The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-07 00:00:00

THE BIBLE BURNING CASE.

DUBLIN, Dec. s.—The Commission of Oyer and Ter-
miner was opened to-day by the Right Hon. Mr. Justice
Crampton, and the Right Hon. Mr. Baron Greene, with
the usual formalities; and as the name of the Rev.
Vladimir Petcherine, Redemptorist, appeared in the
calendar for trial on the charge of Bible burning at
Kingstown, a good deal of interest was felt by the pub-
lic in the proceedings, and the Court-howe in Green-
street Wfli densely crowded from an early hour in the
morning.

The Grand Juries having been sworn,
Mr. Justice Craropton addressed the County Grand
Jury on the above subject in the following terms :
Mr, Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of
the County of Dublin,--The calendar of county of-
fences is small in point of number, and, and, with one
exception, does not appear to show any case of an un-
usual or extraordivary character. There is, however,
one case appearing on the face of the calendar on which
I feel it my duty to make to you some preliminary ob-
' servations—l allude to the case of a bill which will be
sent before you, charging certain individuals with a
transaction of a very painful, profane, and, I might add,
blasphemous character. The case to which I allude is a
case in which certain individuals are charged with de•
vising and intending to bring the Holy Scriptures of
God—in the authorised version, as it is called—into
hatred and contempt among the people of this kingdom,
and in purseance of that intention profanely and blasphe-
mously, in the presence of divers of her Majesty's sub-
jects, with a view to the utser destruction of a Bible—a
printed copy of a Bible in the English language, and in
the authorised version—cast, and procured it to be cast
and thrown into the fire, whereby that copy was
burned and destroyed. Gentlemen of the jury, there
can be no doubt that if a transaction of this description be
established in evidence before you, that the individuals
charged are guilty of a serious offence. Teat the Chris-
tian religion is part of the law of England, and therefore
of Ireland, is a well-known principle. The doctrine is
established by numerous cases and authorities from the
earliest period to the present time. I shall refer to two
only ef those authorities— one an early case, and the
other a late one. The early case is that of the " King v.
Wolsden," in 21 Strange's reports. The defendant there
had been convicted on an information for blasphemous
discourses on the miracles of our Saviour ; and he at-
tempted then to move in arrest of judgment ; and the
Court of Qeeen's Bench in England, referring to several
cases which bad been decided, declared that they would
not suffer it to be debated " whether to write against
Christianity in general was not an offence punishable in
the temporal courts of common law"—they would not
even suffer it to be debated. They desired, however,
that it might be taken notice of that they laid their stress
on the word "general"—that they did not intend to in-
clude disputes and differences between learned men on
particular points. A very rational distinction, no doubt,
and sound judgment, which has since been followed. The
late case to which I refer is the case of the " King v.
Wadsly," in Barnewall and Cresswell's reports. There
the publication was one impugning the authenticity of
the Scriptures, and stating thatour Saviour Jesus Christ
was an impostor, and that was held to be a libel ; and
Chief Justice Abbott, afterwards Lord Tenterden, in an-
swer to a question from the jury, stated that a work
speaking of Christianity in the language of the publica-
tion was a libel, Christianity being part of the law of
the land. The other judges concurred with the Chief
Justice, and Judge Best, afterwards the Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas in England, added " that the pub-
lication was a libel by the common law, and the Legis-
lature never had altered that law, nor can it ever be so
done," said he, "while the Christian religion is consi-
dered to be the basis of that law." We may thank God
that no legislature has ever interfered up to this time
with that great principle—that the Holy Scriptures of
God are the basis and foundation of the common law of
this free land. It must, however, be here understood
that the Christianity which happily forms the basis of
our common law is not of sectarian or denominational
character, but is a general and common Christianity, in
which ad nrofesnn,g Christians that ackeo -sledge the
Divine character and ini.eiion of our Lord Jesus Christ
join. The foundation of this general or common Chris-
tianity is the revealed Word of God—the Holy Scrip-
tures; and as it is an offence against God and religion,
and a misdemeanour at common law, to write or to
speak blasphemy against the Almiehty, denying His
being, His providence or character, or to use contume-
lious reproach on cur Saviour Jesus Christ, so all persons
scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, or wilfully exposing
the Bible to contempt or ridicule, are guilty of an of-
fence punishable at common law by fine and imprison-
ment. It matters not, allow me to say, in this point of
view, whether the hook held up to public scorn—if such
le the fact—be a Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English
Bib'e —whether it be the authorised version—as the
version of the Church of England is commonly called,
or the Douay version, or any other translation, if the
object be to hold up the volume to public execration. The
result is the same in point of law. The parties guilty of
such profane scoffing of God's Holy Word are guilty ofan
indictable offence—a misdemeanour at common law,
I need not speak to men of your knowledge of the inde-
cency and sinfulness of such profaneness as I have de-
scribed. But sitting here as a judge to interpret and
administer the law, and being so far a guardian of the
laws and constitution of the realm, I cannot but admire
the wisdom of the principle to which I have referred, and
observe what mischievous consequences would result from
suffering those principles to be destroyed or impugned. I
would say, using the words of the great and good Lord
Hale, that " to say religion is a cheat is to dissolve
all those obligations whereby our civil rights are pre-
served. Christianity is parcel of the laws of England,
ane. therof re to reproach the Christian religion (and
that we all know is to be found in the Bible) is to speak
in subversion of the law itself." For consider this— in
this country the administration of justice, civil and cri-
minal, is based upon the truths of the Christian reli-
gion, and on the reverence in which the Holy Scriptures
or the Word of God is held. Every witness in every
cause, in this and every other court, with some statut-
able exceptions, is solemnly sworn on the Holy Gospels
of God to tell the truth in his evidence. Every petty
jury is sworn in like manner to fled a true verdict ac-
cording to the evidence before them. Every grand jury
is likewise sworn on the same holy book to find and pre-
sent, according to the truth, without fear, favour, •or
affection. And I may add, that there are few public
offices in the realm from that filled by our gra-
cious Sovereign herself, down to that occupied
by the humblest bailiff or attendant in the courts—
whose duties are nut secured and fortified by the
sanction of an oath taken on that holy book. But,
gentlemen, if the veneration of the people for that sacred
book on which our witnesses, officers, and juries are
sworn—if that veneration be removed, and contempt
and hatred for the word of God is substituted for it, then
what becomes of the sanctity of an oath ? The sacred
obligation is at once dissolved, the form becomes a mere
mockery, and the whole system of our judicature is sub-
verted. It will happen, no doubt, gentlemen of the
jury, that ignorant and bigotted persons—and those
whom I may call trading politicians—may in this re-
spect make distinctions between the authorised version
of the Bible ate' that which is sanctioned by the heads
f the Roman Catholic Church—and while they profess
to venerate the one they hold up the other to public
scorn and contempt ; but such distinctions are as weak
as they are wicked. Errors there are in perhaps every
translation—for what is there with which the hand of
man ise mingled that is free from the taint of human in-
firmity ? Learned men and theologians of different
schools may contend for the superior fidelity of their
own translation, while they detect the errors of other
versions, but every honest and well•informed Christian
must know, that the different versions of the Bible—dif-
fering as they do in minor and less important matters—
are all still the word of God. e, The great truths of the
Christian faith are iu ail, and each contains in substance
the same fundamental truths of Christian doctrine.
While, then, the enlightened Christians will in, those im-
portant matters pursue their own conscientious convic-
tions, giving no unnecssary offence to others, let the
ignorant, the fanatic, and turbulent, of whatsoever deno-
mination they may be, take warning, and learn that
whosoever will dare publicly to vilify and dishonour the
Bible, whether the volume so abused be the Douay, or
the authorised version of the Established Church, such
persons equally dishonour Almighty God, and commit a
serious offence against the law of the land, and for
which they are punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Let us hope that the period of intolerance, which has
had a long reign, is fast passing away, and that mutual
forbearance and Christian charity will take its place, and
be once more the badge and characteristic of the true
believer. With these observations, gentlemen, this case
comes before you as any other. You will examine the
witnesses that will be produced before you on the part
of the crown. You will inquire, first, was there such a
public, wilful burning of the Bible or New Testament as
is alleged in the bill of indictment which will go up be-
fore you'? And, secondly, you will inquire whether the
parties charged, and who traverse this, were parties to,
or privy to, this transaction, by commanding, by aiding,
by sustaining, or countenancing the act ? And, thirdly,
you will inquire, was it intended thereby to hold up the
said copy to scorn ? If you are satisfied by the evidence
that there was such a public burning of the Book of God,
and the defendants were parties or privy to the act,
thereby intending to hold up the holy book to scorn and
contempt and it would certainly be difficult to discover
any other intention in such an unseemly action—then
you shall find the bills, and send the traversers to trial
before a netty jury. If, on the other hand, yea should
not be so satisfied, you shall then ignore the bills. Gen-
tlemen, of the jury, I have now laid before you what
occurs to me and my learned brother to be important to
lay down as the principle by which your finding shall
be guided on the present occasion ; not that I for one
moment suppose that you are ignorant of those prin-
ciples, or that you would act on any other than those
to which I have referred, but because I think it
publicly useful that all persons of all parties and deno-
minations should be led to the consideration of those
principles, and should learn and know that any viola-
tion of that honour and reverence in which the Holy
Scriptures in this country have been held, and shotild
be held, is not only a dishonour of Almighty God, but
is what many persons may not know, a violation of the
law of the land, for which they may be made answer-
able before a jury of their country. I shall say nothing
further.

The grand jury then retired, and at a subsequent hour
returned into court with true bills of indictment against
Father Patcherine and John Hamilton.
Both traversers then appe,red at the bar, and having
pleaded " Net guilty," the trial was fixed for Friday.

We Lave had a beautiful seed time, says the Eastern
Counties Herald, and, excepting patches of land from
which the turnips are not yet cleared, the work may be
considered as nearly completed. Early sown wheat has
come up with a beautiful blade, and the aspect is all
that cau be desired.