The Sun.
London, England, 1823-03-27 00:00:00

;'prosecutions were•not only inexpedient, but that they would
be productive of the greatest possible harm. The 'Ranted
.Judge, therefore, with very great propriety, interrupted her,
and told her that such a line of defence could not be allowed ;
and at last she was prevented from persisting in it. And this,
he contended, was nut only consistent with the law of the land,
:but was absolutely necessary to the preservation of the audio.,
ray and dignity of the Court. It was next complained of that
a new trial had been refused her, upon application being made
to the Court. That refusal was made upon the same grounds,
and was therefore justifiable for the same reasons. 'she applied:
fora new trial because she had not been allowed to make axes.:
tarn defence; and after due consideration the Judges decided
that such a defence was not allowable. The Hon. Member had,
• also found fault with the law of the question upon such goes.
tions. The most preposterous and dangerous doctrine had
been advanced by the Honourable Member upon this sub.
ject. He stated, that if the Jury had known the severity of
the sentence which awaited the prisoner, they would not
have found her guilty. Thus a Jury, in deciding on their
oaths upon the.guilt orinnocence of a partyiwere to be actuated
by a consideration of what punishment was likely to follow.--
(Hear, hear !)--This was a doctrine which if acted upon would
be subversive of all law and justice. Ile had always held it to
be the duty of a Jury to decide upon the evidence and facts of
theease without reference to any extraneous subjects whatever.
If the ;talon before the !louse contained any expressions of con.
trition, he could understand how the prisoner, staked. the House
fur a mitigation of the .stsuence incurred ,hyber offence. diut
oleo then it world be for the House to consider hew it *would
. interfere with the decisions and the judgments of the,Courts, of
Law. It' there were any charges against the Judges of the
Courts, let them be arraigned; and he must say that it would
have been a more manly course in the Hon. Member if he had
brought distinct charges forward, so that they could have been
met in a manner which questions of so grave and high a nature
deserved. In his own individual opinion, there had been nothing
in the conduct of the Judge who presided at this. trial,
which deserved censure. On the contrary, he should have
considered it a 'dereliction of his duty; if he had not acted as
he did. Looking at the whole subject, and seeing that this
case was a part of the system that had .been planned for 'de-
stroying all that was venerable and respectable in the coun-
try he thought that no man could lay
.is hand on his heart
and say that the sentence passed upon the petitioner wactoo
severe.
Mr. ItICARDO was surprised to hear the Attorney-General
require that the Petitioner should express contrition before any
remission of her sentence could be asked for. They were
to suppose that, in some measure at least, the doctrines she
maintained were the effect of conviction and principle; and
the proposal of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
-went to induce her to commit an act of the most abominable
duplicity and hypocrisy. Ile had looked at the practice of
the Courts of Law with great dissatisfaction,. as to theanan.
ner in which it treated, religious subjects. ,The .very .:first
question that was asked a witness was, whether lie believed
.in a future state ? and if he-said no, he was incapacitated
from giving evidence, because he was an honest auan.—
(Hear, hear ! and murmurs.)—The answer sheaved him to be
an honest man, because he gave up his right rather than tell
a he. He thought that the :prosecution of epinions like these
only served to give them more notoriety, and more value in
the eyes of the public. aim /Hon. -Member for .Devun.
'shire had taken a course of argument every likely to produce
the same effect, in reading the passages .which he considered
most obnoxious to public morals. iThe great difficulty in
.these questions was, the impossibility of saying ,avhat bias.
phemy was., In one country it, was one thing, in another coon.
.try it was another thing. Aa to the objections which the Attor..
ney.tieneral made to allowing a Jury 'to consider the pro.
bable punishment of a party when they . were about to give
a verdict, he maintained that to be a commas principle.—
Why else, in cases .of felony, was the value of forty shillings
reede a consideration for the Jury. It appeared to hint after
the niost attentive consideration of the tubjecta that these pro-
secutions had not the effect of preventing thepublicationa in
. question. Why were, they notaput down by argument and
reason ? There were,different religions which might he hon-
estly entertained, and is was only the lneuisition . that foul re.
misted to means of force for putting dawn raigions
from their own.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that the lion. Wembermlio spoke
last hail asked, why argument..and discussion were not Op.
. posed to the doctrines which had been attacked by the power
of the law. But the real question was, whether they should
allow a system to go on which had for its object the under-
mining ,of Christianity,. and the subversion of all mural
• and religious feelings, by .appealing to that class, who
had neither the..means nor the.leisure to,investigate the..btr-
gement* that could su easily .be brought. against their se-
ducers. Tu protect that class against suclfdesigns by prosecu-
:ion arid punishment was. die law of the land. Ale thought
his Honourable and Learned Friend fully justified in what
he had said, as to the contrition of the primmer. She had
••• been sentenced to one year's imprisonment, and to.find secu-
: cities for her subsequent good behaviour; and it' she could not
find diet security, aunty it was not too much to expecOthat
she shuold substitute the security of' her own promise, by a
confession cif her :offences,..and of contrition, for having earn-
mitted them. e'This aval.a .Iciud,of security, which might be
. taken in lieu of that which• she ,:couldnoOsupply.
