The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-18 00:00:00

IN RE MUSTAPIIA ALL

In this case the insolvent was described as a general
dealer in foreign merchandise, and applied on his petition
to be discharged.
No opposition having been offered by any of the cre-
ditors in his schedule, the COURT ordered him to be dis-
charged fhrthwith.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CROYDON POLICE.

R eAi d
,pAe personi
sn,acmuerdri Isaacdesruict/h4e
lattendedo beforee
rMa ens srs.
in-
formation laid under the Police Act, by Collier, the n-
speetor of Police for this district, charging that he being
the keeper of a place of public resort, did unlawfully sal:-
low persons of notoriously bad character to assemble in
his house. This was the first information of the kind
that
,has hitherto been brought forward, and it will be
seen that it involved a question of some importance as
to whether the Police Act applies to such cases.
Mr. Robert Russell attended for the defendant. From
the testimony of the Inspector and other officers, it ap-
peared that Crick keeps a lodging-house, or place of
resort for vagrants, and other disorderly persons, and
that from the disturbance constantly going on there it
was a complete nuisance to the neighbourhood.
On the occasion which led to the present pro-
ceedings, upon an alarm being given, the police
went to the house, and found 37 persons, many of
whom were convicted thieves and prostitutes, drinking
and gambling. In some of the rooms a number of boys
and girls were in bed together, and the scene altogether
appeared to be one that required the interference of the
public authorities. This was about one o'clock on Sun-
day morning, and soon afterwards several of the party
take up
were turned, very drunk, into the street, when they
commenced fighting and creating a disturbance, and the
police were obliged ultimately to take them to the sta-
tion-house.
their abOde there ;
In answer to questions from the .Bench, the Inspector
said that the defendant's house was open at all hours, and
could not be done
persons were stationed at the door to induce parties to
awayi.ind any one who chose to
apply was admitted.
. Mr. Russell then.addressed twheithßebnycshumatmsoamryeplreoengetshs,.
i a muepnot
n, andtiio
and contended that houses of this kind, though a nui-
sance,was within the meaning of the Act The Bench, having consulted together, came imani-
bmool‘jurmsrlp.yri;sntsheeeldl conclusion that the house of' the defendant
esto o f
strongly Pari
fsoair
stud,
month
Mr. they adjudged him to pay a' fine of 5/., and in default to
point that he should appeal, and try the question at the
Quarter Sessions. . .
The BENCH said, they were very glad that power of
appeal was given. These lodging-houses were a com-
plete nuisance, and it was understood that the clause iu
question was expressly introduced into the Police Act to
enable Magistrates to do away with them without the
trubl• and expense of au indictuient. If the Nagle-

trates had the power they would certainly exercise it,
but as it was a novel and important question, it would be
satisfactory that an opportunity should be afforded to
have it fully argued, before a final decision was come to
upon it.—The usual notice of appeal was then given.

PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY.
At the Bristol Epiphany Sessions, before Sir Charles
Wetherell, Recorder, Charles Southwcll, late a Socialist
missionary, was tried for writing, printing, and publish-
ing certain blasphemous libels, in a work callerl " The
Oracle of Reason." The libels were certainly some of
the most gross which have ever appeared in print, and
the defendant consequently has excited but little sym-
pathy, as he himself appears now to feel, for it was not
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 ball 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 editor, printer, and publisher. As far as he had
been informed from papers put forth by the defendant
since the preferment of the indictment, his defence would
not be a denial of the publication, but very much in the
nature of the libels themselves—that he would impugn
the law—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, he 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 obvious that his in-
tentions were mischievous and wicked, calculated
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 instrument 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 thought
that if it was not kept within its proper limits, instead of
being one of the greatest benefits to mankind, it would
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 coarse
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 ton-
science ? This was the foundation of all civil Govern-
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,
he sink into the grave a nonentity, what was there to
restrain such a man within the paths of virtue ? No-
thing 1 What was there to check his bad passions but
the mere fear of human punishment ? It was well
known that thieves and others calculated on the commis-
sion of crime by the chances of impunity, but did they
know how many there were whom the fear of punish-
ment hereafter restrained ? Let the Jury look at the
danger of the introduction of such doctrines-- Into
-tVlrliiiiiilies and schools—teaching the
.youth of this
country to believe that their fathers, in inculcating
Christianity, were knaves and tyrants, and they who
could believe them, fools, dolts, and idiots. What sort of
children would they have—what sort of schools—what
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 of such a man? What a state of ruin, and misery,
and crime would ensue. Would there be any of that vir-
tue—that liberty he 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 should
be thought that he 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 Barges,
jun., Clerks to the Magistrates, deposed to having pur-
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 occasions
More especially, to appeal to the passions and to vulgar
prejudices ; he regretted that the Learned Counsel had
not stepped out of the custom, because, when they were
excited, reason was lost--engulphed, as it were, and
men did things which, in their cooller moments, they
would shudder at. Ho trusted, however, that they
would cast prejudice aside, and, giving him a calm and
patient hearing, judge of his intentions and motives by
his general conduct, and he was sure, if they did so, they
would honourably acquit him. It had been truly said that
prejudice was the spider of the mind ; and he might add
that, like the spider, it wove its web in desolate and
worn-out habitations. Tho defendant here quoted
the authorities of Jeremy Bentham, Pitt, Burke, Ers-
kine, &c., on the duties of juries, contending that they
were to be the judges of the law and the fact, both
of guiltiness and non-guiltiness. Proud was he of
these authorities, because civilisation would be checked,
and they would have nothing but a mental and physical
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, he
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 sonfe
such words as these—" The Rev. Bromley will deliver
a lecture on the Infamous Blasphemies of Chartes 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 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 was
I aware that there was such a thing in existence.
The defended was aware, if his Lordship had seen it,
his sense of justice was such that he would have, acted
as he had said he would. la that letter he (the defend-
ant) had Ibeen' denounced because he had said that Ro-
bert Owen was the man who 'first awakened in him the
wish for free inquiry, &c. Attacking him, the writer
thought to kill two birds with one stone ; to punish
him, and through him to inflict a stab on the social sys-

item, of the principles of which he was as ignorant as a
sucking babe. It was true that he (the defendant) had
so spoken of Robert Owen, who, whatever were his reli-
gioustocomm opinions,en t oh wase
remarksdecidedly
of
the
ee
Learnedof the most
Counselben whoevo -
lent and moral of men—one from whom he had ever
learned a reverence for truth and a hatred of fasehood.
The defendant dwelt at some length on Mr. Owen's
opinions, and then said he would now at once proceed
was opposed to him. He had asserted that he (the de-
fendant) thought all men who were opposed to him dis-
, honest men ; he denied, he repudiated such a charge,
and he defied that Learned Counsel to point eut 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 himself 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. He 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 discussion,
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 I did the Learned Gentleman so debase
the human race 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 1 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
sacrified—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 tn ein.
them from him. The -way to maintain good 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 the 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 evenin 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 vharac-
ters - of Males, 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 wasp 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 he thought
expression ought to be given to whatever he 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. $7 of the "Tracts for the Times," in support of pre-
destination, and said that he could plead the same justi-
fication for entertaining and publishing his opinions.
If their doctrines 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
themselves, as Protestants, might be placed in the same
situation he then steed in ; and, if they condemned him,
they either did not understand the principle of Protest-
antism, or they did not act upon it. He proceeded to
enter on the subject of religious fanaticism, and to make
large extracts from various works on this subject, and
then to endeavonr tojustify the descriptiOn he had given
of the Bible iii 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 for
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 1001., 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.

THE LATE RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—,The Di-
rectors of the Great Western Railway Company intend,
it is said, to appeal against the verdicts of the two Berk-
shire juries, upon whom it devolved to investigate the
circumstances connected with the late accident at Son-
ning-hill. The well known leaning of the superior
Courts may excite the railway management to this de-
termination, but in our opinion they will do well to pay
the deodands without litigation, and allow the matter to
rest as quietly as it may. . The more the occurrence is
discussed the less likely will the undertaking be to regain
its former position in the confidence of the public. That
such confidence has been exceedingly shaken will be
evident to any one who examines the weekly returns of
traffic before and after the accident. Ten times the
amount of the deodands imposed will not meet the loss
which has fallen upon the Company through this occur-
rence ; and the longer the reeollootioli of its details is
kept alive by aremeuta and atuternente in Courts of
law, the ftwther will such loss extend. We never heard
of a railway accident concerning which public opinion
was less divided than in this instance. Generally and
unequivocally the arrangements of the Company with
respect to the conduct of, at least, their third-class trains,
have been condemned, and, as we think, condemned not
without cause. Railway Times.