The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-11-14 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

LON DON,
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1821.

The Court of King's Bench was moved yester-
day upon behalf of MARY Amts CAaLILE, of Fleet-
street, fora new trial in her case, upon the ground
that her defence was lairs:petty interrupted by Mr,
Justice BEST at the trial. This unfortunate young
woman, it will be remembered, was convicted st
the sittings after last Term in Guildhall, fur pub-
lishitig a blasphemous libel, entitled " Its Appen-
dix to the Theological Works of Thomas Paine."
On that occasion she tendered to the Court a paper.
writing, by way of defence, which was read in part
by the Officer of the Court, but as it proceeded it
was found to contain passages so offensive to the re-
ligion, laws, and nistiiiitions of the country, that
it was impossible for :toy Judge to suffer them to
pass without reprehension. Mr. Justice BEST ac-
cordingly censured them strongly, and when at
length the Officer in reading the paper arrived at a
passage which called " the common law" a " com-
mon abate," hr advised her to retire from the Court
with some friend, and to expunge such offensive
expre,sions as those which he had already condemn-
ed, and which, as the Jury had already told her,
must do her more of injury than of service. This
advice was good, but it mss counteracted by that of
some mischievous officious friend, who persuaded
her to persist in urging to the Court the defence as
it was written. The Defendant accordingly, on her
return to the Court, handed a paper to the Judge,
in which she apprised him that her defence was
such as she had already offered, and if an English-
woman were not suffered to urge in her defence
such topics as she conceived to be proper, she must
take the consequences of his judgment. The re-
mainder of the defence, therefore, was not read,
the Judge addressed the Jury, and the Defendant
was found guilty.
It is a pitiable thing to see a young woman thus
forced upon public attention by istrsons who, in-
stead of shielding her from the calamity (as it would
be considered if it arose horn necessity) of braving
the laws of her country, push her from her proper
sphere and station in society solely for.V*4ilieth
lion of their own selfi.h interest, and pa :ie. It
is melancholy to see her placed l)y such arts in a
state of accusation for the wilful publication of a
blasphemous work ; it is still more melancholy and
more distressing to see such a person allowing the
occasion of her trial to be perverted into an oppor-
tunity of offering increased insults to the religion
and laws which had been already so highly offended,
but it would be calamitous indeed if the public ear
were not to be protected against the pernicious con-
sequeoces of such a trick by the judicious firmness
of the presiding Judge.
With respect therefore to the conduct of Mr.
Justice BERT in this particular, we must confess that
we cannot imagine how a Judge in England could
have acted otherwise, consistently with the protec-
tion which he is bound byothe duties of his high
office to extend to the religion and the law of the
country. Could he be justified in listening with
silence to coarse invectives against the truth of the
Christian religion, and to insults indecently offer-
ed to the very system of law under which be wasthen
sitting The mcde he pursued was, in oar opinion,