move for it u soon as pos.ible, because it was im-
portant that the parties implicated should have an
opportunity of answering the chaige in the present
Term.—[We understand the Learned Serjeant
alluded to the case of Miss Maria Glenn, who, it
will be recollected, some time since prosecuted a
family of the name of Bowditch, for conspiring to
carry her from the house of her guardian, for the
purpose of marrying James Bowditch.]
The CHIEF JUSTICE-" Brother Pell, you had
better make your motion later in the slay. There
is, 1 believe, a person attending who has been
brought up in custody in order to move for a hew

Mr. Cartile, who had been brought into Court at
ati early hour, immediately stepped forward.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" You wish, I believe, to
set aside the verdict in your case ?"
Mr. Csrlile—" My Lord, I understood that I
was to have two or three days notice, before I was
called on to appear."
The CHIEF JUITICZ—" Nothing was said about
notice. IVe told you that we would iteav you on
the earliest possible day—und this morning is the
earliest we could select, with convenience to the
Court."

Mr. Carlile" I was not aware of what I was this
morninK brought iuto Court for. I have at affidavit
in my hand relative to my case, shall it be uow
real ?"

The CHIEF JUSTICE—" The usual course is. to
state shortly the ground of your motion. You
can state, in a few words, what it id, and then we
shall see how it is to be disposed of."
Mr. Car The first point id, that the pro.
ceedings iii my trial were irregular."
The CIIIEF JUSTICE-.." Which trial ? The in-
formation ?"

Mr. Carlile—'s Yes, my Lord. It will be in
your Lordship's recollection, that, before the swear-
ing in of the Jury, I entered my protest against the
competency of the Court—"
The CHIEF JUSTICE—"
Mr. Cerlile—" On the ground that there was no
law applicable to the charge of blasphemy."
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" Weil, Sir."
Mr. Carlile—" Consequently, my Lord, that the
charge of blasphemy could not beau offence against
the laws of this country. The record did not
charge that any person was reviled or libelled ; and
I understood, my Lord, that, according to the law
of libel, some person must be defamed to constitute
that offence. It has been laid down, I believe, by
nearly all the legal authorities, that, to constitute
the offenee of libel, it is necessary that some indi-
vidual must be defamed. The record did not charge
that ally person was so defamed, but that a book
wag revilen."
The CHIEF Justice—" Perhaps it may be
convenient for the Court to know what was the
charge, although there can be no difficulty in un-
derstanding the meaning of a charge of blasphemy."
Mr. Carlile--" Another point of objection, my
Lords, is, that during the trial the Court was twice
adjourned."
The Cuter JUSTICV—" 4t your request."
Mr. Cathie—is Yes, my Lord ; and that the

- -
Jury did separate, contrary to my wish—winch, I
believe, my Lords, to be contrary to the law of
this country--and, 1 conceive, to my great injury.
Auother point of great consequence was, that the
Jury were not nominated according to the rule of
this Court, and conformably with the statute iu that
case mode and provided."
Mr. Justice BAYLEY ••• You should then have
challenged them at the time."
Mr. Carlile—" My objections to the Jury are,
that one of them, John Phillips, whose name was
left on the list when reduced, hail died at least one
year before the nomination of the Jury ; and that W.
Alderson. 'mother person on the list when the Jury
was reduced, had never been summoned. I think,
therefore, that 1 was deprived of the benefit of two
si.ecial Jurors. The next point. my Lords, is. that
I was prevented, by the interpuaition of the Chief
Justice, from making that defence which 1 conceived
to be necessary. I was proceeding, my Lords, to ohm
to the Jury, that my intention could not be wicked
and malicious, as it was charged on the record, by
pointing out the moral tendency of what was coin

oi •
Wined in the book, which I had publialied, when I
was imerrunted. I was proceeding to prove that
the publication I had issued did not derwrve the
'charge preferred spinet it, ■nd had not the
immoral tendency which was alleged, hot was
',rearmed. I attempted to appeal to the Jury with
reaped to the truth of the allegations contained in
the work I pobinihed, when your Lordship inter-
fered, and prevented an investigation of the hook
to whieh,they refereed."
The CHIEF JvittcE—r• I certainly stated that
you Could not he permitted to read hook, for the
purpose of *hewing that the Holy Scripture* were
not the word of Clod, or that the doctrine of Chris-

