The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-09 00:00:00

THE sUN, LONDoN, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9. 1840.

---se--
lis *lll,llO ea.hibilion, which is looked forward t
owit::
Fo hatch interest, by the farmers in every
ie motion in this case upon the return to the writ of
part of England,
RATES.
-n
and else by a :peat umber of the inhabitants of the me- , Cltreeelia , cone eeneed last evening ad the Horse Bazaar, , ''
Kirtgw erect, 'Pastrpau-square. The private view teak place "ea ti as corpus granted by his Lordship for the disch ege
dayitfoirs opened for o'' : gr. Wm. Baines, of Leicester, from custody, was ap-
at I ell .hpast eee4a ,teeto4,
.aiia , this
such an ex. dated specially for to-day.
the 'tuhlica. The bdilding is well adapted
bib it on. It is large and well ventilated, and in the even- Mr. Hill and Mr. Mellor appeared on behalf of the ap-
tof it, which plication ; and Mr. Wigwam and Mr. Wightman opposed
ing;_g.ae-).amps are lighted up in every
en able'the visitors to inspect the cattle asparconveniently a, i the
The
b art ,attended by two equerries and some friends, s, II:: be
Mr filed,
. HILL said it now became his duty to move that
4., sod the proprietor of the bazaar by a visit. It app
oars Win. Baines be discharged, the return to the writ not
short
lit s Royal Highness had intimated his intention only a
,thawing to the Court sufficient grounds for his further de-
If 1111 C before his arrival, but, nevertheless, every thing was in
• order, and, from all accounts he was highly el
d, as he tentior.. He bad had occasion, on moving for the writ
could hardly fail to be, with an, exhibition -whsi..c. , can be on A termer day, to bring before the Court one of the
ope.rands only on which he moved for the discharge
seen only in one part of the. world. _ E'arl rienT. washi ur Mr. Baines; and in making the present motion he
present, and no doubt had great Bello h,t in cenductingh s Si ould follow in a great measure the course which had been
Royal Highness from one magnificent animal to ancit
tehre,
' edopted in the Court of Queen's Bench ; but he would first
not forgetting to point out two of his own, perhapsand
a Dur. subtnit to his Lordship that no jurisdiction appeared upon
.nest in collection. These area Durhamf
20ox
• barn cow, one of wieic',a gained a prise of guineas and the return to the writ to justify the Ecclesiastical Court to
are beautifully 'come to the termination of the suit, so as to call upon Mr.
the other a prize of 30 guineas. Theyßabies to pay the rate and costs. The significavit was set
formed, of a white, colour, mixed with a little brown, and
forth in the writ, and was in substance that Wm. Baines
not overgrown with fat. Mr. Potterton, a well know-,i
brad been duly pronounced guilty of contempt for not pay-
gentleman far, ater, near Stow, in Northamptonshire, a s 3
;.ne• to the proctors of Jolly and Berridge, the Churchwar-
exhibited a heifer of the first class, which gained
dens of St. Martin's, Leicester, 21. 55., rated and assessed
prize of 26 guineas. The Duke of Richmond
land t',:,. '
Duke of Neer-folk exhibited some beautiful Soutadowr s, ; upon him, not saying of what nature the rate was, and also
the sum of 1251. 3s. of lawful money, being the amount of
send some 'o!aieders, whose names we have not
and
for,
coats taxed, and moderated under a monition of theArches'
'produced pigs of great beauty, fat, and sleek,
.s „pv,
and, at eight o'clock, comfortably lodged in their cribs,' Court. So that it appeared there was brought by letters
of request from the Bishop of Lincoln to the Arches'
snoring as respectably as any old Alderman after a . dinner
in the Egyptian Hall. We have only room to st ate that Court a ease of subtraction of Church-rates, where the
the colleceion is one of the best ever exhibited, ,and that Churchwardens of St. Martin's, Leicester were the parties
'i as gentle-w,,e mnts are so good that ladies as weldid not
the suit against Mr. Baines. Mr. Baines
the arrare
men will. 'be deelighted to see it. not appear to a decree issued, calling upon him
to see proceedings *in the cause, and after this a
monition issued calling upon him to pay a rate as-
sessed upon him, and the costs. That would be
found to be a correct abstract of the significavit, and upon
1 it several points would arise showing that no jurisdiction had
been set forth. On the previous occasion he had submitted
that as the Court Christian could only use the powers con.
fined to the Church, when it was necessary to force obe-
dience by the secular arm, matter must be shown to the
Court to which the application was made to justify the
Queen's Judges in exercising not the power of the Eccle-
siastical Court, which was spent, and found inoperative, its
being inoperative being the ground why the parties had
come to that Court ; it must be shown that proper steps
had been taken, and that the Ecclesiastical Court had
taken jurisdiction over a proper cause, and that all had been
regular up to that point where the contumacy had taken place,
and which they called upon the Court to assist them
in punishing. In the first place it appeared that the
present, was a case of subtraction of Church-rates ; now
be would suppose that that was a sufficient description of
the cause, but then it became necessary to see whether
the non-obedience was with respect to a rate over which
the Court had jurisdiction. Now the rate was described
on the significavit as a rate assessed upon Mr.
Baines, that was the only description that was
given of it, and supposing that he conceded for a mo-
ment that the description of the cause was correct,
all that the Court knew was that that cause being in
the Ecclesiastical Court, a monition had issued
calling upon Mr. Baines to pay a sum rated upon him ;
but how, he would ask, did it appear that the sum rated
upon him was the 51.1 m which was the amount of the
Church rate for which the cause was brought into Court?
Where. he would ask, were the words connecting the rate
with the Church-rate, the subtraction of which was the
matter of the cause? The proper way to try that ques-
tion was this—supposing the Ecclesiastical Court bad
got possession of the cause, because it was for Church-
rate, and supposing they had chosen to issue a
monition for a former Church-rate, dr with regard
to other rates which they supposed related to
ecclesiastical matters, it would not be enough to say the
probabilities were the Ecclesiastical Court would confine
it-elf within its authority because the Court was asked to
give effect to these proceedings, and the Court should say
they had confined themselves within that authority. The
Ecclesiastical Cotnts had always been considered tribunals
which it was necessary to keep strictly within their juris-
diction, and an instance of this was shown in the case of
the King v. Hill, to 2d Salkell. In the present instance
there were many rates over which the Ecclesiastical Court
had no control at all. In fact, it had jurisdiction over only
one rate, viz., Church-rates. His first objection therefore was
that it did not appear that the Court had jurisdiction,
and his second objection was, that it did not appear that
any decree had ever bsen made in the cause. The sig-
nicavit stated a eitation,• it stated the issuing of
tee decree to the proceedings, and it went on to
sty, that the cause was pending for judgment.
Then it passed over the decree and only spoke of
of a monition to pay certain rates. Now, if that was only
aa interlocutory proceeding, the Court had no right to look
at it; if it was a final proceeding it ought to have been
founded upon a decree. The Courts had been very care
fel indeed in seeing, even when sufficient was stated upon
the face of the instrument, if it was properly connected
together ; they had been careful to see that tile connection
did exist before they connected one part of the instrument
with another, and, as an instance of that, there was
Na,h's case, in 4th Barnwell and Alderson, 295.
Now what was thciu in the present case to con-
nect the rate with the cause? If the signifies-
‘it had been " that he was rated anti assessed in the
,Church-rata hereinafter mentioned," there would have
been certain connecting words; but, in the present in-
stance, they were left entirely separate, and the Court
had no means of knowing that the monition issued was for
the purpose of compelling that particular rate over which the
Court had jurisdiction. Many other cases might be cited upon
this point, among them were the King v. Dobel, 4 Barn-
well and Alderson, 246, and Snowden's ease in the same
Lek, 294. In those cases it was laid down that the
greatest certainty was necessary in cases like the present.
leg principle had been much enforced; also iii the case
of Brunier v. Halcomb in the Court of Queen's Bench.
There the Speaker of the blouse of Ccmmons issued his
certificate for the payment of the costs of an election pe-
tition by Mr. Halcomb. Mr. 1-11 comb resisted it on the
ground that the Committee ought not to have been
formed, and the Court then thought it tieeessary for them
to go into the matters of the certificate to see
whether it ought to be used, and finding it ought not,
they would not enforce it. The other side said
it was matter solely for Parliament and the Court
could not inquire into it, but the Court in answer to that
said they were called upon to enforce tlac certi-
ficate of the Speaker, and it was their duty to
see whether that which they were called upon to
enforce was founded in law and in fact ; and the
came doctrine was confirmed in the Court of Common
Pleas, in the case of Rankin v. Dundas. Then it was
said that Mr. Baines, who bad never appeared, had' been
served with a decree to see proceedings, and that
it was accompanied by the usual intimation. Now,
supposing the Court had the right to compel Mr. Baines
to go through the suit, it was necessary, surely, that the
Court should know what the intimation was ; for how
could his Lordship, sitting there, know what was the usual
intimation in the Ecclesiastical Court ? This very subject
had been before the Court in the case of " The King v.
Mahey. Tnere the defendant had been sentenced to do
penance—that penance was not set forth. it was the usual
penance ; and than the Court held that they could not
take notice of what the usual penance was. It was now
proper that he should bring before the Court the mode in
which the present cause had been dealt with in the
Court of Queen's Bench. With regard to the objec-
tion he had now urged, the ,Court of Queen's Bench
thought the description of subtraction of Church-rates
i:r.ts sufficient, but the Court passed by the point at which
he had been labouring, namely, that admitting that the
subtraction of Church-rates was a sufficient description of
the cause, the place where the link was wanting was this
—it did not appear that the rate which Mr. Baines had
neglected to pay was that Church-rate or some other ; and
bow, therefore, could the Court say that the Church-rate
of 21. ss. was the subject-matter of this subtraction ? The
next point was, that the Court never was seized of the cause
at all. That did not appear ' • and causes cited from the old
reports must, since the 53d of George 111., be used
with great care, that statute having made a most important
change in the law with regard to the recovering of Church-
rates. By that Act a Church-rate came under the juris-
diction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, where one of two
circumstances existed—it must be either more than
la, or it must be a disputed rate : and it must
be disputed in one of two ways—either in the particular
cause—as, for instance, a party rated to a Church-rate
might apply to the Spiritual Court to have the rate quashed
on a ground that would render it invalid, and there the Court
would have jurisdiction; and the other mode in which it
might be disputed was, if the party being summoned,
betore a Justice of the Peace, gave notice to the Magis-
trates that he should dispute the payment, then the juris-
diction of the Magistrates would cease, and that of the Ec-
clesiastical Court attached ; so that, although in the time of
Lord Raymond it might be a good description to
say it was a cause for the subtraction of Church-rates, it
was by no means certain that it was a good description
since the statute of the 53d of Geo. 111., because the ju-
risdiction only attached when certain facts had occurred.
Such being the case, he apprehended that the sig-
nificavit should have certified to that Court that it was
for the subtraction of a disputed Church-rate, but the
Court found nowhere upon the proceedings that the
Church-rate was disputed ; in fact, the opposite was
clear, for the party had never appeared at all. The only
parties before the Court were the Churchwardens, and it
was, therefore, clear that it was not a disputed Church-
rate on that giound. Upon what law or legal principle
was it to be said that the Court was to presume there was
a prior proceeding before a Magistrate when the rate
was disputed ? It would be contrary not only to
the rule of law, but sound reasoning to make any
such presuiption. Added to this, the amount was
under lot, and the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court
i e
td
e C
did not attach, and looking at the inference to be drawn
from the significavit, he should say that it was not a die
p
Church-rate. utroctlia-
total
ataeh.s e nHe
eo
He now
of Baines
came to the t point,her
o
e u
h
power
monition, and
in,
the ' Court Ecclesiastical to do more than
declaring him contumacious for not answering the
in. He had whetheralready
c
it was necessary to call fur the
assistance
of this Court to compel him to come
submitted,ooCourt
he
0 that, at,
had coming
powerming to
to thisdo
„-
there
Court showed that tyh
what it had done ewa
was no averment in the significavit
that there was the extraordinary
ea pseew
in
nr Losashereencleo of th
by thee
Court of proceeding through a cause
party who had not l
aappearedrke,sPractice,"fromfirst
in
no ltahste.
yeFarromist9ha6t,
ancient book of practice, it was clear the Court had no
asniCd
"
hPronesre ,4 c
t's Practice," in 1681, clearly laid that down.
"
These authorities showed that the Court had a power, not
of going on in the absence of a party, but ofinflicting a
very great hhoroiotyk,
theretha certainly
a passage
penance upon him for contumacy. In Oughteoi ord o
Jwaucisigcnoroutemd,' a
word boofk of
:
was one exception to the rule, and that was in cases ma-
trimonial, where the party was absent, and it was provided
that the Court might proceed in such a case, inasmuch as

'COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Y.:sterday a Court was held for the despatch of business.
-rim 'NEW ALDERMAN OF THE WARD OF FARRINODON WITHOUT.

•
Mr. CARTER, of the Lord Mayor's Court, informed the
Court, that at a wardmote held in the ward of Farringdon
Without, Sir James Duke was unanimously elected Alder.
man of that ward.
Sir JAMES DUKE was immediately afterwards introduced
to the Court, by Deputy Blackett, and several other 'mem-
bers of the ward of Farringdon.
The DEPUTY, in presenting the new Alderman, lamented
the circumstances which led to the new electiou, although
be hoped and believed that Sir James Duke would perform
all the duties of the office, to the full satisfaction of the
coosetuency. The members of the Court well knew, he
obse...ved, that he had but indifferent talent for speaking,
and 'ho. could not more effectually& justice to the gentleman,
wbc so act in retiring from the Court he deplored, than
by •reading th a resclution of the wardmote upon that act.
He then read the resolution, which spoke in terms of the
wa mest praise of Mr. Harmer, tae late Alderman, and
clue,ed by stating that Sir James Duke would no doubt
mr,tcri ally assist the Court in their deliberations, and
pr ove an adequate representative of the Ward of Farring.
fi on Without.

Sir J. Dux .E then was received into the body of the
court, and in:malty sworn.
Upon the ,notion of Alderman COPELAND, the sum of
!00/. was Er;reed to be divided amongst the Aldermen for
distribution amongst the poor widows of freemen at Christ-

ar;
The In priest of the Ward of Ferringdon Without pre-
setteil u..tcenormous list of persons carrying on retail busi-
nu.-.F. in ...Ire City without having taken up their freedom.
A*TTEI.,DANCR OF ALDERMEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON

COUNCIL.

ljr,on the motion of Alderman BROWN, it was referred
t n Committee to prepare a vote for the attendance of
Al :QT.:nen in the Court of Common Council.

Sir P. LAURIE observed that the establishment of a
rrot., vroul,A ItiaVe the effect of inducing several Aldermen
•to att:!nd who, in the fear of being detained the whole
-day, &crated appearing in that Court at all. He was
sure that the Court of Common Council would have no
fur-t,:r occasion to complain.
AleermanFnErtY said it was the duty of all the
A'stez men to attend the Court of Common Council, and
t; tat tho3c: tcho neglected to perform that duty ought to be
f Hoar, bear.)

tated for one moment when he found there were only five
Special Jurymen to pray a tales because it was to him a
matter of perfect indifference from what class of society
the Jury was taken. It had frequently been laid down by
the Judges, that to insult and villify Christianity as
against the law. Publications, insulting religion, and ad-
dressed to the vulgar and uneducated, were most dan-
gerous. He would call a witness who purchased these books
in the defendant's shop, the defendant himself being pre-
sent, and he should prove that the defendant was rated to
that house. It gave him pain that it should be necessary
for the Jury to bear such shocking attacks as were con-
tained in this publication. It consisted of a series
of letters, and each number was sold for a penny. It was
" Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations," and was,
in fact, an attack upon the Holy Scriptures, particularly
on the Old Testament. He should content himself with
reading one extract.—(The Learned Gentleman then
read an extract recommending that the Bible should be
burnt, and stating that the writer denounced it as blasphemy
and nonsense.) Mr. Hetherington was in person to de-
fend himself, they would hear what he had to say, and
then he (the Attorney-General) would have an opportunity
of again addressing them.—(The Attorney-General spoke
in so low a tone that it was in many instances impossible to
catch even the purport of what fell from him.)
The following witness was then called and examined by

