The National Register.
London, England, 1820-10-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MONDAY, OCT 23.
TUB KIND V. DAVISON.
The defendant was charged with having sold and
uttered two blasphemous and profane libels, with the
intent of brit Bing the Christian Religion into ridicule
and contempt.
The prosecution was commenced by the Solicitor for
the Suppression of Vice. The defendant was a book-
seller in Duke-street, Smithfield. The libels complain-
ed of were contained in a work sold by the defendant,
called " The Republican," the 9th number of the Ist
volume, and in a work, punished by the defendant,
called " The Deists Magazine."
The publication of the libel was proved by Thomas
Fr:.yley, who was in the employ of the Society for the
Suppression of Vice, and was sent to buy the works in
question at the shop of the defendant.
The defendant said, that being unable to employ a
Solicitor or Counsel in his defence, he hoped the Jury
would show him every indulgence which his situation
could permit. The defendant contended, that he had a
right to write, print, and publish, whatever he thought
proper in defence of his own religion. He charged the
prosecutors with being actuated with the same feelings
in prosecuting him, as those who, in the days of Hem)!
and Mary, tilled the dungeons and lighted up the tires
of Smithfield on account of difference of religious opt-

nine.
'Flic defendant was proceeding much in the same
strain, hut in a tone scarcely audible, when
Judge Best rose, and with some warmth, declared
that he could not sit there and sutler that scandalous
course of defence. fit. should be sorry that any thing
which tile defendant had ssid, should make him exer-
xise that authority with which he was vested, but he
thought it necessary to inform him, that he had not
only the power of punishing him by removal from the
Court, by committal, but fitting him as often as he went
beond the bounds of decency.
rile defendant made some observation in reply, which
we did not fully collect, but we understood him to say,
that he most proceed in his own line of defence.
Judge Rest.—" For that contempt I fine you 201."
The defendant then proceeded to read the whole of
the libel, and to justify it. lie contended that he had
as munch right to publish a Deistical Magazine as others
had to publish Methodist, Unitarian, or Church Ma-
gazines.
The defendant continued to read the publication',
arid concluded his defence by an appeal to the liberality
of the Jury.
The Learned Judge summed up at considerable length,
and commented with considerable isarnuth upon the
publications iu question, which he gave it as his con-
scientious opinion, were most scandalous and scurrilous
libels.
The Jury found the defendant—Guilty,
Mr. Gortley moved that he should be committed.
• Duringbi- defence the defendant sstis fined by the Jake
the s.•verni sums of 401., each making is tilt the first tine of
201., lON. nn arbifru•y power, which we doubt the legality
of, ss hich, if it exists, the danger is self evident.
Tuz KING V. JANE CAR LILL
This defendant was also charged with having sold and
uttered certain seditious and blasphemous labels.
Mr. Gurney cmolticted the prosecution. Otte of the
libels was cootaiLed in No. 9, of the Republican►, and
on which the I. st defendant tail just been found guilty.
The other Id el was ct.otaioal iii a book culled Memoirs
of Thomas Paine, by Sherwin, in which there were
several extracts nunle trout Ate of Reason, for the
purpose of elucidating the r,;:i,!.iutis opinious of the
latter.
The publication w is proved by F. Mayer, an agent of
the Society for the Soppiession of Vice.
Mr. Dal, in defence itf the defendant, admit the li-
bellous nature of die works in question, but said that
thy were first published by Mr. Carlisle, before his im-
prisonment, without even been prost.cuted or noticed.
After that event the defendant ca►efully weeded every
thing from her shop that i-he thought would be offensive
wall the ititentlon La' suppieling her family by the trade
as a regular bookseller. The two imblications in plea
I lon she hail sold under the ides that they were inoffen-
sive, front their not having been noticed. lie thought it
necessary to inform the Jury that the defendant was
a firm behever in the Christian Religion. He then
entered into all aisle awl awouentative speech of more
than t WE, Itll4'h, lit is Itch lie contended that
Coristaanity was not to be served by prosecutions of this
nature. Ile cited the opinions of Tillotson, Lardner,
Lowth, and others, to prose that attack► on the Christian
Religion, like those contilai:mil of, were ra►her beneficial

to it than othe►wise.e called upon the Jury to follow
the example of forbearance set them by the founder of
their religion, and to let the opinions advanced sink
under the weight of their own infamy, and trot furnish
propagators of them with weapons, or exalt them into
martyrs by consigning them to cinigeons.
At the conclusion of •Mr. Hill's address there was
some applause given to the Court, but which was iinme.
diately repressed.
The Jury. after a short consultation; found the defer.
dant guilty.
FROM

Y NIGI

IZETTE.

BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.
P. Thomas, Carpenter's Buildings, London Wall, merchant,
from Oct. 28 to Nov. 11.
BANKRUPTS.
E. Hauxwell, Dewsbury, York, spirit merchant. Solicitors,
Messrs. Fisher and Sudlow, Thavies Inn.
W. Jones, Newport, Monmouthshire, tanner. Sol. Mr. Tho.
mas, Fen Court, Fenchurch Street.