tionity ems not true. 1. did rule that. 1 gave you
an opportunity of reading the whole of the book
you published. because you did lint, on the fist
trial, state your object so fully and plainly as on
the second. 1 did so, because 1 thought it po.-
sible that you might find something in that book.
which would alter the effect and character of
the particular passages selecte..! for prosecu-
tion. Ou that grouoil, and that alone, dui 1
permit the cootrute of that book to be read, 1 pro-
hibited you from no argument that could 'hew you
were not wrong. You reed many extracts from the
winks of very learned writer. on the topic of the
right of free discussion. I remeaked to the Jury.

what cannot be too often repeated, that the writers
of there works were themitetves Christiana, and that
•very one of them came within the observation con-
tainvii in the pamphlet published by you, namely,
that he who believes in Christ is en infidel to
God'."

Mr. Carideo..." I endeavoured to he tour
Lordship that there were various translations of the
Hebrew Bible, and that great difference was ob-
servable in them. I appealed to your Lordship on
the first trial to know, which was considered the

Parliamentary Bible, or, at least, the Bible autho-
rised by the statute law of this country. I could
have *hewn that the existing tratislatiou is not ac-
cording to the original Hebrew."
Mr. Justice 8ur...." Surely, Sir, this is most
improper. In • case of this sort we cannot allow
you to proceed with such a course of defence.
Cases hive been decided in which the Court would

not allow Counsel to state their reasons in justifi-
cation of • work of this description."

Mr. Justice BATLEY—" Christianity is the law
of the land, and the Bible is the foundation of
Christianity. As I understand it, this is a pam-
phlet, not attacking any particular passages to the
Bible, while it allowed its general truth, but attack-
ing and reviling the whole, from begi • gto end.
To defend such a book cannot he allowed in any
Christian Court of Justice, which has no sanction,
except under the Bible." .

Mr. Carlile—" The work in question speaks in
approving terms of many doctrines contained in
the Bible.

Mr. Justice BATLEY—" If it speak of the
whole as an imposture, though it praise particular
parts, it does that which nu Court of Justice in this
country will allow to be defended."
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" The information sets
forth, that the Defendant wickedly and blasphem-
ously designing and intending to vilify that part of
the Holy Bible called the Old Testament published
a certain work, entitled Paite's Age of Beason,
which, amongst others, contained the following
passage.—(Here his Lordship read that passage
from ihe Age of Reason, in which the Old Testa-
ment is designated asi being rather the word of a
demon than the word of Cod.']—So much for the
Old Testament."
Mr. Csrlile was prepared to shew that the
assertions of Mr. Paine were well supported and
warranted, by a reference to the Bible."
Mr. Justice BATLEY—" It was utterly iinpos.
sible, according to any rule of law, that you could
be suffered to proceed with that argument."
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" You could not, at your
trial, he allowed to pursue that course, sod cannot
be permitted to do so now."
Mr. Carlile—', Another point of objection was,
that I had subpanaed seseral eminent and learned
men—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Astrono-
mer Royal, and the High Priest of the Jews—in
order to 'hew that Chi tttt ianity could not be de.
fined. and therefore could not form a part of the
law of the land, but I was not suffered to examine
them."

Mr. Justice BAT Lit Y....." Most assuredly, Sir,
you could not be allowed to take that course."
Mr. Justice HOLROY D" Y•u could not so
proceed. It is not the first time thut a person in
you situation has endeavoured to take such a course,
and has been prevented. Christianity is the law of
the land, and no person can be allowed to dispute
its divinity."
Mr. Justice Brut--" You could not be suffered
to take such a course of argument. In the case uf
Hall, which 1 have just alluded! to, Counsel were
not allowed to give reasons for their opinion on this
subject. It is • rule not to suffer the Christian
religion to be questioned."
Mr. Carlile—" My Lords, permit me to ob-
serve, that Christiattity, as it is received in
this country at the present moment. was, in the
reigns of Henry the Eighth and Queen Mary,
punished with death—and the ground of that pu•
nishinent was said to be the law of the laud. It is
impossible to define Christianity."
The CHIEY JUSTICE" Well, Sir, we will not
allow any person in this Court to deny the
truth of Christianity. We caunot, and will not
suffer ii."
Mr. Cathie-5g Another ground of objection is,
that, contrary 'to the law of this coutstiy, which
makes the Jury Judges of the law as well as of die
l,cl, your Lordship addressed observations to them
which were extra judicial. After th► July had re.
tired for some time, they requested that the two sta.
totes to which 1 had referred should be produced.
Your Lordship hesitated to do so, and sent for the
Jury back into Court. You then addressed diem
fur several animus' greatly to my disadvantage."
Mr. Justice BAT LEY ••48 It is the bounden duty
of the Judge to explain points of fate to the Jury.
But, if 3ou can point out any thing objectiobable
in my Lord's address, the Court will bear aud de-
cide on it."
The CHIEF JUSTICIC" 1 will explain this meta
ter. The 9th and lOth of William 11$. was al-
luded to. It is entitled, sAu Act to prevent bleu.
phewy and irreligion.' It rimmed. that any per-
*on denying the Trinity, or declaring that there
were more Gods than one, or impugning the truth

of the Holy Scripture,. slinithi be incapable of en-
joying boy office or dignity under the Crown. Asa
Act was atilnaloently imbed in the 53d year of h
Majerty, which esetnptpd prrs•ans front the operat ttttt
of tilt. roomer statute. so far as relate. In their
ing the doctrine of the T y. The Orlendai.t,
wvrtal inotancer, contended that the Act i.f ti

. :

93 I of the King was a virtual repeal of the
of she statute of and permitted ar y
person, or set of persons, to deny the trolls of Chili',
tionUy altogether. I savers! limes stated. its 'tivr
course of the trial. that the slew statute had no SOC
eti,ct. In * 1111 l ruing tip I intended to have notice.t
tips part of the Defeatism's address, but it escope.t
me. When the Jury sent for the two Acts of linr4
lorment I &fired them to
conic into Court. I wive

them my opinion on the effect and construction s f
the stistsites, and placed them in the binds of the
Foreman of the Jury."
Mr. Justice BATLISY.J.." I have not the I.s-t
doubt but my Lord slid that which was perferity
correct. The 5341 of the King. I have no hr-04.
tton in siiving, is not a gener..l repent of the t 0... s
Act, and leaves the common lass just us it stool
before."

3lr. Justice liErc—" The Act of k
altogether repealed. Thinie who were more ui .
mediately affected by it, mtpt, since the pas.iiii
the late statute, make a declaration that they e,e
Christians."

Mr. Carlile—" The object of my argument we. to
prove that tie doctrines of Christianity .re fou,iled
on s belief in the Triiiity—.but this Act !sweet,
from molestation those who impugn that doctrine.
Impugn is perhaps the strongest word could be
selected."

The CUTE? JUSTICE—" My exposition of IN it
Act has been fully given. My Learned B,,,thtss
may oppose it, hut I will not hear it argued by
you."
Mr. Justice HOLROTD—Ii This is an iliforma.
lion founded on the common law."

51r.Justice BAT I.EY.—•I Any person reading 11 e
9th and 10111 of and the recent townie,
can put no other construction on them than whit
has been laid down by my Lord. The former
provides, that those who deity any person or the
Holy Tr' yto he God—or who shall declare that
there are more Gods than one—or deny the I poly
Scriptures to be true—or the Christian religion to
be of Divine authority—shall be subject tow car.
tain punishment. The subaiequent statute Its es
untouched that part of the Act of Willtarn whic't
provides, 11)41 if ally person shall, by worth or
writing, deny the Christian religion to be trio-, or
that the Holy Scriptures of the Oil and Ni w
Testament are of Divine authority, he shall be
liable to certain penalties."
Mr. Cdrlile—" 1 wish to make an observation out
that statute."

Mr. Justice BATLEY—" You cannot. because
no doubt can be entertained as to its coustruc-
lion."

