The Sun.
London, England, 1814-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGFNCE.

COURT OF KING'S nEisicq, Nov. 14.

BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL.

TIDE KING V. GEORGE HOWSTON. •
•
This was an information filed by the ATTORNEY
GENERAL against the -defendant, for'publishing'a
pamplet, entitled " Ecce Homo,- the whole of
which was a composition of blasphemy against the
Christian religion. and its. Divine Author, and a
mockery of the Christiau faith.

Our Readers will recollect, that the late Daniel
Isaac Eaton was 'prosecuted for printings his work,
but on being brought up for judgment, the Court
taking in:o consideration his very infirm state of
health, and under the condition that he would
give•uly the author (which he subsequently did in
the person of the prisoner), no sentence was ever
passed upon him, and lie is now dead.
Ti►e defendant let judgment against himself go
by default, -and this day the ATTORNEY-GENI RAL.
moved for the judgment of the Court against hint.
A short artidavit, .and- the libel itself, was 'read
by the Clerk ;• and, on behalf of the defendant,
lie himself put in. the affidavit, with the view of
mitigatiug the Tinnishment.

Lord .ELLEN3OttouGn, as soon as it was pre-
sented, inquired upon what book did the de-
fendant swear ?" and being answered .'C'npon the
New Testament," his Lordship' signified that an
attestation made by tibe defendant upon a book
by hint denied to bu orthodox, could- 'not in law
be -deemed to be an. oath by hint faken, and con-
sequently it could not be received by.the Court as
an oath ; but he •N wild allow the paper to be read
by way of statement from the prisoner, but DM as
a deposition sworn.

Ttte defendant said, that he had been sworn
l) ore upon the New Testament, and his oath,
so sworn, had been before received.
The Court then desired to know, whether any,
and what species else of oath he could be sworn
by, in order that his :node of faith., if any, should
be accommodated ?

Mr. Bum;GnAm, his Counsel, desired a short
delay, for the purpose of satisfying the Coirrt
upon tli tt point, and communicating with his
clicnt.

Lord ELLENfinuouGH intimated.that, time might
be .allowed him„if the Learned Gentittnan would
signify what species of.faith it-was which the de-
fendant did possess, or whether be.possessed any,
that the Gh:r; might act accordingly. . .
Mr. Bitt•uottAm: expres!i:.!,l himself wholly a
stranger to the faith anti to the person of the de-
fendant, and seemed to complain that the obser-:
yations ‘vhich fell from the Noble and Learned
Judge identified hilt) with the defendant, as if,
because he stood in the situation of his advocate,.
he was the advocate of his offence.

Lord ELLENBOP_UGH said. (in which he was
joined.by the other Judges) that no such .insintia-
im) was either expressed or intended. The cause
then pi-twee:tied, anl

The ATTOIINLY-GENERAL addressed the Court
:in an eloquent appeal to their consciences, as the
conservators of the morals of the people, to mark
the offence of ~vhich the defendant; by his per-
"flitting judgment to go by default, a.dnilised
.self to he guilty of. Ile noticed tat part of the
easc .where the defendant had sail the libel was a
trauslation from the French, published as far hack
as the year 1799, by Boulanger, and commented
upon that circumstance with consideFable severity;
concluding with praying the judgment of their
Lordsitips againSt the defendant.'
Mr. BaouonAm, in his behalf,: also made .a
forcible appeal to their Lordships. The prominent
'parts of his address were' strong.and severe stric-
tures on the conduct of Daniel Isaac Eaton, whom
.he charged with being the thief aggressor, :who,
to avoid the punishment due to himself, contrived
to shift it ti on the shoulders of
.another. The
Learned Gentleman, at the conclusion of his ob-
servation, .again repelled the prejudice that he
.conceived was raised agt(inst him, in consequence
of being the Counsel retained for the defendant,
and he again publicly disavowed all knowledge of
hint or of his faith, except what was thrown upon
bins in the prosecution of his, professional duties,
arising in this cause. „.

Mr. Juitice LE &Axe. adverted "to the heinous-
ness of the offence committed by the defendant,
which he declared to be not only of the most
dau.gerous tendency to the morals of the people,
but of the most destructive effects upon their re-
ligion and their faith, and signified that the Court
.therefore found themselves called upon to mark
it with severe justice, and sentenced him to pay a
fine to the ling of 2001. and to be imprisoned in
his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate for the term of
tivo years, and until that fine be paid.
1-le was immediately taken away by the tipstaff
and his assistants.

THE RING V. NEYLAR.
Mr. SCABLETT shewed cause against the Mandamus in this
case, which was to compel the defendant to tithe upon him
the hffice of Mayor of Liv.erpool. Ttie defendant refused, on
the .ground that by the charter he could decline ; hut the
co," were of- opinion, that he could not without legal ex-
cuse,' and made tii.• Kole absolute fur the Mandamus.
Mr. Tom Moved for a Criminal Information against a
Miw.istrate of the County of Lancaster, of the na:ne of' tl or-
decn, for refusing corruptly to license a poblic house. The
ground stated in the affidavit was, that he had dethred he
would not license the house, because the landlord of the
h )ilsr had refused to allow a private road of his to be' made
public.—Rule IV/4i granted.