Ulph, Niwwich, bombasin manufacturer. Sois. Mears.
Tilbury and Langdale, Falcon Street, Aldersgate Street.
C. Waldron, Liverpool, merchant. Sub. Messrs. Blackstmk
and flume, Temple.
I'. B. Harris, Hinckley, Leicestershire, hosier. Sole. Messrs
Hall and Willett, Bedford Row.
J. Brinell, Moseley, Laamenire, wool stapler. Sol. Mr.
Sanyo, Chancery Lade.
G. Palmer, Mosterton. Donetshire, miller. Sole. Messrs.
Alexander and Holme, New Inn.
J. Murdock, P. Brown, and W. M'Girr, Nottingham, drapers,
Sols. Messrs. Paterson and Pcile, Old Broad Street.
W. J. Porter, Charing Cross, slopseller. Sol. Mr. Towns.
bend. Staple Inn.
J. Mann, Leeds, common brewer. Sol. Mr. Bettye, Chancery
Lime.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. .
RING V. V. MILLS.--.-PRETENDED RIOT

The indictment preferred by the Solicitor of the
Treasury against Mr. Mills, for a riot in St. James's.
square, came on to be tried on Monday. The case on
the part of the Crown was opened by Mr. Watford ;and
Mr. Arabia addressed the Jury, and briefly stated that
he should be able to prove that the defendant hail, on
the 31st of August, made his appearance in front of the
Queen's house in St. James's Square, and there con-
ducted himself in a riotous and tumultuous manner, so
that the magistrate+ had thought it right to order him to
be taken into custody, he had excited the public to dis.
tnrbance, which created a serious riot, in which many
of the constables were seriously hurt.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to call Vickery, the
police-officer, who swore, that he had been ordered Ly
the Magistrates to station himself at St. James's-square,
previously to the Both of August, and toot on that day
he had observed Mr. Mills haranguitsg the persons
assembled in front of the Queen's house, add that Mr. M.
recommended that an Address should be:presented to
the King, which he read to the personitssembled—
saying, that on the following day he wadi, attend and
prepare the means for signing the Address Nutt accord-
ingly Mr. Mills attended on the following' day in an
open landau, and was beginning to address the assenitily,
wheat Mr. Bennett and Mr. Alleyn, two magistrates,
directed witness to take hint into curody ; he then made
his way through the crowd, and carried off Mr. Mills
on his back ; and Mr. Mills addressed the imply.
saying, " Will you let toe go, or will yoU let me be
taken away? In consequence of which, he was attacked
bybur,fire, or be handred people, who assailed the
witness and the other Bow-street fficers with stones
and brickbats.

• Upon Vickery's moss-examination, he persisted in
saying that Mr. Milli did address the people, and excite
them to rescue hint ; in consequence of which, Mr.
Mills took down in writing the very words which Vick.
cry swore lie had used.)
%Valiant Written, the constable, swore, that he had
endeavoured to stop the carriage in which Mr. Mills was,
ineflectually, and that Mr. Mills had said to him, if lie
knew who he was, be would take him into custody ;
upon which the Chairman inquired what was the name
of the witness? and finding it was the person mentioned
itt the indictment, he asked the witness what Mr. Mills
did to him? to which the witness replied, " he did
nothing to me."
The Chairman (Mr. Const) said," from this et idenee
it is clear that yon obstructed Mr. Mills, instead of that
gentleman obstructing you ; surely this part of the case
must be t,is en up,"
Four other Bow-street Officers were then examined,
who proved nothing material.
Mr. Mills, in his defence, went at very considerable
length into the history of the transaction, and said tie
stood there to defend his principles and his conduct,
and he would fearlessly assert and maintain, that he W.ll
only exercising the right which every jeurneyinan, iu
COIIIIIIOII with himself, and every subject of the realm
puSSeiiied, Of petitioning the Throne at any and all times,
when they Owe to dotty. Mr. M. then related the pat
he had taken publicly relative to the prosecntion
the Queen; that he had given to Mr Mime. 01111",
18th of July last, a petition to be presented to the Ittru,e
of Commons; and that he had subsequently given a
petition to the Duke of
l,einster to present to the house
of Lot de, and which had been presented by the Noble
Duke. He then read the petition, which he presentedto the consideration of the meeting in St. Jam es!
Square.
Tani, said Mr. Mills, is the bead and front of my
offence. He then concluded his address by an animated
appeal to the Jury to dischareo their duties.
He then proceeded to call his witnesses, who satisfe.
tonty proved that Mr. Mills conducted Itim.elf
m the most peaceable manner, and that nut a singlo
word was uttered by him after his arrest, except In des
manding to see the warrant.
When Mr. Mills had called five witnesses, the Court
and Jury expressed their full conviction that the 614%e
could not be supported.
Mr. Arabin said a few words, expressive of his 501-
, prize at the issue, when the Jury
instantly moulted a
verdict of Nor GUILTY.