Mr. Justice HoLitoYD—" If the whole of the
statute of William were done away, the comuo
law would be still in force."
Mr. Justice Ilnyr-61 It never was before dreamt
of, it could not be supposed, that the L. gi-latine
would have passed this at stute.if they imagined that
it granted a general liberty to revile and dr.
fame the Christian religion. Their object in pass-
ing this law is very clear. Theta are sects f
men who believe Jesus Christ to be the ,it
of God, but who do nut believe parts of
the Scriptures--and therefore this statute *a♦
passed to bring them within the scope of the T„le►-
ation Act. But the Toleration Act. arid the other
statutes referred to, all constitute one body of
decidedly recognising the truth of Christiandy.
How, therefore, it was possible that any man should
be so intoxicated as to imagine that, alien rebilme,
the Christian Religion, he was sheltered under .1
law which absolutely required a belief in the but:,
of the word of God, I can hardly conceive."
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" Have you any thing
more to offer ?"
Mr. Cathie I hope the Court will allow me
to make another observation ?"
The CHIEF JUSTICE—" Certainly the (*tont
will not allow you, or any other man, to argue that
the Christian religion is not part of the law of the
laud, and that it is not an offence against the law
to revile and defame it."
Mr. Carlile--fi I wish to draw the attention of
the Court to the title if the Act of the 53J of the
King—and to ask, how Christianity can he the law
of the land, when that Act protects persons who
impugn a part of it ?"
Mr. Justice BATLEY—" Ore part of it only—
the doctrine of the Trinity."
Mr. Carble—" That is all."
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—" We cannot allow you to
justify such a publication as that for the sale of
which you have been found guilty. is there soy
topic which you Clllll urge in proof of the innocence
of your intention, or your ignorance of the publi-
cation ?"

Mr. Carliles—co The only parts of the affidas it on
which your Lordship will allow me to address the
Court, are, that the Jury were suffered to Briont.le,
contrary to my wish, and that they were not legally
nominated."
Mr. Justice BAIL Y—" If that be all, the
Court will deliver their opinion."
The Office JUSTICILM You
points—we have heard your allei
already in possessiou of these t.
there any other?"
Mr. Carlile—co I believe you have
of the Jury being called back ?"
The Cute, Justice—" Certain!,
Mr. Caride-46 These Oita are
my affidavit, but t wi►h to make
vatiou. It must be strongly im
minds of your Lord hips, that the
duced into this Court was one quite
defence bete."
The ('stir Justice—" Now,
iug back to hat topic which we
'sow will Ise suffered iu this Court
self by denying the truth of the'
You ace out correct in stating that
afforded no opportunity of defence
You might base chews. that you hat
the work, or that you had published
for fliese.nright be an imioceut
Magistrate fur Matinee. Yon .
allowed that line of defence which
for you to adopt—and it is not by

•
have stated thme
rgations. We ale
two objection.; is
have taken a note
•
r
I
shay." •
e the only points in
one slight antra
impressed on the
the question Mir. i'+
uite inadmissible 4 f
P, Sir, you are com-
e cannot hear. Nu
ift to defend him•
Christian rehKisn
list the inforinatuni
ace iu this Court.
had not publish. d
bed it iuuucenily—
publication, to a
certainly were not
liCh it was wilawtnl
by au obstimste per-

turbine* that any person will be aufFered to over-
vonte the ertabitihed rule of the Court."
Mr. C.irlite....tt• I •ft,el it my duty to appeal
'o a higher tritionol."
The Cutts JciTtcc--'s •Very well, Sir; have
ytu4 any thing elre to offer ?" •
Mr. Crrille--" No, my Lord."
After a short e.mference with his Learned Oro-

