The Sun.
London, England, 1820-01-14 00:00:00

TRIAL OF JAMES TUCKER.

(FURTEii3R PanTtcoearts—Front The Exeter
Hying Post of Yesterday.)
At our City Sessions, held on Worley last, be-
fore the Mayor, Wtetassa COURTRNAT, ESC!:
Recorder, and the Justices for the City, James
Tucker was tried for poblishing a Blasphemous
Libel, in time form of a Parody on the Catechism ;
and it is with feelings of deep gratitude for the
pure and effec'ive Administration of our Laws, we
have to state, was convicted lie was immediately
afterwards tiled and convicted for publishing a
Seditions Libel, and two further indictments of
a similar nature are still pending against him.--
When respect for religion ceases, respect for civil
institutions will not last long-.-altd when once
the sentiments of reverence, attached to the wor-
ship of God anti the service of the Church, is
turned to ridicule, there is little or no gradation
to the depths of impiety and blasphemy—and if
' this be generally true, it peculiarly applies to the
turning into ridicule a part of the service which
comprises the most, beautiful summary of the
Christian Religion, which early impressions have
rendered most dear, and which, as we teach to
our children, we hope we are imparting to them
the rules of their future life, and know that we
are teaching.to them the only sure grounds of
happiness and eternal salvation.—How base must
be the mind that could -wantonly or wickedly in-
terfere with such a brisiog. We shall forbear
detailing to our readers the language of this libel.
It is sufficient to say, that it followed in the
closest manner all the questions of the Catechism;
and that the answers, instead of declaring time first
truths of Christianity, and the duties of a Chris-
tian, set forth, in language vulgar, gross, and im-
pious, the conduct of a fawning sycophant to a
Minister of the Crown. That it included the form,
style, and language 'of the Creed, the Ten Com-
mandments, and the Lord's Prayer, adapted to
the saute scandalous purpose—and that neither
upon the minds of the Jury, or of any individual,
could auy doubt remain of the intention of the ap-
plication—nor that its tendency and effect was to
bring the service of the Church and Religion it-
self into ridicule and contempt.
Mr. Tancred and Mr. Coleridge conducted the
prosecution. The prisoner defended himself
Mr. Tancred stated the case to the Jury in a Very
clear and impressive speech—he pointed out the
character and necessary effect of the libel, and
stated that it was from the character of the act
done, the publishing of that libel, the Jury were
to judge of the intent of the Publisher', and that
with what he might choose to state were his own
private motives the Jury had nothing ris do. He
adverted to Mr. Fox's Libel Bill, of 1792, which,
be explained, bad not, as was erroneously sup-
posed, given to the Jury Roy' other duty, titan in
all criminal cases, that of judging of all the cir-
cumstances, nod•saying whether the libel was of
the character imputed to it, and the defendant was
guilty of publishing it.
The libel was then proved to have been pur-
chased at the defeedant's shop, of the defendant
himself :—ard the Prayer Book, in the custody of
the Dean and Chapter, tinder the Act of Unitor-
miry, with the Great Seal appendant, was pro•
duvet).--This closed the case on the part of the
prosecution ;--the defendant expressed his wish
not to trouble the Court with reading the libel,
and it was handed to the Jury, but not read.
The defendant then addressed the Court in a
tone and manner which deserved a better cause.—
He professed his warm attachment to time Chris-
tian Religion, and said, had he been permitted,
lie should :rave published an excellent work, its a
Cheap form, in defence of it. He did 'tot say a
word in defence of the lib, I itself—but merely
contended, that Hone having been acquitted, the
original publisher, it was bard to select him, the
mere vender. That it was the author who ought to
be made responsible—and that this was the intent
of Mr. Fox's Libel Bill, on which is he chiefly relied
—that this Bill'expressly said, that, in future, the
Jury should not be required to find the deteudaet
guilty merely on proof of the tact of the pieblitestion
and of the sense ascribed to it in the indic!ment— 1
that the July were to take into their considera-
tion all the circumstances, and particularly the in-
tent of the defendant, and that they were expressly
authorized by this Act to give a special verdict,
which they ought to do, finding the Book itself
to be a libel, hut him, the prisoner, not guilty ;
and in support of this, be referred to (and read) a
long extract front a wotk of Sir Ricliard Phillips's
(a bookseller, formerly Sheriff of London,)—and
lie referred to the opiuiou of the Recorder him-
self, as expressed in the House of Commons a
'few weeks since, in the case of Mr. Hohhouse,
when Stoddart, the publisher, was let go tree ;
he dwelt also on his having suffered five !Ito :mills
imprisonment, and his being a cripple, unable to
get his livelihood in any other way.
The RECORDER, in a clear and impartial state-
ment, explained to the Jury, 'that the whole
question for them to try was, whether the publi•
cation was in itself a libel, and the defendant
published it—that the sale was proof of the pub-
lication—and that of the character of the libel,
they were to judge—that the effect of Mr. Fox's
Bill was, merely to leave it to the Jury to give a
general verdict as iu all other criminal cases, anti
they were not to floc, a verdict of guilty merely
on the het of publication and the proof of the
sense attributed to the book by the indictment,
but were to judge of the whole character and ten-
dency of the book, and say whether it was a libel
or not. He said, that with the defendant's prim.
fessions of his intent, and of his zeal for Chris. '
tiauity, the Jury had nothing to do ; that they
were to judge of his intent, by his acts; that it
the Jury thought he had circulated to the world
that which was calcelated to ,wing religion and
time service of the Church into contempt, he Wng
guilty of the offence charged in the indictment.-,-,
The Recorder pointed at; the fatal effects of ri-
diculing and vilifying Religion and its forms, and
expressed his clear conviction that the, hook in
question was en impious and blasphemous libel.
The Jury trailed for an hOur, and teturned with,
the verdict of Guilty —The_ prisoner was then
tried on so indictment for a Seditious Libel, entl
also found guilty.--There were two other indict-
ments pending against him, 'upon Which be was
nut tried; suit yesterday morning, the Recorder,

in an impressive manner, sentenced the D ten.
dant to an imprisonment of nine wont 5, in (he
City G4ol, for the BlAsphemons Libel, and six
months more for the Seditious4Libel ; and at the
expiration of that time, to gi've sureties for his
good behaviour, himself in 1501., and two other
persons in 251. each ; and to be further imprisoned
until such security shall be given.
Thus is this part of the, Country rescued from
the foul imptita,ion, with which a former acquittal
was calculated to sully the character of mike N -
lion—and this City treed, by the exertions of our
Magistrates and: the impartial Administration ot
the Law, from what was itt,t approaching to prove
the most dangerous pest that ever disgraced our
walls: