The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-19 00:00:00

MORNING SUN

' PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY,
At the Bristol Epiphany Sessions, before Sir Charles
Wetherell, Recorder, Charles Southwell, late a SoCialist
missionary, was tried for writing, printing, and publish-
ing certain blasphemous libels, in a work called " The
Oracle of Reason." The libels were certainly some of
the most gross which have ever appeared in print, stria
the defendant consequently has excited but little _ sym-
pathy, as he himself appears now to feel, for it was hot
a mere right of publication of opinion, but he wished to
establish his right to fly in the face of the laws, religion,
) and feelings of the whole community; still considerable
-
interest was taken in the proceedings, and the hall was
filled during the whole of the lengthened period they oc-
cupied. The trial commenced at half-past twelve o'clock
on Friday, and was adjourned at nine till ten the following
morning, and was not concluded till half-past four.
Mr. J. G. Smith and Mr. Skinner were the counsel
.for
the prosecution; Southwell defended himself, assisted by
Mr. Hetherington, of London.
' Mr. SKINNER having opened the pleadings,
Mr. SMITH stated the case. The defendant stood at
that bar to answer for the publication of a series of blas-
phemous libels which had appeared in a work published
by him, entitled " The Oracle of Reason," of which he
was the t ditor, printer, and publisher. As far as he. had
been informed from papers put forth by- the defendaht
since the preferment of the indictment, hisdefence would
not be a denial of the publication, but very much in the
nature of the libels themselves—that he would impugn
the lay"—condemn this prosecution as most impolitic,
subversive of liberty, and particularly of the liberty of
the press—endeavouring to excite in their minds, and
those of the auditory, a contempt for the law and all the
authorities of the country. The defendant appeared to
take his ground on the right of all men to.publish their
opinions on all subjects, without the slightest control.
Would, however, lie would ask, any man of ordinary ob-
servation say, that writing as the defendant had, with
the objects which he had avowed, was a fair discus-
sion of opinions ? Was it not obviou; that his in-
tentions were mischievous and wicked, Valculateq
to lead to deeds of violence, and every evil
work ? And what an absurdity it was to impute
to the law which restrained such conduct the title
of being oppressive. They talked of liberty, and, for-
sooth, of religious liberty. Liberty! how was that name
abused by those men; their application of the term
meant absolute independence, which was inconsistent
with liberty, and destructive of all the links that bind
society together. Liberty was not absolute indepen-
dence, for to be absolutely independent a man might go
into the street and knock his neighbour down at his own
will, or force his way into any man's house, because it
was his pleasure to do so; but this was not liberty, for
liberty was reciprocal. A man wishing to have his own
rights respected must respect the rights of others.
True liberty must be within bounds, and the man who
broke them was no longer a freeman, but a pest to so-
ciety, who would destroy that very liberty of which he
speaks so loudly in praise. But were there no other
dangers by which liberty might be menaced but physical
ones? What was there more powerful than the press?
What a material influence had it in training up
and instructing the young? How necessary was it;
therefore, that it should be properly conducted, and
how dangerous it would be if, instead of its being used
as an instriunent for the instruction of youth in the
paths of virtue, it should be employed to promulgate all
that is evil. Why, it would be calculated -to
break down all the barriers of virtue, and to introduce.
the grossest -delusions. If there was any one depart-
ment of civil liberty which more than another -required
proper restrictions, it was the freedom of the press. He
trusted he should not be mistaken, no one venerated the
freedom of the press more than he did, but he still thoi4l:-
that if it was not kept within its proper limits, instead.oc
being one of the greatest benefits to mankind, it wOu'let
become an instrument of torture. The Learned Gentle-.
man then alluded to. the libels in the indictment (the
language of which is unfit to be repeated, and to which
we shall only allude by saying that they denied the ex-
istence of God and the blessed Saviour. and calumniated
the Bible, the Prophets, and Apostles, in the most eoarstl
language), and said, if sentiments such as were contained
in those libels were permitted to be propagated
as being true, what would become of society, what'
would become of the sanctity of an oath, and of all
the forms under which justice was administered?