Cnitv JUSTICE said—" The grounds sup
gi•steil by the Defendant, 'namely, that one of the
oemois on the list of jurors was dead a year before
•he nnnunntion, :laud that soother, though on the
' tt. was not sornmooed to attend, afford no cause
r,, selling the verdict aside. As to the point, that
r Jilry had separated without the Defendant's
..onsotit, it hut lately been decided, that Poch con-
scot is lint nec ..... y. Therefore the Defendant
iiatist he remanded, and brought up again fur
.;•."-igmt tit."
11r. Justice BATLEY—" I have no donlst what-
ever oil uoy one of the point, raised and suggested
for the coirodersti of this Court. As to the first
pc•••itiiid. that there is no law against blespherny,
cannot, fur a moment,. he tolerated—because
i.',,,phemy is s high clime, being, by its operation,
c/ liable of unsettling the minds of the community—
v od it has been held, over and over again, that it is an
effelice punishable by law. If it acre not a' rime,
P!r parties who, from time to time, had been con-
v•cteil of it, had an opportunity to take the opinion
o' a higher Court—of the High Court of Parlia-
ment—on the subject. During the trial it appears
the Court was twice adjourned. Now I take
iftat, in many instance', it is essential, that an ad-
j •oroinesit should take place. It would be, hard,
indeed. if the Jury were obliged to come to an ono
mediate decision, after undergoing labour which
no human constitution could, with safety endure—
sod here, it must be observed, the adjoorionent
took place at the request of the Defendant. An-
other ground is, that the Jury separated without the
Defendant's consent. I have no hesitation in say-
ler, and I elated the same opinion in the case of
7.Ae King and Woolf, that the Jury had a right
to separate and go to their respective homes. • lf,
ider particular circumstances, the Court considered
Is receosory they should be kept together, the Jury
would of course be bound to obey that order. But,
conerslly speaking, each member of the Jog has a
right to go to his own home and bed, in order that
IT may not eon the risk to which he would be ex-
posed, by being at a distance from his residence,
and not receiving that accommodation which he
seas used to. Another objection is, that of these
..htrymen, redoreol from 48 to 24, one was deed.
•i his, however, farms no ground for a new trial. Jn
tri:toy imitonces stitch may he the case. The Jury
crock, according to Act of Parliament, in a
-ok, formed from time to time by the Sheriff, and
transmitted to the officer of this Court. That
.Acer has no memos of knowing what persons are
o!iv-, and what are dead. Toe Jury are struck,
subject to that inconvenience—at the moment
some of these may not be alive. Another objec-
tion is, that one of the Jura men was not summoned.
If . there were any neglect hi the officer, fur not it.
sitrifig the summons. he was liable to punishment
for it—and if a case were made out, the Court
would punish him. On the other points, Igave
my opinion, when the ease was its programs. With
ryspott to the objection founded on the two Acts of
Parliament, 1 have not a particle of doubt. •It is
tap opinion, my most decided opiuiou, that it cannot
-b.4 supported."

Justice llotacriro—" I am of opinion that
the (.I).p.ctions now made are not good in law. That
lAaspliemy it punishable by the common law, has
an clearly established, in the lime of my Lord
tin'e, when Chief Justice of this Court, end in the
1.0.. King** tune, that the Judges would not even
s.,ffrr it to be debated, whether it was not an offence
portialiable, by law, in the temporal Courts. With
rcspect to the Jury having separated. that point I
think has been completely decided, not only lately.
'hat in gay Lord Hale's time. In his Treatise on
tiie Pleas of the Crown. a case is recorded, where a
.I,3rynosa was absent fur some time, arid n new Jury
Fail been sworn, still the verdict of the former was
token. although the Juryman who absented himself
was subjected to a fine. I think there are two can's
of ;hi. kind. With respect to one of the Jurymen
being dead. and another not summoned, it is an
abjection that should be taken at the pricking of
tf:e Jury, or previous to the Jury being sworn. It
iv ton late to make that objection now. It is easy
to see how justice might be evaded, if it were ad-
mitted, by the corrupt conduct of an ofilcer.—
A irhongh the circumstance might warrant the
p.iiciihinent of the officer for neglect. It affords no
reason for setting aside the verdict."
Justice Sear—" One of the evils a • g
from the practice of persons defending themselves,
hatred of haunting their causes to Gentlemen of
the Isar, is, that this Court is obliged to listen to
a`:sordities that would disgrace the lowest under-
startling in the country. The Defendant has
stated, that he would not be allowed to defend his
c.ruse as he wished—but it is, not a defence to ques-
t ot• the purity or the wisdom of the law. as it ex.
fats. That is fur the consideration of another tri-
Lanai. and cannot be adduced as a defence here.
Blespliemy. it has long beet, decided. is sit offence
agaitert the law. Can it then he permitted for a
in a!, to justify the disseminatiiiii of blasphemy?
It might as well he raid, vibes, a man commits
mu-der, ' I admit the murder—but suffer me to
address the Jury. and I will chew that it was a woe-
re:J*lle act.' I. therefore, em clear, that the
cie.viie pursued by the Defendant. so far from 1...-
airtime his offence, hag greatly aggravated it ; for tt
e:Lesiot be donbted but that the individual, when
thus proceeding, must have known that he had in •
feet tio good ground of defence. • With respect to
it r separation of'the Jury, we have, within a Term
or too, decided on that point—and we cannot he
expected capriciously to overturn an opinion which
have solemnly and deliberately promulged.
With respect to the absence of one of the Juryineo.
It is a circumstance we Cannot interfere with. and
which cannot vitiate the verdict—because, if it did,
it would have the effect of placing justice under the
ew t•ol of the lowest of her ministers. and thus the
goiliy alight he suffered to .'.cape. These are the
.orij poims stated by the Dirlesidant. sad they we
too absurd to be eutertomed."-

