The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-02 00:00:00

libel, in which the whole of the authori-
ties cited in the defence are given at full length.
It does great credit to Mr. HETHERINGTON'S
abilities, and we earnestly wish it may be of
service to him with the Judges, in considering
their sentence which has yet to be pronounced on
him, or, should that be more than a nominal punish-
ment, with the Government in inducing it to re-
mit the punishment. Society cannot be served by pu-
nishing the mere trade agent in circulating opinions,
and the law will receive no credit by being made
the instrument for repressing honest discussion in-
stead' of punishing crime. In •Mr. HETHER-
INGTON'S case, his offence is the smallest conceiv-
able, even by those who object to free discussion
in matters of religion. He did not write the work
—he was not the original publisher of it—the
author has not been prosecuted—the original pub-
lisher was allowed to escape freely on pleading
guilty, and Mr. HETHERINGTON, who is merely
the agent for selling a book published at Man-
chester, has been found guilty, and awaits, what
ought in justice—as the offence is nominal—to be
the smallest quantity of punishment.
There is one peculiarity in this case, which does
not seem to have been sufficiently noticed. The
indictment set forth the passages which are
characterised as blasphemous. The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL called a witness to prove the publication,
but he called no witnesses, and he made no obser-
vations, to prove that the language was blasphe-
mous ; he kft that, and so did the Judge, for the
Jury to decide, by such light of common sense as
they may possess. In their opinion, the language
quoted is a blasphemous libel. They decided no
matter of fact by their verdict, but matter of opi-
nion. They differ from Mr. HASLAM, and, there-
fore, Mr. HETHERINGTON is found guilty of pub-
lishing blasphemy.
What is, and what is not, blasphemy, is a ques-
tion very difficult to decide. The word blasphemy
is defined to mean " offering an indignity to
GOD." But the whole gist of Mr. HAst.A st's
remarks are to condemn the Bible, and thus to
condemn the Bible is to offer an in-
dignity to GOD. GOD and the Bible, there-
fore, are one and the same in the opinion of the
Jury. But the English Bible is a translation of
the Hebrew Bible, and is subject to a great many
doubts. It is plainly and palpably, from first to
last, the work of man's hand. It was originally
written by man, and yet the 'Jury have come to a
conclusion which identifies the work of man's hand
with the Great Living GOD. Are the Jury or
Mr. HASLAM the more impious and the greater
blasphemers ?
It will be as well, we think, to place before the
public, the names of the erudite and wise men
who immediately decided, without any vvidenee, that
this was a blasphemous libel. We copy them, there-
fore, from Mr. HETHERINGTON'S report :---

THE JURY.

Special—
Robert Savage, Esq., 11, Montagu-place, Bloomsbury.
James Arboine, merchant, 3, Brunswick-square.
William Fechney Black, merchant, Wilton-place.
Charles Frederick Barnwell, Esq., 44, Woburn-place.
Robert Eglinton, merchant, 29, Woburn-square.
Common Jurors__
Charles Ricketts, stove.maker, 5, Agar-street, West
Strand.
William Poldon, licensed victualler, Villiers-street,
Strand.
John Osborne, confectioner, 401, Strand.
John Johnson Ruffell, painter, 24, Church-street, Soho.
Thomas Reid, baker, 24, Old Compton•street, Suho.
Charles Phillips, ivory brushmaker, 20, King-street,
Soho.

J. Mabow, baker, 34, Greek-street, Soho.
We see nothing in the names or occupations of
these gentlemen which should make them proper
judges of so important a question as the blasphemy
of a particular writing. The selling of gin, or the
making of cakes, kneading dough, or running
bristles through plates of ivory, do not lead to any
peculiar fitness for judging so nice a question. \Vo
have great respect for the occupations of all these
gentlemen ; they are all those of honest and indus-
trious citizens, of men who live by their oWn labour,
and whom we therefore are much inclined to
respect; we only say that there is nothing in their
occupations to give us confidence in their decision,
that a passage of a book is a blasphemous libel.
The general rule, which leaves to the Jury the
decision on the nature of a writing charged as libel,
is of high value, and serves in political cases to
protect the people against tyranny ; but, in such a
case as a charge for blasphemy, if the Jury hap-
pen to be ignorant, prejudiced men, that provision
of the law may be productive of much mischief.
We cannot suppose, had the Judge been called
on for his opinion, that he would have described
the words of Mr. HAsLANI, though coarse and
rude, and wholly unwarranted by criticism or the
courtesies of life, as a blasphemous libel. He never
would—no man in his senses, who has ever considered
the subject, not even the Bishop of EXETER, were
he on the Bench, and had to give a judicial deci-
sion, would have pronounced the remarks on any
book whatever, or any work of man's hand, how-
ever beautiful or sublime, or however violently
those remarks were expressed—to be a blasphe-
mous libel, insulting and displeasing to Goa
The decision of the Jury is a proof of their igno-
rance and their want of reflection—vices as inimi-
cal to liberty as the love of injustice, for they con-
sign a respectable man to punishment.
It is not customary, too, in England to make the
persons who are parties to a suit Jurors to
try it. " If," said the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
" attacks on the Scriptures were to be permitted,
what was to prevent the pious feelings of the com-
munity from being outraged ? Suppose a man
were to carry a board through the streets on which
was inscribed in large characters, that Curtisr
was an impostor.' Could it be tolerated ? Yet
this, according to the defendant, was only free in-
quiry I" From this passage, it is plain that the
sum of the offence, though described as displeasing
to GOD, is, that it offends the pious feelings of the
community of which the Jurors are a part. Their
feelings are supposed to be outraged, and it is to
defend them that the prosecution is instituted.
They are, therefore, a party to the suit, and
yet they arc made Jurors, quite inconsistently with
the usual practice of English jurisprudence. They
receive their impression of the Bible, too, from the
priests ; the priests, by the mouth of the Bishop
of EXETER, acting for them as a Lord of Parlia-
ment, instituted the prosecution, and thus, through
the Jury, the priests become both prosecutors and
judges. That is a palpable injustice, and we hope
that the Judges will not give effect, except nomin-
ally, as they must pronounce sentence, to such an
ill-timed and unjust decision.

By the arrival of the Independence packet ship
at Liverpool, on Thursday evening, we have received
New York Papers of the 10th ult., being one day
later than the papers brought by the Great
Western. In consequence of the great depth of
the snow, which rendered travelling extremely diffi-
cult, when Congress met on the 7th, there were
not members enough present to form houses for the
discharge of business ; so that an adjournment from
day to day was resolved upon, till the requisite
number of members were in attendance. The Pre-
sident's Message was not therefore delivered when
the last mails left Washington for New York, nor
was it known when it might be expected in that
city.

These Papers bring no news of the slightest in-
terest. More was talked about sleighing and skat-
ing in New York, than about banks, currency, and
he President s Message. The brief intervals be-