The defendant had divested himself of all moral
responsibility. This was his teaching of philosophy
forsooth ; but he (Mr. Smith) would ask what was to
become of society, if such doctrines were allowed ?
With such doctrines, if he could escape the punishment
of human laws, what hold had they on any man ? What
hold was there on him who insisted on his absolute
right to do as he pleased, and that he feared neither God,
Devil, nor a human tribunal ? What was it that ren-
dered sacred human tribunals, but the belief in a re-
sponsibility here and hereafter—the belief in an Omnis-
cient Eye watching over us, and the powers of con-
science ? This was the foundation of all civil Goverti-
ment for if once individuals were brought to believe
that there was no God, no future state, that man is of
the same nature as the brute, and that, when he dies,..
lie sinks into the grave a nonentity, what was there to ,
restrain such a man within the paths of virtue ? No—
thing ! What was there to check-his bad passions -but
the mere fear of human punishment ? It was
known that thieves and others calculated on-the commis:.
sion of crime by the chances of impunity;ibtitAid: they'
knoVr how many there were whOni the ihif.ig!punish-
ment hereafter restrained ? Let the JUiy look at t 4:
danger of the introduction of such doctrines into
their families and schools--teething the yentir
country to believe that their fathers, in ineuleatin,,,,r
Christianity, were knaves and tyrants, and:they( 4WO
could believe them, fools, dolts, and idiots. What sort of
children would they have—what sort of schools—whet
sort of clerks and shopmen? Such a course would lead
to the grossest 'delusions, and be destructive of all moral
restraint. What confidence-would they place in the inte-
grity cf such a man? What a state of ruin, and misery,
and crime would ensue. Would there be any of that vir-
tue—that liberty lie speaks of ? No. Man would be
hating man, and hateful to each other. He would, there-
fore, call confidently upon them for a verdict of guilty, in
order'that all that the law allowed might be done to pre-
vent the contamination of the public by the further pub-
lication of such blasphemies. God forbid that it shonld.
be thought that lie sought to persecute the defendant.
No such thing; if he could be stopped from the commis
sion of such offences, he should be glad if he were at
once allowed -to return to his home. This, however,
could not -be done; and he therefore called on • them,: in
the name-of God, in the name of justice, to do every- --
thing- in their power to put a stop to such a torrent of
blasphemies as had been published by the defendant.
Stephen Rogers, clerk to Messrs. Brice and Btirget,'::,
jun., Clerks to the Magistrates, deposed to hairing
chased some copies of the libels of the defendant at his •
shop.
Cross-examined—l am not here to say what is or what;
is not a libel, but I think a libel is that which is not true.
William Reynolds, Mayor's officer, and Harry Bur-
gess, a police sergeant, also proved the purchase of copies
of the libels.

The libels were then read, which closed the case for
the prosecution.
The defendant then rose to ask the Court whether it
did not think it right to stop the case, as not a tittle of
evidence had been given of his having published a blas-
phemous libel ; it had not been defined what blas-
phemy was.
The RECORDER said the Jury were to judge from the
perusal of the matter whether it was a libel, and whether
it was blasphemous or not. The objection was there-
fore disallowed.

