The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-20 00:00:00

the possibility of a divorce, and Out his motive was tneseape from
any' pro:ilea of:marriage; which be -might have' given the unhappy
woman -he had seduced. • If so, a baser wretch than thu defendant
did not crawl upon the earth. Such conduct would be most scan-
dalous and disgraceful. Passing the tonics urged by the Learn-
ed Gentlemen for the plaintiff, and for the defence, there
were two points material for the consideration ~of the Jury,
—First, was Lady Astley the wife of the plaintiff? That had been
proved ; secondly, had the adultery been committed ? That was
admitted. Under those circumstances, the verdict of the Jury
must pass for the plaintiff; the amount of damages it was their
province to determine; but he was ready to assist them in com-
ing to a con_qesion upon that subject. They were not to regard
the consequences of their verdict, whatever they might be, but
should say what damages they were of opinion the circumstances
of the case might require. In adverting to the case for the de-
fence, the Learned Judge said, if the Jury were of opinion the
plaintiff was an habitual adulterer, they must come to the con-
clusion that he was disentitled to large damages. Sir Jacob
Astley's indecent conduct at the Lieester Races, if true, was
such as would only entitle him to the smallest possible
damages in an action like the present. The plaintifrs
conduct at Yarmouth, subsequent to the elopement, was
not that becoming a prudent or honourable married man.
—The question for the Jury was, to what damage*
was a person capable of so conducting himself entitled. If the
jury believed the whole of the defendant's ease, no damages could
be too small. If they believed half of that case (and, casting
away the testimony of the prostitutes, and regarding chiefly the
evidence of the respectable witnesses for- the defence, perhaps
they should believe a portion of that defence) then it was fir
them to say, to what amount of damages they considered the
plaintiff entitled. -
The Jury retired at seven o'clock to consider of their verdict,
which it was agreed should be taken by the officer of the Court in
the absence c,f the Learned Judge.
At a quarter before nine o'clock the Jury came into Court, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Shilling.
In announcing the verdict the Foreman said—" I am desired
by my Brother Jurymen to express our deep regret that we
cannot mark our detestation of Captain Garth's conduct by
giving heavy damages, it having been proved that the plaintiff
does not conic into Court with clean hands. We therefore award
him Is. damages."

[ERRATum.—In our accountyesterday we inserted, by mistake,
the name of the Rev. Mr. Elwell, instead of that of the Rev. Mr.
Elwyn.]

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE..--Yesterday Robert Taylor, of whose
attempts to found a sect for the promulgation of his doctrines the
public have heard much, was brought befoie the. LORD Maxon,
in the custody of Mr. Cope, the City Marshal, on two warrants.
The first charged the prisoner, that he, on the 6th of Feb. inst.
at the parish of St. Swithin, London Stone, in the Ward of Wal-
brook, and city of London, did unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously,
scandalously, and blasphemously, in the presence and hearing of
divers liege subjects of our Lord the King to wit, fifty, as well
youth of both sexes as others, in a loud voice, unlawfully
publish false, scandalous, malicious, and horrid blasphemy of
and concerning the " Lord and Saviour of the world Jesus
Christ, and of and concerning the Christian religion," in con-
tempt, against the peace, &c. The second warrant was to the
same tenour, only laying the day to have been on the 13th inst.
Both these warrants were executed on Saturday evening ley Mr.
Cope, and the prisoner remained at the Compter until yesterday
morning. When the prisoner, who was dressed in an embroi-
dered blue cloak, was at first placed at the table before his Lordship,
The City Solicitor intimated to the officers that the prisoner
should be placed at the bar.
Mr. Taylor protested against being placed at the bar as a felon.
The Loan Maxon could make no distinction of persons.
He was then placed at the bar.

The Loan Miroa—ls your mule Robert Taylor?

Mr. Taylor—l am, my Lord, the Rev. Robert Taylor, of the
Hall, Cambridge, Bachelor of Divinity, and Clergyman of
the Church of England.
City Solicitor—The Irrevereud.
Mr. Taylor—Thank you, Sir ; that observation is indicative of
the spirit of this prosecution.
The CITY SOLICITOR stated, that the charge against the pri-
soner was that of blasphemy against the Christian religion. He
then cited Ilawhins's Pleas of the Crown, and Lord Hale, who
had declared that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of
the land, and that therefore to do any thing which tended to bring
it into contempt was a high offence against the law, zs it tended
to loosen the moral bonds of society, and every safeguard for good
conduct.