great miscnief might otherwise ensue. and the reason given
being that the validity of the marriage might be con-
tested. That brought him to the state of the prac-
tice of the Courts as reported by the Commissioners
so lately as the year 1831. These Commisioners were
the heads of the law in the Courts of Equity, Com-
mon-law, and the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the
names attached to it were the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, the Bishops of London, Durham, and St. A saph,
Lori' Tenterden, Sir N. Tyndal, Sir James Alexander,
Sir J. Nichol, Sir H. Jenner, Robinson, Lushington, Car-
rington, and Cutler Ferguson, whose reports must
have the greatest possible weight in all decisions
on these points. In page 1.6 of that Report it was stated
that the mode of enforcing all processes in case of dis-
obedience, was by pronouncing the party cited con-
tumacious. The general and broad rule in all cases was
to bring the party cited into Court; there were certain ex-
ceptions rather hinted at than described, but the necessary in-
gredient in all these excepted cases was, that there was no-
thing for the party to do.e--namely, that it was in the nature
of a proceeding hi rem. It was upon that authority that he
submitted to the Court that there was nothing in the
present case which gave the Ecclesiastical Court a juris-
diction to proceed in it beyond the citation and the
issuing of the significavit of contumacy for non-
appearance. It was clear that the present case
did not come within those excepted, and even
in those excepted cases the proposition is not
laid down generally, but a power is given by which
the Court may proceed in the absence of the party. In
that respect his Lordship would sec that the Courts of
Equity and the Ecclesiastical Court adopted a somewhat
similar principle. In the case of Thorogood, which bad
been more than once before the Court of Queen's Bench,
the party having refused to appear in the Ecclesiastical
Court a significavit of contumacy was issued in the very
first instance, and he understood that the opinion of the
highest Ecclesiastical Judge now upon the Bench was that
that was the only course that could be pursued. He
knew not whether his Learned Friend would at all rely
upon the Act 10th Geo. IV., but by that it ap-
peared that the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court were
empowered to raake certain changes in the practice of the
Court, with the sanction of the Learned Chancellor ; but
if the Court would look at the Statute it would find that
the Act was framed simply to allow of greater expedition by
increasing the Court days, but there was no increase of juris-
diction sanctioned by it. There were other regulations made
under the powers of the provisions of that Act, but having
no relation 'to it ; but he did not find that they had re-
ceived the sanction of the Lord Chancellor ; and if that
were so, even in their narrowest sense and meaning,
they could have no effect whatever. If the Ecclesias-
tical Court had misconstrued that statute, it might
explain the present proceedings, but of course would not
justify them. He would now refer to the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench as to the second objection. He
regretted to find that he and his Learned Friends were
unfortunate enough in not making their point understood
by that Court. What he and they had meant to say was,
that inasmuch as it was contrary to natural justice that
proceedings should be carried on against a party in his
absence, it had become part of the proceedings of their
laws that the party must be brought into Court before you
proceed against him ; that eventually it had been found that
a provision which was meant to protect the defendant did
on certain occasions work injustice to the plaintiff, and there-
fore the Legislature had provided certain remedies both in
Courts of Law and Equity ; that within the century it was
not competent for the Courts of Law or Equity to proceed
against a party until by compulsory processes they had
succeeded in bringing him into Court ; and they had
asked what statute or interference of the Legisla-
ture could be pointed out as regarded Ecclesi-
astical Courts ? They had never meant to say that
if the question was to be looked to as a legislative one, that
it could for one moment be maintained that it was contrary
to natural justice to proceed against a party who had full
means of knowing that such proceedings had been taken :
but they had said that in order to make that charge the
Court was not competent, but the Legislature must be ap-
plied to. If the highest Courts in the realm were obliged
to wait and endure that inconvenience until the Legisla-
ture stepped forward• to remedy it, surely the Courts Ec-
clesiastical which were lower in rank and dignity must
adopt the same course), and for them by their own authority,
proprio vigore, to attempt to give themselves the power of
proceeding in the absence of the party, without the aid of
the Legislature, was a clear extension and excess of their
jurisdiction. That was his proposition, and with all due
respect he would say that the proposition had not been met
by the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The very
form of the Statute of the 53d Geo. 111., had regard to
that.principle of the law to which he had adverted—namely,
arse tile proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts were to be
looked at with great jealousy, and it does not say that the
parties summoned were to pay obedience to the orders
and decrees of the Court, but " to all lawful orders and
decrees." It was quite clear, therefore, that the lawfulness
must be set forth, and in the present case it bad not even
b en averred ; and lie bad shown from the authorities,
that if it had, it could not be averred with truth.
The next question was upon the forms of the signifi-
eavit. Was it right in point of form ? The significavit
was in the name of Sir H. Jenner, and he contended that
it ought to have been in the name of the Archbishop of
Canterbury. His Learned Friend would not contend that
at Common law the significavit in its present form could
be correct.
Mr. WIOHTMAN signified his dissent.
Mr. HILL hid taken some trouble to look into all the
cases on the subject, and there appeared to be a great degree
of harmony among them. So long ago as the 11th of
Henry the Fourth, there was a case in the }ear bookk
in which the question had been diieuesed ; and in biookaa's
Abridgement to the " Certificate of Bishops" it was held
that the certificate of excommunication must be by the
Bishop, and his Lordship would find very satisfactory rea-
sons given for that arrangement. The same rule was
adopted by Fitzherliert and by Lord Hale in his com-
mentary. His Lordship would also find, in Coke upon
Lit. Leon, where all the authorities were cited, that the
seine reasoning prevailed. The epaloey of law, even if
there were no direct authority, was thereby strictly ob-
served, as in :he case of a power of allowing to execute
a deed, or of the Under- Sheriff us the delegate of the
Sheriff. la these and all similar cases the principal was
the party whose name was to be used. He now came to
enquire whether any change bed been made by the Sot-
tote. So far from that, he apprehended that the
Statute had fixed the law, whatever it was
that being its sole object. The Learned Counsel
then referred to the title in the significavit "
by Divine Providence," showing clearly that it was the
Archbishop who was to be the party, and that was followed
by the usual style of Episcopal and Apostolic salutation in
benediction given by these dignitaries. The case of
" Ricketts v Bodsman," which had been referred to by
the Court of Queen's Bench in its judgment, did not
touch the point on which he and his Learned Friend
relied, and he submitted, therefore, that that point had
not been well-decided by the Queen's Bench. There
was but one other point remahling, and that would be
I disposed of in one moment. It had been held that the
writ in the words of the statute of Elizabeth must be open
and delivered on record in the presence of the Judges. The
memorandum on the present writ omitted the word
1 " open." The object of the writ being open was to pre-
; vent the abuses which had taken place in the application
of that writ, and so that the cause of isnprisonmeet being
openly read and stated before the Court they could
better decide whether that party had been legally im-
prisoncd. The Court of Queen's Bench merely said
they did not think the objection could prevail, but gave
no reason for it. He had now laid before his Lordship at
a length which be very much regretted, the case of his
client. His Lordship was called upon to give effect to
the proceeding of an inferior Court, and looking at that
certificate as furnishing the ground of these proceedings,
he could not see in it sufficient ground for putting the
course of the law in force against that gentleman. There-
fore he humbly claimed to move that Mr. Baines be dis.
charged.
Meueort followed on the'samo side. Ho submitted
that the commands ought to be legally and distinctly
stated on the face of the significavit. In this case it did
not appear whether the commands were legal or not, and
his Lordship would not make any intendment in favour of
the commands. In no way did it appear that the monition
stated what Baines was to pay 21. ss. for—it did not state
that it was for Church-rate—it might be for a Borough
or a Watch-rate. There was nothing upon the face of the
monition to show that it was an Ecclesiastical matter, and
therefore the failure to obey the cerrenand did not
render the party contumacious. The monition was
inherently bad, because upon the face of it Mr.
Baines could not find that he was commanded to
pay by a competent authority. He begged to refer his
Lordship to some chapters in Conset, which had not been
cited by his Learned Friend, and which treated of the
manner in which the Ecclesiastical Courts could compel
the appearance of a party. With regard to the form of
the significavit, he contended that all the cases in the
books showed clearly that it should run in the
name of the Archbishop, and not in that of the Or-
dinary—the latter was the instrument of the former,
but lie must certify, in the name of his principal and
not in his own. The commitment was bad, and he trusted
his Lordship would set ft aside.
Mr. WIGHTMAN said his Learned Friends had cited many
new cases, and urged new arguments, which he could not
have been prepared for ; it would tend to save the time
of the Court were he allowed time to consider them and
condense his arguments.
Mr. HILL said, in a case of so much importance as one
of habeas corpus, he could not consent to any course
which would delay the judgment of the Court. He was,
however, in the hands of his Lordship.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, considering the time of
day at which they had arrived, an adjournment till to-mor-
row would not postpone the cause in fact, for they could
not hope to finish it that day. He was anxious to have all
the information that could be given him on so important
a question. He thought it would be better to postpose
the further proceedings till to-morrow.
Mr. VIGHTMAN will proceed with his arguments at
the sitting of the Court tomorrow (this day ).
is

Sir F. POLLOCK.
Alexander Kerr, a"policernan, bought the " Letters to
the Clergy," 5,8, and 13, at the shop of the defendant,
126, Strand, on the sth of February last. A young man
served him. Knows defendant—he was standing on the
threshold of the door at the time ; has known him for the
last three years; has seen him repeatedly at the shop;
paid one penny each for the letters.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hetherington—Did t come in
his uniform to purchase them. Came from direction no s
he
had received, not from any reputation it had required.
Did not read the fifth number orsthe eighth number of tat
book purchased at the shop. Stated at the Old Bailey at
the trial of Mr. Cleave that be had read a copy, but not
the one purchased of defendant. Curiosity induced bim
to read it. It did not shake his opinion—it did not make
him burn his Bible—quite the opposite. He is a plainly
educated man. Was instructed to purchase all he could
get at defendant's shop. Purchased other numbers, but
did not read them. It produced no eflect on bim to induce
him to follow the recommendations of the author.
George Sherwill, collector of poor's-rate for the liberty
of the Savoy, proved that defendant was rated for No. 126.
The libels were then put in and read—First, No. 8 of
" Haslam's Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations,"
then 5 of the same work, and then 13.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was the case for the
prosecution.
Mr. HETHERINGTON said that in rising to vindicate
himself from the charge brought against him, he should not
defend the language alluded to by the Attorney-General.
He should endeavour to show that every Englishman had
a right. to free inquiry, and that Mr. Haslam had as much
right to institute these inquiries as any one else. He
could not but express his surprise that the Government,
which bad so strenuously advocated the diffusion of cheap
knowledge in Penny Magazines and Penny Cyclopaedias,
should bring him to trial for so flimsy a charge as this—
and flimsy it was, for out of 800 pages they could only find
that passage in the Bth No., which was certainly expressed
in improper language, whereon to bring an indictment.
He contended that it was impossible to say where a person
was to stop ; if a person rejected one tenet, another might
reject another, and there was no reason why another, if
this were permitted, should not go on and reject the
whole. In the whole work there was not one disrespectful
word about Christianity, it was a rejection of the miracles
ascribed to Moses in the Old Testament, which had been
indignantly rejected by many learned men. The work was
not intended as a scurrilous attack, but as an inquiry into the
effects of the usages of society founded upon the Old Tes-
tament. The object of Mr. Haslain was benevolence, and
however much he might err, he was not criminal.—(Mr.
Hetherington here read several passages from the work,
in support of his opinion.) Had not a man a right to tell
the world what he thought or felt? He would read a pas-
sage from the first Letter, in order to show how Mr. Has-
lam had worked himself up to the state of mind which in-
duced him to use the language he bad done in No. 8
(He here read the passage alluded to, in which be states his
object to be to support morality, and his assumption that the
belief of a man did not depend upon himself, and the as-
sumption of his opponents that it did not, and calling on
reason to decide between them. The Government did
not do this ; they ought to have called on the Bishop of
Exeter and other bigots of his class to come forward and
confute Mr. Haslam. But instead of this they prosecuted
a bookseller, who had never read a line of the book until
this prosecution. They ought to meet Mr. Hastenr with
his own weapons, and it was disgraceful to the Govern-
ment, which had 4 always advocated the diffusion of
cheap knowledge, to submit to the taunts of
the Bishop of Exeter and bigots of that class by instituting
these prosecutions for blasphemy. However they might
disapprove of Haslam's doctrines, they could not but per-
ceive that he was sincere in his belief. The convic-
tions of a man's mind were perfectly independent of
his will. Mr. Haslain had stated that he once believed
that which he now believed to be true to have been
false. (Mr. Hetherington read several passages from the
work to show that belief was not dependent upon volition.)
He admitted that the language in the eighth Number was
offensive, but if he proved that the free exercise
of the right of inquiry was no offence in law.
be would call their attention to the hardship of a general
bookseller being held responsible for every book that he
' \bold, and, calling their attention to the oath they had
taken,, he would claim at their hands that acquittal to
which be felt he was entitled. He would claim no ex-
'eniption from punishment if he sold any obscene publica-
tions, or any attacks upon a metes private character ; but
in cases of the discussion of abs;.ract truths was a
roan to be punished fur the cola ictione of his
mind, which were not is the power of his will ?
It was too bad to bring a man into a Court of Justice on
account of a few solitary pa‘eages in a work of this nature.
How could truth be elicited but by inquiry. If a man was to
be punished fur opposing orthodox opinions, where was the
use of giving a man the right of free inquiry ? and every
opposition to free inquiry was an opposition to the progress
own eyes,
of human improvement. In all cases of public de.eugsion he
contended that the Jury wei e incompetent to decide that a'
man should be sent to prison because his belief was not in