The defendant then commenced his defence, and said
he fully agreed with the Learned Counsel for the prose-
cution that they were living in an age of comparative
enlightenment and civilization ; there were no longer
any secret tribunals, and he would freely own that it
was the privilege of every man to have an open, fair,
and honourable trial ; he spoke thus lest it might be said
that- he did not prize, as he really did, the privilege of -:
trial by jury. It was the custom, and on these oceaskoPs
more especially, to appeal to the passions and Aty, vyo,-.ltiT
prejudices ; he regretted that the Learned Coumg4ll);§4.r
not stepped out of the custom, bocause, wiieri,they„rsa
excited, reason was.,Jost—engulphed, as it werc,•
men did things which, .in e.xdler..moulents, ,they
would shudder, at.— Be • trusted, however,' that ;they

t • . theft-11=W 11170;-grVing-
patient hearing, judge of his,intuntions and motives by
his general conduct, and -he was sure, if they,lid so, they
Would honourably acquit him. It had bendy vor
P rejudice: Was the spider of the mind ; a he d
2
that, like the spider, it wove its web in desoiati
worn-out habitations. The defendant„_her.4% M -
the authorities of -Jeremy nenthain, Pitt, Burke, trs-
kine, &c., on the duties of juries, contendinwthat they
were to be the judges of the law.. arid the t) t, bOth
of guiltiness and non-guiltiness., Proud rids he of
these authorities, because civilisation would be checked,,
and they would iave nothing but a mental and physfal
despotism were the power of Juries abridged or de-
stroyed : he called on them, therefore, to. judge him
calmly. If they thought his teaching bad, did they not
think that, instead of persecuting him, they would
remedy his bad teaching by better teaching ? If they
thought this they would accord him an acquittal. Before
he proceeded to another portion of his defence, he
would briefly allude to the means which had been taken
out of doors to raise a prejudice against him. First,
there was a Rev. Gentleman—a Rev. Mr. Bromley, lie
believed—who, while he was in his cell with this trial
hanging over his head, had the good taste to deliver a
set of lectures, prejudicing the public mind against him,
which lectures were heralded forth by placards in some
such words as these—" The Rev. Bromley will deliver
a lecture on the Infamous Blasphemies of Charles South-
well." But perhaps, the Rev. Gentleman had two ob-
jects in view ; the one, by prejudicing the public mind
to increase his (the defendant's) punishment—the other,
to fill his own pocket. There was another gentleman
who had been also most anxious about his trial, who had
used every means in his power to excite prejudice against
him—the Editor of the Anti-Socialist Gazette (and anti-
social enough it was), who had even the audacity to ad-
dress a letter to his Lordship on the subject of this trial.
The COURT—What is that ? addressed a letter to
me !—if any letter had been brought to me on the sub-
ject I would have thrown it on the fire.
The Defendant—lt is a printed letter, my Lord-
The COURT—Oh ! well, I have never seen it, nor I
I aware that there was such a thing in existence.
s_en it, -
The defendent was aware, if his Lordship; had e
his sense of justice was such that he
as he•had said he would. In that letter
had he
that Ro-
bert had been denounced beca ace h,ev
awakened in him the 7
Owen was the man who "lue-ii(thhea'Seacfentedu-
lirs,etkaing him, the writer
Aittit:. one stone ; to punish
wish I;ir free inquiry, &c.
thought to kill two birdsini!'
that
defendant)
his
rl
(i
.d.
filet a stab on the social
rh
thgeiin,m):,so:f)tpittlillnetil,pirarof
lehsimo:efutro7ch be was as ignorant as a
f. Robert 0,, en, who, what • •
ss,tiicakpionkgQbna;:e. It was
Wes d,„idedly one of the most
benevo-
lent and ;wor,fl () —one from whom he had ever
learned a re‘:erence for truth awl a hatred a fasehood. ,

MORNING SUN

The defendant dwelt at some length on Mr. Owen's
opinions, and then said he would now at once proceed
to comment on the remarks of the Learned Counsel who
was opposed to him. He had asserted that he (the de-
fendant) thought all men who were opposed to him diss
honest men ; he denied, he repudiated such a charge,
and he defied that Learned Counsel to point out a sin-
gle line in any of his writings that would justify him
in making it, for there were many Christian writers
whom he honoured and revered for their talents, learn-
ing, and their sincerity ; he abhorred only the med-
dling hypocrites, who went about from town to town, and
village to village, engendering strife ; he loved all
all good men of any creed or of no creed at all, and
who, if there was a work of God, were the noblest works
of God. He could admire talent, he could admire virtue,
whereever he found it. He now much wished to dis-
abuse their minds of the impression which the Learned
Counsel sought to introduce, viz., that he was a vain,
conceited person,:who thought himselt a great philosopher.