The CITY SOLICITOR then called Thomas Collins, the beadle of
Walbrook-ward, who was sworn.
On Saturday, the 3d of February, he was coming along Can-
non-street, and observed the paper produced stuck on the door of
the Areopagus ; there was a number of persons stopping and read-
ing. It was about 12 o'clock in the day. The bill being wet,
he tools it down, and acquainted the Alderman of the Ward. The
prisoner at the bar called on.witness in the afternoon, and asked
him if he had taken the manifesto off his door. Witness, know-
ing him, said he had. Prisoner then asked witness to come and
hear him, and said he should have every accommodation. Wit-
ness went on Tuesday, the 6th of February, to Salters'-hall Meet-
ing, and took notes at the time of what passed ; and when he
came home he copied them afresh. There was a person there
who sat as the Chairman. The prisoner mounted an elevated
platform, was dressed as a priest, with a surplice, excepting that
he had not the band. There were at the time upwards of 100
persons present:
The City Solicitor.—What proportion of the auditory were
young persons?—Witness stated more than one-fourth of them
were young. A portion of Dr. Chalmers' Essay on Christianity
was read. The witness then went on to state the nature of the
discussion, some portion of which it will be requisite to give, us
exemplifying its general character. The prisoner role-and said—
Shall God lay perjury to his soul, and that for Jesus ? He (the
prisoner) said no. He declared there was no authority for the
title-page of the work under discussion. The translators had ren-
dered the New Testament falsely, and he asserted that the original
would not justify it. The name was not, he asserted, known in
the year 220. St. Paul, he said, had denied the truth of the
Gospels, and was to be taken as a witness. He then read the 6th
verse of the 24 chapter of the 24 Epistle of the Corinthians—
" Wixo also bath male us able Ministers of the New Testament, not
of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killetk, but the spirit
giveth life." The authority of St. Paul, he said, was fatal te
the Gospel ; and the authority of the Gospel was fatal to St.
Paul. The duty of the preacher was to preach, and the
duty of the' hearer was to hear. (The witness described that
at this passage there was hissing and some cheers.) The
prisoner then said he should like to know who were the eye-
witnesses between the D-1 and Christ, when he spent his holy-
days in the wilderness. (This ribaldry, the witntas said, excited
much laughter.) The prisoner then proceeded to comment on
what he called the miracle of the pigs, and said the first martyrs
to Christianity were pigs. He then asked to have it proved whe-
ther the devils drowned the pigs, or the pigs the devils. This
also excited greater laughter and cheering; and he went on to say,
that whenever they worshipped the Lamb that took away the sins
of the world, they ought also to worship the pigs. He said, that
Mother Soutlicote gained more followers in three years than
Christianity had in 300. The witness went on to describe other
parts of the discourse, which was of the same character. The
prisoner said, that his reason for abjuring Christianity was be-
cause it was a religion that could not stand alone, or the clergymen
would not have come forward in its defence. lie declared that it
was a wicked and mischievous fable, and they knew it to he. so.
He then sat down, and the chairman rang
.his bell, and asked if
there were any persons there who were willing or able to answer
the Reverend Orator.

The Loan MAYOR—Is that person now present ?
Mr. Taylor looked round and said, that he did not perceive
him.

The witness continued and said, that as no person came 114-
ward, Mr. Taylor rose, and particularly requested any person who
might be there to come forward and answer him, and he should
have every accommodation, and the use of the rostrum. He
called upon the Rev. Alexander Fletcher. Witness did not know
whether he was present or not.
The witness proceeded to describe the second meeting on the
13th instant, which was announced by a characteristic advertise-
ment, in a Sunday Paper. There were, on this occasion, upwards
of 300 persons present.
The City Solicitor—What proportion of them were youth?
The witness said, that there were about 20 young females there,
and many boys, who appeared to be under eae care of elder per-
sons. The prisoner was received with cheers. The Chairman
stated, that the subject of that evening would be the character of
Christ, as published by the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge. The Reverend Orator would, it was stated
in the advertisement, deliver a philippic in exposure of
the atrocious villainies that characterised the Jewish religion.
When he concluded there was great cheering and clapping of
hands. One Gentleman present got up and answered him. At
the conclusion, a show of hands was taken on the question; there
were about 20 hands held up in favour of the character of our
Saviour. One man declared that a person had held up both