accordance with generally received opinions. He had the
authority of some of the greatest intellects of the age in
support of this opinion. • He would begin with a B:siesp.
Bis haosp
v‘
eßi Bernet ranse
see
e said
with
dwith our own rea-
sonand not muffle up
our understandings. The first power of the human mind
was the act of perception ; that was an involuntary act,
and governed by the law of necessity. The next
operation of the mind was to form a judgment,
and that also was a necessary act. Man could not help
ithweour mustow
judging of that which he perceived, and other faculties
made up the human mind, and therefore these were under
the government of necessity ; and how could they, he
would ask, bring in a verdict adverse to men who were
governed by a law of necessity ? How could they say that
Haslam was answerable, and how much more unjust to
punish the bookseller? Dr. Whitly had said there was
no merit or piety in believing that which was evident,
nor demerit in disbelieving that which was not evident.
Why should not a man publish his opinions because, per-
haps, he judged improperly ? The proper way was to an-
swer them, and then away they would go. Let all the
learned men and the Bishops, in the pay of the Govern-
ment, exercise their powers, and answer these arguments,
but not prosecute those who published them. Bishop
Marsh said, ~ It is said investigation leads to doubt"—
so much the better—if a thing is false it ought not to be
received; if it be true, it can never lose by inquiry. Now
the. Bishops could not be supposed to be ad-
verse to the Church—they were great supporters
of it, and so, perhaps, might he be also
if he got so much by it.—( A laugh.)—[Mr. Hethering-
ton then read a passage from Sir William Temple, in
support of his argument.] Would his being ruined and
sent to a dungeon alter the state of things?--would it
alter the opinion of Mr. Haslam?—would it make him,
the defendant, believe that a man had not a right to pro-
mulgate his opinions? - He felt himself in an awkward
position in having to defend a man's right to publish while
he dissented from the opinions published. He differed from
Mr. Hasler's. I-1
..e had been told that the Attorney-General
had no wish to press severely on persons in his situation, and
his friends, not true friends, had asked him to write to the
Attorney-General. Now there was no way of inducing him
tostay this prosecution, bet by pleading guilty; and although
he knew that their verdict, if adverse to him, would ruin him,
yet he would not admit that he was guilty, or was the sort
of person charged in the indictment. It he believed him-
self to be the man described in that indictment, he
would fly to the uttermost part of the earth.
He did not think he had done any harm by publishing
works upon different subjects, and if he had pleaded guilty
he should have lost all feeling of self-respect. He would
on this point cont6it himself with reading twe passages
from the works of two of the most intellectual men of the
present age, Lord Brougham and Dr. Southwood Smith.
Dr. Southwood Smith -said there was no prOper boun-
dary to human investigation but the faculties of the
human mind. Had any man a right to say you may
examine the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but take
care you do not reject them, or we will punish you ? He
was sure the Attorney-General, if his attention had been
directed to this, would not have counselled Government
prosecutions for matters of opinion. He had been sorry
to hear the Attorney-General say, he intended to reply;
he had hoped he would have waived that right; but if he
did so he hoped he would pay attention to that passage
of Dr. S. Smith. Lord Brougham, in his inaugural ad-
dress to the University of Glasgow, said, the great truth
had gone forth that man should no more render account
to man for his belief, for which he is no more accountable
than for the colour of his skin, or the height of his stature.
After hearing those sentiments, could they send a man to
prison for the free publication of opinion. He would do
the Government the justice to say, that heedid not believe
they wished' to stop general investigation if conducted
with decency. He would admit that the language used was
in very bad taste, but that was no reason why a man should
be sent to prison. It should be left to public opinion only.
These prosecutions were most impolitic. All the earliest
Reformers—all those who introduced new opinions—had
always been charged with atheism and blasphemy. The
Founder of Christianity was accused of blasphemy--the
prophets of the Jews were all accused as blasphemers of
the established religion of the day—Elijah actually mocked
the established religion of the Moabites—and all the pro-
phets and apostles had been accused of blasphemy against
the established religion, Dr. A. Clarke said many Jews
rejected some books of the Old Testament, and suspected
that Moses had had recourse to pious frauds. • Why the
supporters of the established religion of the days of the
Apostles, when Stephen was propagating the doctrines
which he haele'eceived from his Divine Master, applied to
the Attorney-General of that day to prosecute him for
blasphemy, and stirred up the people. In the present
case, the Bishop of Exeter did not stir up the people, but
he stirred up the Government. He sent a packet of papers
to Lord Normanby, who handed them to the Attorney-
General, and he, as in duty bound, brought him there.
In the case of Stephens, as in the present case, they would
not suffer any discussion that was likely to change the
custom,—( Mr. Hetherington then read from tho Acts the