Olember for Aberdeen had been anxious ,to eurffine the house
to a view of this case alone, and 'Wit had been. indeed a soli-
:4;0y case, the mercy of the Crown might have been extended
to it. 13t0 it was notoriously a part of a detestable system fur
propagating infidelity through the country. In' 1818, 11119,
iB2O, and MI, the brother of this unfortunate woman,
_ and his
wife, had been successively convicted of the. mime •offences-in
•:.carrying on. this shameful traffic. Did not thisoshew a 'con-
federacy between them for effecting their infanteus object,
and was it possible, lie would ask,,under such circumstances, to
• ew'sider this as a single case at' offence ? . The Hon. Member
had stated that the sentence, of the petitioner left her no alter- I,
()tidy,: but that of perpetual imprisonment, because she was
unalilato,pay her fines. But this was not the case. When
she had suffered an imprisonment that might reasonably be
, conaidered equal to the punishment of the line,
_ then the Royal
mercy might be extended to her. It' he should continue to hold
• the situation he now held, when that time arrived be should
kel it his duty to recommend such a course to the Crown. ;He
saw no ground for the interference of the House.
Sir F. 11URDl4ril complimented his lion. Frieridupon the
propriety and ability with which he had brought forward this
important subject, confining it within the wise and judicious
.limita of its own immediate merits, :and treating it simply as,
what he considered it to be' aim act of gross individual op-
pression. Taking this view of the subject, he neceasarily eon-
. aidered thiallon. Member for Devonshire to have introduced
topics into the discussion,. which he thought it most desirable
• should have been kept out. lie perfectly agreed .with the
lion. Member tar Portarlington as to the dishonesty of the
Government in all proceedings of this nature, mid, in the
futility of attempts to put down opinion .by persecution
And force. Did the Right Honourable Gentleinsu who spoke
. lain forget that blasphemy, for, which; these oppressive and
cruel sentences were inflicted, would,pultele any men too lay
what it:was ? Did the:Right Honourable Gentleman forget
that what was religion now, had been blasphemy beferre-?—.
That thuFaunder of this religion himself was put to deathuport
the same principles,
.and. upon the 'same .pretexts that ;were
advanced in support of ''these persecutions now. In old times,
the most absurd superstitions had prevailed, and the most ab-
surd means had been resorted to,:to punish opinion ; but he
never yet heard of contrition being demanded of the victim
-staid now. Such a doctrine would have become the Grand
Inquisitor. It would have been wort* his mouth, but it
came with, a had grace frouealllinister of this country. With
regard to the surprise felt by the Attorney-General, at .the
supposition that Juries should look to the punishment of an
~offeace when they were. considering their-verdictt it bad been
the great argument of Ale, greatest men -who had written or
spoken upon the eubject. 'Sir Win.' Blackstone had :said in his
Commentaries, end lie had often heard, it said by Sir-S'aiuuel
. "timidly in that Hauge,. that the perjury of Juries was one of
tie' crying evils arising uut of the severity of our Criminal Laws.
'The HOD. and Learned Attorney-General, with that acuteness
:.which peculiarly belonged to him, had completely overlooked
the mein parts of the ,question. -Be had not •said one word
,sport the subject of the preposterous amount of die fines
imposed upon these persons. As to their being released upon
expressing their contrition, even it' they had been wrong, and
felt that they had been so, the proposal of -what was called
,extending the Royal mercy to them, after having suffered
what any reasonable man would. consider an expiation of their
offence, was enough to raise up all the natural feelings of hu-
manity against such an act of oppression, and to prevent them
•froui declaring .what they felt. The Right Honourable
.Secretary of State had said that these tines did not create the
,alternative of perpetual imprisonment. And the ground upon
'which he stated talus was, that when lie considered there had
ben ffJfll. worth of imprisonment taken out of Itlary.Carlile's,
body, be should advise the mercy of the Crown:to be extended
to her. Was this a constitutional doctrine fit to he entertained,
by 'the House of Gammons t The duration of imprisonment.
-was thus to be dependent upon the will of a Minister, and the'
quantity to be computed according to his idea of its value in,
money. Besides, did the Right lion. Gentleman suppose that,
• lie had taken his office for a lease of his life ? The Hon. Ba-
ronet concluded his observations by arguing against the pro-
. priety of the transactions of the Constitutional Association.
317. PEEL explained. He had not said nor meant to say
that contrition was a sine qua non : he expressly disclaimed
any such notion. What alternative did the Hon. Baronet pro-
pose, if prisoners did not pay their fines ? Were they to re-
main in.coafinement, for life.---(Mr. Ilobliouse and colter Ment-
he:a on: that side said.actost. that Court* ought not to pass such
grieyously severe seutenceso—Suppuse thole:ay refused to pay,