The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-21 00:00:00

their persuasion to perjure themselves. There was no stand.
and of uniformity in theological opinions among men : as well
might yon restrain the tides or the turbulence of the ocean,
as swell might. you change or 'alter • the seasons, as to stem
public opinion and public 'discussion on these subjects.—
The Attorney. and Solicitor-General only supported those
prosecutions from interested motives. The victims of Anti-
christian perSeeutions, like these rejoiced in proportion to
the number of martyrs who distinguished themselves by
braving punishment in support of these philosophic . doc-
trines. Ile meant to defend every sentence, and to show that
not one of them was at variance with the principles of the
established law of the land. If the Jury
.were not satisfied
that there was no direct evidence of his having published this
book, he must proceed with a very long defence. He put it
to the Jury to say whether their own libraries were free from
every thing - that could bear the colour of malice. He would
defend the publication upon this gr.ound; that's Palmer's Prin-
ciples" was a book free from. every immoral inference or motive.
He would show that the Attorney-General, and not he, was
the evil disposed person who should have been set out in this
information. He called on the Jury to look for proofs that he
was the evil disposed person, and contended that in the ab-
sence of such evidence, the verdict of guilty against him would
amount 'to direct perjury. Some thousand copies of this had
been sold when it was published in America. By what evi.
dence would he prove this was a blasphemous libel, other than
by saying it was expressly
.written against the Holy Scriptures.
This was the point for their consideration what was 3 libel ?
Every book was a libel. We, could not' learn our A. B. C.
without reading a libel. The Attorney-General had published
by this prosecution a libel against him the defendant. What
had it to do with the law that defendant had published one
book of criteism on another ? If it was said the Jury had
sworn upon that book, it could not be said that they bad sworn
to the truth' ofrit, or that defendant, in denying the truth, they
were bound to convict him according to their oath.
LORD CHIEF JUST ICE..—YOU have taken upon you to tell
the Jury more than you are authorised.
The Jury concurred with his Lordship, that in being sworn
upon that book they admitted the truth.
- The defendant proceeded.—lf the Jury. were sworn to pro-
nounce this book a libel, he had been prejudged before being
heard. He should prove that the truth of the Bible was no part
of the law. There could be no such law as would compel men
to admit the truth of any, system of religion. No man could
claim a property in religion, and therefore there could be no
principle of law recognizing the protection or that in which no
man had any property or right. He contended there could be
no law but what was calculated to preserve moral justice and
moral right between man and man. He dared the Attorney,
General to prove any thing immoral in that book ; he defied
him to object to it on any other ground than because it did not
preach up tithes or taxes,—because it did not licence oppres-
sion and violation of public law and justice, by supporting pub-
lic robbery and public corruption.
The Lord CurEr-JUSTICE interrupted the defendant, who
asserted that the Christian religion could not be libelled, be-
cause it was in itself libellous, and against law.
Defendant—l will conduct my defence in my own way; and
not as your Lordship may please to dictate to me.
The defendant proceetled.—What could the Jury convict
him ofnublishing ? a book of criticism ? That was not against
law. Denying the divinity of the Christian religion was not
against law.
LORD CIIIEV JUSTICE..—YeS iLIS; I tell you so.
Defendant.--Could the Jury find him guilty of maliciously
selling to a person who maliciously bought, for the purpose of
Subjecting him to this prosecution ? He pronounced the At-
torney-General a
.blasphemous libeller, in saving that he
(Defendant) had published this book, to the high displeasure
of Almighty God. He defied him to prove this. There was
no competent mode of trying this question between him and
the Attorney-General except by ordeal or by wager of battle.
He should read the boOk, page by page, and sentence by sen-
tence, in order that the Jury might aid:their consciences if it
was a blasphemous libel. -.They would not submit to the direc-
tion or the nodding of the Judge. It was well known that
Judges could do away the liberty of the subject, for to the nod
of the Judge, Juries were.known to give their verdicts, rather
than by attending to the evidence of philosophic truth.
Ile then proceeded to read the book, beginning with the
preface.
The defendant having gone on with his reading until about
one o'clock,
The Loan CIIIEPjUSTI JUSTICE observed, the maly object of the
defendant's reading this publication, was visibly for the purpose
Of defaming the Christian religion, which it was his Lordship's
duty to prevent.
One of the Jury rejoined, that as the evident object of the
defendant in reading the libel was to defame the. Christians Re-
ligion, their minds were sufficiently made up.
The defendant persisted in go 4lre on with the reading, con-
tending it, was the essential grodnd of bis defence, and that it
wail impossible he could have a fair trial if the Jury refused to
bear him out.
The LoRD Curra• JUSTICE said, that unless the defendant
refrained from the course of defence
dut which he had adopted
rder , aft
him
to stand committed., • -
The Jury, without hesitation, pronounced the defendant—
The Lour) cIIIET JUSTICE ordered him immediately to
be taken out of Court in custody.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jaw. 20.
Befifrre the LORD Cults. JUSTICE and a Special Jury.
TASER,T). TURRITANIN
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHA74 stated, that thia was an action fora
breach of contract. The plaintiff had been a carpenter, but by a
decision in the Court of Chancery had obtained a consider-
able sum of money which he thought advisable to invest in
the funds. The defendant was a stock-broker employed to
transact his business; one of the defendant's clerks, named
Stewart, had absconded from his service with a sum of five
thousand three hundred-pounds, and to recover this the "me-
Sent action was brought. The defence he was led to think
would be the non-liability of the defendant, the plaintiff aving
entrusted liiimoney to the management of such clerk. !low
far such a doctrine could be maintained he was at a loss to
imagine ; but of this he could be sure,that he had evidence to
sliew that the defendant, and not his clerk, was the responsible
person entrusted with the plaintiff's money. if the Jury were
satisfied of that fact, a verdict must be had in favour of bis
Client. A great public principle was involved in this question,
and he was sure the Jury would give it the most attentive con-
sideration.
After the examination Of a.number of witnesses,
. The Lord CutEr-JusT ice summed up the evidence; and
the Jury found for the plaintiff'—Damages-3,3001.

ARCHES COURT, JAN. 20.
In pursuance of a rescript Prom his Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury, addressed to the official Principal ind Dealt of the
Arches, Reuben Fletcher, Esq: was this day admitted into the
number of the Procurators-General of this Court.
" Durant and Durant" was assigned for sentence on the
nest Court day. No other business was transacted.