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, DEC. 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster before Lord DEN-
MAN and a Middlesex Special Jury.)
PBOSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY.
TUE QUEEN V. HETHERINGTON.
This was a prosecution against the defendant, Henry
Hetherington, bookseller, for the publication of a blas-
phemous libel.
On the names of the gentlemen summoned as Special Ju-
rymen being called over, only five answered to their names.
The ATTOREY-GENERAL prayed a tales, when the fol-
lowing were sworn :--SPECIAI—Robert Savage Esq.
John Alboin, merchant ; William Fechney Black, mer-
chant ; Charles Frederick Barnwell, Esq. ; Robert Eg-
linton, merchant.
Charles Ricketts, W. Fauldon, John Osborn, John
Johnson Ruffle, Thos. Reed, Philip Philips, J. Mayhew.
Mr. BULT opened the proceedings.
The ATTORNEY-,GENERAL said this was an indictment
found by the Grand Jury of Middlesex, for the publi-
cation of certain blasphemous libels. It appeared to him
that all he should have to do, would be to prove thl
publication of the libels in question. Ho had not hesi-

account of the trial, defence, and martyrdom of Stephen.)
Was that a proper way to treat men for propounding new
truths ? The same spirit was etineed, and the same charge
brought against the Founder of Christianity. How impolitic
were these charges. Did they atop the progress of
tooth 7' Persecution for matters of opiniod was the same
in every case—impclitie—for it did not stop the progress
of opinion. There was no possibility for a bed book to
get a footing except by prosecuting it. While the e Poor
Man's Guardian" was constantly prosecuted, it could not
be put down, and he got a good living out of it ; but
the instant it was proved to be a legal publication, it
went down of itself—it would not pay its expenses.
The proper way was to let all these books alone, as
Demetrius advised the authorities as recorded in the Acts.
The proper way of proceeding was not to attempt to put
a fool down, but to let him alone, and he would put him-
self down. Let every man be free, and the good sense
and good feeling of society would put him down most ef-
fectually. The moment it was announced that Haslam's
Letters were to be prosecuted they sold so fast that it was
almost impossible to get a supply • before that be knew
that the publisher had 3,000 on hand, which he could not
sell or get rid of in any way ; but they were all sold
the instant it was known it was to be prosecuted.
In all ages, according to Dr. Combc, the introducers of
new opinions were accounted impious—so were the early
Christians accounted by the Jews—so were the first Pro-
testants accounted by the Catholics—but in the present
time this ought not to be the case; and he was satisfied
they would not suffer it to be so, by giving the sanction of
their verdict to such a paltry prosecution. In this country
they were in the habit of sending out missionaries to pro-
claim new truths to foreign countries ; Wa3 it not grossly
inconsistent and unjust, while doing this, to punish persons
for free investigation at home? In a recent case, can-
non had been fired upon the natives of one of
the Tonga Islands, because they would not receive
these missionaries. Their argument was, that truth must
be propagated all over the world ; but why stop inquiry at
home while suffering a British man of war to fire upon
these islanders because they would not receive the new
truths of the missionaries in the way they wished ? The
celebrated Wesley had said that it could not be supposed
that Methodism could stand its ground when brought to
the test of reason, truth, and philosophy. Nor could any
system not based on truth ; but that was no reason for re-
jecting examination, because the more the truth was
investgated, the more beautiful it would appear.
How had the nation made such rapid improvements in
every branch of natural philosophy and mechanics ? Be-
cause free inquiries had been permitted into all these
subjects; why should not free inquiry be permitted into
other subjects? Free inquiry was the spirit of the age,
and if Methodism could not stand against reason and phi-
losophy, the Church of England, he was sure, could not,
more especially when they saw a man condemned by the
Church to two years imprisonment for es. 6d. The next
step would be to stop inquiry into the practices of the
Church, and to make us all: the fettered slaves of the
priesthood. A spirit of inquiry was abroad among the
working classes which would not stop at anything the most
sacred. The true crime was that this was sold at a penny.
Why should two-guinea blasphemers be tolerated and penny
ones prosecuted ? How could those whose shelves were
adorned with Drummond's Academical Questions, Vol-
taire, Gibbon, Volney, and Shelley, uphold this prosecu-
tion, and what must that law be which could find the
crime, not in the contents of the book, but in the
fact of its being sold for a penny ? They might for
two guineas buy a magnificent book full of blasphemy.
Now, from the Attorney- General be would appeal to his own
witness, who had read the book, and on whom, an unedu-
cated man, it had proved inoperative—it had done no mis-
chief, and he begged they would not consign hint to a
dungeon for having sold a book which it had been proved
had done no mischief. If Christanity were pelt of the
law, its benevolent spirit ought to be found in the law. Paul
said the Bmreans were more noble because they searched
daily. The Attorney-General was about to punish
him for doing the same thing. Christ himself said,
' the truth shall make you free, but the Attorney-General
said the truth— or that which you believe to be the truth
—shall make you a prisoner. In the parable of the tares,
Jesus expressly forbade the rooting up of the tares, lest
the wheat should be rooted up also. He did not recom-
mend persecution, but said let them both grow together
until the last day. These passages were sufficient to show
that persecution was opposed to the whole spirit of Chris-
tianity. Chief Baron Eyre had said that human laws
could not—ought not to interpose between the free circu-
lation of thought and opinion. This prosecution went a
step further than any other had gone, it went to say that
you must not counteract the Jewish Scriptures, which to
a Christian, he contended, were not of use, and Paul
himself was of this opinion, and he called the Old Testa-
ment the schoolmaster. Vie Old Testament had been
superseded by the New, and if Christianity were part and
parcel of the law, then this prosecution had not a leg to
stand upon. Major Cartwright, in the opinion of Jefferson,
had proved, however, the fallacy of the notion that Chris-
tianity was part of the common law, by showing that the
common law had existed long before Christianity
was introduced into this country ; and the axiom
had its origin and foundation in a misquotation
and mistranslation of a decision of Brissot, recorded
hi the Year Books, substituting the words Holy Scrip-
tures for ancient writings. Jefferson denominated it a
judicial forgery, and he hoped his Lordship would to-day
put an end to this iniquity. He was a general book-
seller, and so great was the competition that he had no
time for reading. His son, whose loss he must ever la-
ment, bad, before his death, drawn up a paper for the
guidance o; the business (Mr H. became much affected at
this allusion to the death of his son), from which it appeared
that. he dealt in 70 weekly periodicals besides books, and
he had not an opportunity of reading a line of them.
He however never sold, nor ever would sell, any obscene
publicatione, or works attacking private character, and if
a pers;:n came to him complaining that he had been at-
tecked personally in any work, he never sold any more of
that work. Isolated passages might he picked out of the
Bible which would be liable to prosecution, and it was
hard to hold a bookseller responsible for toe contents of
every work that was sold across his counter. On this
ground, also, he hoped for their verdict. In deference
to the wishes of his friends, Mr. Ilaslam had cancelled
the passage now prosecuted. and substituted another
less objectionable. Now what would they have more ?
The Attorney- General had not dune justice to Mr. Heslam ;
there were mane passages in which ho acknowledges the
goodness. magnificence, and power of the Deity ; and if
te bad passages had been read the good should have been
read also. What was it that prevented brotherly love
from dwelling among men? It was the principle of coer-
cion ; and if he could successfully call upon them to put a
stole to these prosecutions, be felt convinced he should be
promoting brotherly love. He did not believe the Govern-
ment wished to follow up these prosecutions if they could
avoid it. They bad a precedent in the case of Sir R. Peel ;
lie prosecuted Carlisle, who passed five years in prison, aud
yet his publications were sold in every shop in London.
The public began to consider them martyrs, and the Govern-
ment of that day, seeing the wickedness and folly of such
proceedings, set all those incarcerated at liberty. Surely
those now in authority were not the men to recommend
these persecutions ; and his quarrel with them was,
that they had not the moral courage to reply
to the taunts of the Bishop of Exeter, by allud-
ing to this case of Sir Robert Peel's, and declaring that
thenceforth public opinion must be the only censor.
Christ himself had not made eternal happiness depend
upon belief, but upon their actions, and all the evils of
society sprung from trying to coerce people into the belief
of that which they could not believe—a system to which
he hoped the verdict on this occasion would put a stop. He
besought them to consider well the consequences of their
verdict, and the wickedness and itnpolicy of tearing a man
from his family for selling a book such as that. If he
had said anything to raise a prejudice in their minds, he
trusted they would discard it, and do justice by their
verdict.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied ; and contended that
the publication in question was not fair argument and en-
quiry, but blasphemous invention. During the course of
his reply he was interrupted by Mr. Hetherington com-
plaining that he was misrepresenting what bad fallen from
him, and subsequently on the grounds that he was misre-
presenting facts.
Lord DENMAN said that he agreed with the defendant
in the first instance, and therefore he thought he was jus-
tified in putting the Attorney-General right ; but the
Attorney-General, he thought, was entitled to make any
remarks upon facts which came out in evidence.
Mr. Hetherington (with great vehemence)—But he is
misstating facts, and making statements calculated to mis-
lead the Jury.
Lord DENMAN—You must not interrupt.
The Defendant—But my liberty is at stake, and I will
speak.—( Applause at the back of the Court, which was in-
stantly suppressed by the officers.)
Lord DENMAN—You shall be heard in correction of any
thing you may think a misrepresentation afterwards, nut in
reply, but merely in correction.
The Defendant.—Thank you, my Lord.
At the conclusion of the Attorney-General's address,
Mr. Hetherington explained that it was the custom of
the trade to place the name of any bookseller, with whom
the real publisher did business, on the title-page of the
book, and that his name ha real so placed by Mr.
Hay wood, of Manchester, the publisher, without his
knowledge.
Lord DENMAN in summing up, observed that the law
considered the vender of a work the publisher of it,
and that consequently he must be held respon-
sible. It had also been constantly laid down that
blasphemy was an offence at Common Law. In the
defendant's defence, to which he had listened with feelings
of great interest, aye, with sentiments of respect too, he
had complained of the hardship of a general publisher
being held responsible for the contents of all the works
he might sell, but he had himself answered that
argument by the conduct which he stated he pursued
with regard to obscene and personally libellous publication,
and from the title-page of this work it was scarcely pos-
sible not to be, in some measure, aware of its contents. Dis-
cussions on a subject, even the most sacred, might be tole-
rated when they were conducted in a fair spirit, but when
appeals were made not to reason but to the bad feelings of
human nature, or where ridicule or invective were hare-
Course to, it could not be considered discussion, As to the
impolicy of these sort of prosecutions that was a question
with which they had nothing to do, the only question for
them to determine was whether the publication in question
was a blasphemous libel, and whether it had been published
by the defendant.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed the immediate judg-
ment of the Court.
Lord DENMAN—I think the passing sentence had better
be deferred, until we have bad the opportunity of consi-
dering the subject.
The defendant then retired, and the Court adjourned
till to-morrow.

-------
The veteran Beverley, the lessee of the northern
circuit of theatres, has just terminated a very prosperous
season at Stockton-on-Tees. his luck is an exception to
that of provincial managers generally, for late accounts
from the country speak of local theatricals as being at a
ver low ebb. Mr. lieverley'.; Comnany proceeds to
shiey lds, where it will open in the course of the present week,