He thought himself no such thing ; but he did think
himself an honest man, and he thought that was the
happiest state of society in which the people had paid
more attention to the laws than they did to the lawyers.
The Learned Counsel had said that his intentions were
to oppress and destroy. He denied it. lie had never in
his life oppressed or destroyed, nor had he wittingly
ever hurt a living thing. Such were not not his objects,
and in publishing the " Oracle of Reason," he only de-
clared in favour of the rights of man and free disepssion,
If there were 1,000 religions, 999 of them must be wrong,
and the whole thousand might be. He only claimed the
same right which the Unitarian did, which the Christian
did, which the Quaker did—the right of' free inquiry
and of expressing their honest convictions. It
was said by Mr. Smith that he might publish
whatever he thought proper, but then the law
was to pounce down upon him, so that if what he had
done was morally right it might be legally wrong; he
would, however, contend that what was morally right
ought to-be legally right. The Learned Counsel said
that he wished to reduce men to a level with the brutes.
Nothing could be further from his intentions; he wished
to raise them from their present position, which was
almost on a level with the brute, to .their proper situa-
tion. The poet had said, " What a piece of work is man!
how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! in form
and moving how express and admirable! in action how
like an angel! in comprehension how like a God—the
glory of the world, the paragon of animals." This
was what man should be, but never yet had been.
This was the rank to which he would raise him, and
if learning, if instruction was to brutify, then he would
brutify him, but not otherwise. For, show him an
ignorant people, and they showed him an enslaved people.
He was charged with a wish to destroy society, and to
bring about scenes similar to those which disgraced the
French revolution. The Learned Gentleman, but little
understood him, or he would not have spoken of him
as he had that day—his mind was so cribbed, cabined,
and confined, that he could not understand him (the
defendant). The Learned Gentleman clung to his own
principles, but would not allow him to exercise his. The
Learned Gentleman loved Christianity—he loved philo-
sophy ; and although the Learned Gentleman thought
it impossible for there to be any virtue without religion,
he (defendant) thought there might be a race of moral-
ists as far above the present race as giants were above
dwarfs. What ! did the Learned Gentleman so debase
the human rade as to say that there was no love of vir-
tue—no respect for morality—no hatred of oppression,
unless by religion ? Who would not die for the wife of
his bosom ? Who would not serve his friend ? Was
there no one who would do a single good act without the
hope of reward or the fear of punishment hereafter? He
(the defendant) knew it to be far otherwise, and if it
had been necessary he could have produced for himself
a character for morality and integrity which, perhaps,
would have stood as high as any. But let them not
suppose that, while thus he professed his love of
nature, he would for a moment strike down
law. No ! he was as tremblingly alive to it
as was the Learned Counsel ; society would be de-
stroyed without laws; but it was one thing to have laws
and another thing to have good ones • and while it was
necessary to respect the laws, and those who uprightly
administered them, there was a duty that they owed to
themselves, that of resisting bad ones. Supposing that
Luther, Calvin, Knox, Socrates, Aristotle, and a hun-
dred others—supposing they had acted on the principle
that laws are not to be resisted, what would have been
the results ? If Luther had not acted as he did, he (the
defendant) would not have been standing in a Protestant
country, and yet he was to be persecuted for holding. his
opinions ; and, because he held some which were inimi-
cal to the opinions held at present, he was to be swept
from the earth. For the free expression of his opinions
they had no more right to hurt his little finger than they
had to cast him into a dungeon or send his body to the
stake. Their cruel fathers, the Catholics, sacrificed whole
hecatombs of men in Smithfield and elsewhere, in the
name of religion, for the service of God, and because
their opinions were held to be detrimental to society ;
and, in more ancient times, the best of men had been
eacrified—religious men—if, to be religious, meant to act
righteously and well, to love truth and hate insincerity ;
and they, the Jury, would be imitating the conduct of
their cruel forefathers if they punished him for the exer-
cise of his opinions—he contended for the entire free-
dom of thought and opinion. Supposing they thus per-
secuted him, they might force him to hold his tongue, but
that would make him thug his opinions closer to his
heart, and cherish them the more they wished to rifle
them from him. The way to maintain °(-rood opinions
was not by persecution or prosecution but by intro-
ducing better arguments. Mr. Southwell then quoted a
great number of authorities, ancient and modern, and
at nine o'clock, there being no probability of his closing
his defence for several hours, the Court adjourned until
ten o'clock on Saturday morning.
