Star.
London, England, 1824-06-04 00:00:00

. . ..._ • - - --- -- ----F. -...... •---.4k....7 .-.(1100.,--vs":4.7;;:-.::.7-"::ii...4,„.•
-
o
Per Cent.
• .
--11‘ "" ":-/. b Ar. . 'tfi•\ . ~,
' ;7= • "IQ, . - -,-1-•
. • -
,40--0/4(./ ' •
. s.- .
I
• le • 4114
~ pr,,,,, !.
4 •-. *
aeviale.
.., `' ttz
,
,••••••••mm....,..............1.1•••
I.
. . _ --______
tam...Mg
FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1524. --
rParcs SEVEN..PENCR.
L
- 1
)
4
V

said this, he would only add, that he gave his most
cordial approbation to the present Bill, as he would
do to any other for the relicf of the Catholic popula-
tion of the kingdom.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL, in explanation, sail that
be had voted for the second reading of the Noble Mar-
quis's Bills., because he thought they embraced one ob-
ject which it was most proper for their Lordships t
concede. At the same time, and in nowise contradicting
that vote, he wished to eparate the question of Revenue/
from that of the Magistracy ; and he al,o w.sof 0,,i-
-nion, that the exercise of the office of Earl Nlarshal
might be secured by another Bill. For these teas-ins,
which he assigned at the time of giving his voze, he
wished the Noble Marquis's Bills to have gone into a
Committee, where Noble Lords might possibly have
sot lid of those objections which had occasioned so
much opposition. The Noble Earl concluded by m:iving
the second reading of the Bill, which was accordingly
read a second time.

PROSECUTION FOR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.
Mr. HUME presented a Petition limn Stokeslev, in
the North Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the steps
at present adopted to prevent freedom of d :cu.sion on
religious matters. 'Pie lion. Member concurred in the
sentiments expressed by the Petitioners, who were of
opinion that public prosecutions to. the expres ion of
such opinions tended rather to increase than to check
the evil complained of.
fFte Petitionbringing up AhYL°it ; did not mean to oppose the
b
pi essed in the Petition wee adoptedutfthee
i by tle
House, sentimentsou
se,aenld"
it the restraints which the law had, in his opinion, so
justly imposed upon the dissemination of blasphemy
and irreligion were removed, the consequence would he
that we should soon have no religion at all—Wear). lie
really did not think that such men asCtrlile,and others
of his class, had any claim to the sympathy or corn-
iniselation of that House. He was never so much dis-
gustei in his life as in passing through Fleet-street some
time since, to see written over the shop of that indivi-
I dual in conspicuous characters, " This is the Mart for
the Deist and the Republican"—( Hear, hear). He (Mr.
M. A. Taylor) was no bigot—he had no objection to let
all sects of Christians worship GOD in their own way.
He found no fault with the Unitarians or Anabaptists ;
he would not quarrel with the Methodist or the Inde-
pendent; but he confessed he was decidedly hostile to
those who would undermine all religion ; and he had
no hesitation in repeating his conviction that such would
be the effect of listening to the prayer of the present and
similar Petitions.

Mr. HUME thought it necessary to make a few ob-
servations in reply to what had fallen from his Honour-
able Friend, who he was convinced knew nothing of the
nature of the Petition to which he objected, otherwise
he would not have bt ought so sweeping an accusation
against those who framed it. He begged leave to as-
sure his Hon. Friend that the Petitioners were far from
wishing to undermine religion. They merely prayed
for the removal of those restrictions which were imposed
upon freedom of discussion in religious matters. He
(Mr. Hume) fully acquiesced in the prayer of their Pe-
tition ; and he could not but think it a bad proof of the

liberality of the age, that any objection could be made
to so reasonable a request. In justice to the Petitioners,
and after what had fallen from his Honourable Friend.
he should move that the Petition might be read by the
Clerk.—The Petition was accordingly read..
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that after having listened
most attentively to the reading of the Petition, which
was, he allowed, most cautiously worded, lie could not
come to any other conclusion than that it struck at the
root of the Christian religion. lie repeated that he was
no bigot; and although he was now nearly 70 years
cIJ, lie believed he might appeal to those who knew
him longest to bear testimony to his assertion; yet he
should be always found to maintain that great principle
of the law of England, that nobody should be allowed
to publish anything which imptitzned the doctrines of
Christianity, which were part and parcel of that law.
In so doing, he felt that he was acting in conformity
with the principles by which the Judges of the land and
the great Law Officers of the Crown had always been
actuated. He could state it as an undeniable fact, and
he wished his Majesty's Attorney-General had been in
his place to hear him make the assertion, that although
he had read over all the cases of prosecution at the suit
of the Crown which had occurred for some time past,
nobody had been punished for tile publication of his
opinions, where such opinions did not involve a breach
of that law to which he had alluded. lie recollected
the declaration of the late Lord Mansfield, that if the
Devil came into Court, the Devil :honld have justice!
—(A laugh).—ln that opinion he co: dially concurred—
(Laughter)—and he trusted that his Honourable friend
the Member fur Aberdeen world not be able by means
of that brilliant elocution for which he was so famed—
bindt, i. which Mr. Humejoincd)—to persuade the
House that he (Mr. M. N. Taylor) %t its a bigot, or an
enemy to freedom of discussion, in cases where that
freedom of discussion did not interfere with the princi-
ples of the Chi kian religion or the laws of the land.

Mr. W. SMITH could not allow the remarks which
the flenourable Member had thought proper to make
with respect to the Unitarians to pass m ithout observa-
tion—(l-;ear, Ilear).—He was very iliing to agree
with the Honour able Member that lie was no bigot,
and that he had nu hostility to tie? opinions entertained
by him (Mr. W. Smit'i) or by the Unitai lam geneially.
But he contended that the opieions expressed that.even-
mg by the Honourable Member were anything but li-
beral, and little likely in his (Mr. Smith's) opinion,
to advance the cause of Christianity—(Year, hear)._
That cause, in his opinion, needed no system of coercion
to make it flourish. It did not depend upon law. It was
founded upon stronger grounds—those of reason and
argument; and if those failed, human lags would, in
his opinion, be but a feeble auxiliat y. The greatest be-
nefits.had resulted, and would, he was convinced, re-
sult, from freedom of discussion, ehiie the greatest evils
were to be apprehended from checki,ig it. He need only
appeal to history and the experience of every man tor
a confirmation of the truth of this °pin': n. When Ga-
lileo, for example, first promulgated his eoctritie of the
Solar system, he was condemned by the bigoted Monks,
who judged him to imprisonment for maintaining an
opinion which was inconsistent H ith their res,iing of the
Scriptures. A more enlightened age Ia I, however,
agreed that the philosopher's system was tile true one.
With respect to Unitarianism, it w:is recognised by law.
He therefore-could not think the honourable Member
deserved much credit for his forbearance towasds its
professors. He (Nil.. W. Smith)
deprecated all perteeu-
tion for religious opinion, the great evil of which was,
that when once you began you could not know e here
ofto ostpoipoi;olflos,r
another
(rheermnalnighthutothgilnikt fihtimtoseplefresiecuuatieiyor.perivsei.t
be no end of persecution.lne!enits,tompidrotsheucsuttehetrheosweowulli entertained opposido te tent -
The Hollow able M.anber here alluded to a circumstance