The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-22 00:00:00

TILE LAW OF BLASPREMOUS -117

The Lord Chancellor, last night,
the Juridical Society, presided at its usualdbl;
monthly meeting, when Mr. Lewis, Q.C., rea of
paper upon the Law Regulating the Prosecution
Blasphemous Libel; after which a discussion of Mel'
than ordinary interest took place. to tilts
Mr. LEWIS,
• s, his paper, after referring .ss.
delicacy of the inquiry, apoligised for introdnew:
it to the society, on the ground that the late in ries
as President 0!
ference to it had been assailed by able men in v-af
opinion which ought to
lent terms as incompatible with that freedom
Having given examples of the kind of sPeakktea
vihich the law held to be blasphemous, be resaar ,110
that such blasphemy was indictable, under both so
prevail in a free eonat.l;:iY;
common and the statute law, the malice of the Per.sens
uttering it being assumed as an essential thrall
of the offence. Formerly, nonconformity hadllu
heresy were indictable by statute, but that lasy at
been repealed, and that being the case he WaS re-uildi-
to maintain that there was not anything pre,l its
cial to free opinion in the State exercisinghois
power to protect the Christian religion from ri was
and scurrilous attacks. On the contrary., it the
under a twofold obligation to do so, first Afoot
sake of protecting society from the public evil be
would ensue should the sanctions of that cree of
weakened; and secondly, for the preservaticeited
the law, which is based upon it. Having pond,
the dicta of Chief Justices Hale and ltai7i,-00
Mr. Justice Ashurst, Chief Justice Best,
chs
Hardwicke, and Eldon, in references to cool° be
had been brought judicially before thenihs
gathered from them that the reason of the Is,
mak.ng blasphemy an indictable offence
is;el
first,
that Christianity was part an's • aked
of the law, so that when Christianity was attaeato
the law itself was attacked; secondly, bee.st,s;
blasphemy endangered government and ocl:flits,
thirdly, that it was prejudicial to morality Fais-
fourthly, that it interfered with the due adill'sisa
tration of justice, inasmuch as a denial of reve're.
religion implied a disbelief in a state of futurewao
wards and punishments, the belief in wilichts of
the basis of the oath administered in the our
cages
justice. Now, there were three classes ef
which came before the tribunals of the countrY,rin
the decision of which the jud(ses had, as the rePisc-t-
-sentatives of the State, either to connive at the °The
ence of blasphemy or openly discountenance it• too
first class consisted of such cases as were Viva-
of police ; as the prosecution of Carlisle and e nee-
Hams for the publication of Paine's " Age ttion6
son." The second set or class related to foillas`Thadl
for unchristian objects, as in the case o.`„rised.
Headley's Charity. The third class eetric the
all those in which the Court of Chance**, ei.st of
pares leo
doctrine "earens patrice," deprived the
the guardianship of his children, when his prisnelePase
were in antagonism to religion, as it did infejaba
ofc the poet Shelley. After defending DLL )fr.
Coleridge from the attack made upon him yiies to
John Stuart Mill and Mr. Buckle, in refererr-ying
irriis conduct at the liodmin Assizes, when s."-tli
Thomas Podley, he proceeded at some 1'3;14' ton
show that it was not the right of free disc the
which was interfered with, as it was clear fro°, the
case of " the Attorney-General v. Pearson" tila`Wse
giving utterance to blasphemous expression,ssn
not in itself an offence, but was only so w"`
had a tendency to lead to practical results. be
The Lord Chancellor observed that will with
agreed with a great deal he did not agree tiled
everything which had fallen from the 'etas is
reader. There could be no doubt that. it Teo
very grave offence to speak scornfully or in oa
of ridicule or insult of the Christian religionfnisir
he hoped it would ever continue to be One Put. gr.
able by the law of England; but the views 13 were
Lewis went further, for he would direct the coo,
of the State to the prosecution, not only but,
but also against men like Gibbon and Hunle,,,; be
as had been the case with himself at the tioors
held the office of Attorney-General, the law ratter
of the Crown had to consider not only the chia`nt to
of the offence, but also whether it was Poi° ,sod
prosecute it; in fact, whether more harm tharlevold
might not result ;from the proceedings. Ire e, sir
net but think the defence of his late colleagn his
John Coleridge, unnecessary, for all who kneVlacted
felt convinced that in the case referred to he
with the purest and most honourable motivethes.argir
Mr. L. G. Phillimore characterised entlY
ments of Mr. Lewis as being:those most &eV iegis
used in the cause of error, for, pushed to there
timate conclusion, they would justify the re_resi
tion of the Edict of Nantes. The doctrine "reel,
patrice," as acted upon by the Court of Chit!) the
was a gross usurpation ; and with regard I,_°.ra 0
Shelley case, although lie would not select 010 be
the tutor of his children, the very last PT's° TO
would select to fill that office was Lord ElVAm'slea
a
thought Christianity ought to spurn being clers;serl
by weapons which were taken from the
of error. LeWil
ity
Mr. Baron Bramwell complained that
had made use of negative terms, such as infidel'thing
and heresy, which were correlative of sosmirehat be
positive, which he had omitted to define. " -
considered truth and orthodoxy
tinople be held as blasphemy, which the St
under an obligation to repress and punish• For
own part, he would, as a general principle, 6e tor
g in indecen
punish any one who would indul e s no 1130
ribald attacks upon the religion of any see"
ter how few might be its members. sieervea
would in Cellst_tason
,
Ai. I Chambers, the Common Sergeant, and,
that Mr, Lewis's views were misunderstoodf.lood
instead of being at variance with those exPif
by the learned Baron, were identical with th,esuotiro,
The Attorney-General, in nsoving tho anj.d not
meat of the discussion, said that Mr. Lewis "1 but
intend to give his paper a general a
confined it to the law of England. With rese of
were
matters of religiyn, the duties of the state r
a completely negative character, as it could with,
teach religion nor enforce morality.
regard to the Toleration Act, it was in Into
cable in practice, and as such had fallen who
desuetude, for it related only to those,oo,
had been educated in the Christian religlsetise.
limitation which rendered it a nullity in ePruert et
With regard to the interference of the -° there
Chancery in the case of Shelley's pplicatioina,r,
was a great deal of misunderstanding. It wagebriesehildren not
because their father was an unbeliever in
to
tianity, but because he violated and ref°
acknowledge the ordinary rules of Mor4litY:a_i,„ of
The motion having been agreed to, the tn
the society were, on the motion of Baron 'tea to
well, seconded by Vice-Chancellor Stuart, ye drag',
Lord Chancellor, for his kindness in arten
and the proceedings terminated.
. s.