On Saturday at ten o'clock the trial was resumed, and
the defendant proceeded with his address. He con-
tended that he had as much right to the enjoyment of
his opinions as any other member of society, though he
did not agree with any of the existing systems of religion.
His opinion was, that to be moral and honest was to be
entirely just, and that was all that was necessary to guide
their conduct. his opinions were tho same as some of the
noble Greeks and Romans, who not only disbelieved in all
the religions then taught, but had none at all; yet their
- characters were held up even in modern times as examples
of what men ought to be, and were as honest men, and as
little dispoSed to do mischief, as any one of the Jury.
He then entered into a disquisition on the charac-
ters of Thales, Epicurus, Aristotle, Zeno, and others.
They were, in fact, Athiests, as he was, for all men were
Atheists who contended for the eternity of matter. The
defendant contended that a great many learned and
scientific men of modern times held the same opinions,
only they thought it prudent to withhold those opinions
from the uneducated and vulgar, and hid behind a thick
veil of mystery the opinions they were compelled to en-
tertain. The Learned Counsel had laid to his charge
an inconsistency which he should be ashamed of, in stat-
ing'that he had said the universe was an effect. What
he contended for was, thn same as Aristotle had held,
that the universe is 'necessarily something not produced.
It was others who said it was an effect. Whatever opi-
nion they might entertain of his prudence, they could
not doubt his honesty and sincerity ; for he declared
most solemnly that he had never in his life wittingly told
a falsehood, nor ever in his life knowingly given pain to
any human being. The difference between him and the per-
sons of whom he had been speaking was, that lie thought
expression ought to be given to whatever be considered
truth. They liked the light for themselves, but kept
the people in darkness : he wished the light to shine on
all alike. And it was impossible any longer to keep
knowledge boxed up in cabinets, as it were ; it would
cut out a road for itself, and there was no resisting it,
and therefore it was folly to be persecuting a man for the
publication of his opinions in the 19th century, as they
did in the dark ages of the 10th century. The clergy were
sufficiently numerous and well paid to contend against
error, and the proper way to put down bad opinions was to
combat theM by good opinions, and not by the halter, the
dungeon, and the scaffold. The defendant, after pro-
ceeding in this strain for some time, quoted extracts from
No. 87 of the "Tracts for the Times," in support of pre-
destination, and said that he could plead the same justi-
fication for F ntertaining and publishing his opinions.
Tf their thictrines were sound, then there was no merit or
demerit in whatever opinions he might hold, and he
would beg the Jury to reflect on -the fact, that these doc-
trines were-spreading, and that if a junction should-take
place 'between the Puseyites and the Roman Catholics-
which was far from improbable—let them consider they
thetnselves,:its Protestants, might be placed in the same
situation he then stood in ; and, if they -condemned him,
they either did not understand the principle of Protest-
antism, or they did not act upon it. lie proceeded to
enter on the subject of religious fanaticism, and to make
large extracts from various works on this subject, and
then to endeavour to justify the description he had given
of the Bible in the libel. He read extracts from certain
parts which he considered exceptionable, and after re-
ferring to the laws relating to blasphemy, he concluded
by making a powerful appeal to the Jury to honourably
acquit him, and thus set an example which would set at
rest at once and for ever the system of persecution fim
opinion's sake.
The Learned RECORDER having charged the Jury in a
short address, they retired, and in about ten minutes re-
turned with a verdict of Guilty.
The defendant was then sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment in the first class, and a fine of 100!., and to
be further imprisoned till the fine be paid.
The trial lasted altogether fifteen hours, and the speech
of the defendant occupied nearly ten hours.