;Clllit Jl4l'lol-.o' Let the Dirfesiont be

►emended, to be broneht np to receive the judg-
ment of the Court on Tuesday next.

SMITH V. PARDMORC.

nitS was an action on the case for a malicious
information, preferred. before a Magistrate by the
Defendant egainit the PJaintilf. It nsa tried at
the last Aisises at Shrewsbury, where a verdict was
found for the Plaintiff—Damages 1501.
Mr. PLAIISON now -moved fur a rule to chew
Vitale why the verdict should not he ret aside, and
a new trial granted,. under the following circum-
stances :

When the cause of action arose, and for some fine
previous, the Plaintiff was Steward to Lord Staf-
ford, at ass estate of his Lordship, iu Shrewshitry,
and in that capacity superintended some improve-
silents riirs3ini: on therein. He employed the De-
fendant, who was e farmer in the neighbourhood,
to cart timber, ours lie continued to du so during
two yeareand upwards, receiving within that period
several sums of money from time to times.' ar•cuunt.
Whets the work to be done by the Defendant
was 'completed, he claimed • balance, which lie
considered to be die to bins. On a comparison /if
their amnia% the Plaintiff alleged that the ba-
lance was against the Defendant—producing its
►upport of his assertion. • anmber of receipts
for money received, . signed by the Defendant,
The Defendant denied two of these, one fur El.
the other for 25/.. to be in his hand-writing, and
charged the Pletntilf wish forging them. Ile after-
ward, coneulteffhis protessional adviser, Mr. Hob-
ler, who recommended Kizi to go before a Magis-
trate and lodge informations against Mr. Smith.
He accordingly lodged the issfucsnations, but slid
not follow up this step with any other, and nothing
was done in consequence of them. The Plaintiff
the.' brought his action, and it stood for,trial at the
last Assizes. The Defendant, however, sonic time
previous, addseseed a letter to the Plaintiff's soli-
citor, • Mr. Fisher. apprising him that Mr. Hobler
had changed Ilia place of abode, that he was igno-
rant of his then residence, and that as his evidence
on the trial was material to his defence, lie intended
to move the Court on that ground to have the trial
postponed. Mr. Fisher replied to the letter, and
promised, the: if the Defendant would suffer the
trial to go on at the period appointed, the evidence
to be given by Mr. nobler should be adinitted ou
the opposite side as proved. The Defendant cou-
sented, and the trial went on, but Mr. Fisher refus-
ed to allow Mr. Holder's evidence to be taken fur
granted. The Learned Con mel contended, that suffi-
cient grounds appeared to induce the Court to grant
the rule; that his client hail been deprived of the
brink of a material witness, by fraudulent ad-
vantage taken by the opposite party.
Mr. Justice BAYI,EY asked what Mr. nobler was
to prove ?

Air. PEA BISON replied, a very material fact. via.
that the I.),feudsot haul been induced to lodge the
information s before the Magi•tratr by his advice,
and nut itkluenced by any nigliciono intention.
The coalitional rule was granted.
The Judges rope at two o'clock to proceed to the
Court of 'Exchequer.