f 131‘..-
MADAME GRISI.—The brutal treatmen- _ high-
Madame Grisi has experienced at the hands of th°_,liiell
born, well-bred, potato-hurling, howling. audienci!owniudi
frequents the Italian Opera, Madrid, has given 148eLd tlie°
recrimination. Signor Mario has naturally resen
should
gross and brutal insults on a lady whose former fa But DI
have secured her an immunity at least from insult. it, that
his remonstrances he has been met by the religir.fsi did
during the hey-day of her prosperity, Madame gadriu
dained to accent any of the brilliant offers of the
lotoked
amanagers, andthat she only does so now When her Loot.
titd broken voice fails to procure any place iiii_d st
Many angry discussions have arisen on this Otte ~f7e 4.
last they have resulted in a duel, which came off Yeti/0.04
The principals were Signor Mario and Senor San ," ;oh
the Director of the Principe Theatre. After severe!, lief the
hurt,
and both combatants were wounded, the one i libe n;tir of
other in the arm the seconds interfered, and h°ll,jousli
!Kith was declared scot free. Neither has teen el 009
indeed, Mario would be able to sing again ilel aia to
were his services required, but he will decline ever g
sing in Madrid. .........-011
THE SMITHFIELD CLUE CATTLE Slincluelltil
Saturday the galleries for the reception of the iniP__suing
and agricultural produce to be exhibited at the,",',r ate
Smithfield Club Cattle Show were being preparct2;oo/.
allotments of space t demands being greater than,o.ril-
Messrs. Gibbs and Colic the svcdsmen of the Rord, 'e:; slid
tural Society of England, will occupy their old Plautdanc°
the Royal Dublin Society will again, under th?. g,O ore,
of its curator, Mr. Corrigan, exhibit specimens 01,1':iug, of
derful produce of the sister country. Messrs. Sroduea
Liverpool, and other seedsmen, will also exhibitiferooto,
from Scotland. By the rules of the club, au imP..,, 1000
roots, seeds. &c., are required to bo in the showYT:before
three o'clock on the Ist of December, the Thursaf .o'ol
the show, so as to prevent confusion, and to hivetue th.
stand properly arranged before the private vievi ply