The Sun.
London, England, 1819-11-17 00:00:00

PPRICE SEVENPENCE.

upon at this late hoar of the proceedings, to ap-
ply himself to a question of this magnitude and
importance, he certainly did not mean to decline
the task imposed upon hitt], because be consider-
ed,, that in thus presenting• himself to the Court
he was merely fulfilling the most ordinary duty
cast upon members of that profession to which
he had the hon One to belong. There was, there-
fore, he conceived, not the ,smallest occasion for
-offering any apology-for any thing that might fall
front him, still less of defending, any'apparent sin-
gularity in this point of view. The defendant
.140 confided his instructions to him, to consider
whether or tot he bad been legally convicted ;
and the motion that he (Mr. D.) bad to submit
to the Court was, that a Rule might be granted
to shew cause why the judgment prayed against
the defendant should not be arrested, on the-
ground that the defendant hadnot been convicted
according to the Law of England. The Learned
Counsel then went into a detailed argurient upon
the point he intended to submit, which was shortly
this :—that the offence of which he was convicted
was no indictable at common law, inasmuch as
the Statute 9 and 10 of William and Mary bad
taken away, as be contended, the common law
cognizance of the offence of blaspheniy, upon the
principle that a Parliamentary enactment super-
seded the common law mode of proceeding against
such an offence. In illustration of his argument
he referred to the sth of Elizabeth, c. 9, touch-
ing the offence of perjury, re ;rating and forestall.
lug. He was well aware that the King v. Taylor,
,reported in Ventris, was an authorby in favour of
a common law plosettution, but at that time the
Statute of 9 and 10 W. and M. bail not pasised.--
The hardship against the defendant was, that he
was deprived of" the enumerated protections
thrown around a defendant indicted upon that
Statute. He referred to the cases of the King v.
\Voolston, Strange, 850; and the King v. Wil-
liatits, contending that these did not militate
against the proposition for which he contended.
After stating such arguments as occurred to him in
support of his objection—
Tile JUDGES delivered their opinions seriatim,
holding that the ohjection was not tenable. The
statute of 9 and 10 W. and M. only .enacted
cu-
mulative penalties upon the common lawsgfii.nce,
and by no means went to supersede the common
law_liability. In the case of the King v. Robin.
son, 2 Burr. 799, the' rule by which this case
was to be decided was most cleanly laid down by
Lord Mansfield, who said That where the
offence intended to he guarded-.against by a
statute, was punishable before th m e aking of such
statute, prescribing a particular method of pu.
,osbing ir, there such particular remc4 is cumu.
lutire, and 'does not take away the former re-
medy ;, but where the statute, only enacts-s' That
the doing any act not punishable before, Shall for

the future he punishable in such and such parti-
cular\ manncr,' there it is necessary that such par•
ticular method, by such act prescribed, must be
specifically pursued ; and not the entinnon law
method of an indictment." The Court also said

that the K;rig v. Hall, reported in Fitzgibbon,
was a decisive whorl! y open the point, and there-
fore they over-ruled the objection.
Mr. DENMAN, after he hod stated his objection
in arrest of judgment, said, that any observations
which might be suggested in mitigation of pu-
nishment, would come with much greater weight
from the Oefendont himself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then put 'in an affitia.
Yit Made by, Mr. XV. B. Gurney, the short-hand-
writer, stating that the defendant had admitted
on his trial that he had sold 3,000 copies of be
Age of Reason at half a guinea each.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then asked the defendant
if he had any thing to offer in mitigation of pu-
nishment

Mr. CARLILD said, he had not much to say in
mitigation of punishment, but that be bad much
to say why he should not be punished at all, The
delcuda t then proceeded to address time Commit at
considerable length. In the course of his aadrcas

he introduced topics which called for the interpo•
ction and animadversion of the Court We for-
bear giving his observations at length, but the
following appearing to be the least objectionable
we give them insettion

My Lords—Called upon at this time to answer
if I have any reasons to offer why judgment
should not be passed against me, permit me, my
Lords, to reply,- that 1 have been guilty of no
crime. No crime, at least, for which consist-
ently with the principles of justice I ought to be
made answerable before a human tribunal. I
cannot now hope to set aside the verdict, which
believe to have been wrongfully, given against
me; but as yet the evil is not complete; I have
suffered unjust imprisonment ; but by your jtilfg.
went at this . time some amends may be ina,ie for
the injustice J have sustained. I have been found
guilty of publishing -Paine's Age of Reason. I
contend, my Lords, that in so doing thetetis no
Crime. I fear you think otherwise, bear viriAh me
while I state the grounds of my opinion', My
Lords, justice is invariably the same, she does not
change with .time, she does not falter with alarm.;
she stands above theelouds, and,with steady hand
holds the balances, while storms and tempests play
beneath her feet ; and Kingdoms and • Empires
which regard not her decrees,_ perish beneath her
frown. Pause, my Lords, .before yOu'_cOnsign me
to a dungeon, or cast .roe forth to pnverty'andun.
deserved disgrace, The objecti.of justie.e are the
punishment of crimes and_ the letormdtion of

the offrnder ; in this we agree, hitt surelOnsed
not remind your Lordships, that it is the'tinen.
tion which makes the crime. The distincuOns
'between murder, manslaughter, justifiable hgtini.
cide, anti accidental killing, are well known, pnd
have often been ex; lined by your Lonititips
they, are the principles of. our revered eoglmon