Star.
London, England, 1819-10-15 00:00:00

Court of Law, in a country of which the Vostallished

liaigiorl forms part of3the Constitution. If one man
is to bol• called in question for reviling and holding
op to etostempt another, is he justified in attacking
a. 13 reviling rdligien? and can he who is not allowed
to scoff at an individual be permitted to revile the
must sound institution, which is the foundation of all
clic 'laws that bind society together? We may be
told that the law countenances Dissenters from the
Established Church, and gives toleration in its most
cAtmsive sense. It has pleased &ion to permit the
Christian World to be divided into different sects, for
reasons which it is not given to man to comprehend.
• rut there are obvious advantages Oiising from this
D:vine regulation: the Scriptures are prevented from
being interpolated, and a vigour is excited in the
es::rcise of charity which is greater than faith and
lime. It would be absurd to doubt that the GOD of
Mulct has so ordained for the good of his creatures.
We ere told that the law enables all men to worship
the SUPREME BEING in whatever manner they please.
true; but the same law that gives us toleration,
kas forbidden us to revile. The Act of William and
I ary, to which allusion has been frequently made,
bears a construction very different from that which
Cc.: Defendant gives it. A few years ago toleration
was extended to those who did not believe in the
Trinity ; bet the Act guarded against the idea of to-
lerating that with which the Defendant is charged.—
Ir. the Act of William and Mary, which exists now
in full force, there is a passage, stating, that he who
denies that the Old and New Testaments are of Di-
vine authority, shall be subject to certain pains and
penalties. The defendant declares that the whole
Act has been repealed ; whereas it is evident, beyond
c:cubt„ that but one line upon the subject of the Tri-
nity has been withdrawn. The new Att then tacitly

tc-enacts all the zest of the former Statute, for it
sl:cw•s that the latter had undergone thorough consi-
deration, and the plain meaning of the former is

clually the design of those who solicited and those

who granted the indulgence. The Defendant till
say that this is a question of intention. It is indeed.
The intention of the libel is to bring the Holy Scrip-
tures into contempt and disbelief. Dpes he not effect
this by reviling and scoffing at Christianity, in lan-
guage which it pained me to read ? From all I know
of the Defendant, I am convinced he will avow this
to be his intention. But he will say it is all owing to
a difference of opinion, and that we are not justified
in bringing the offence into Court. A man charged with
rubbing another, ani put upon his trial at the Old
Bailey, may say, , By what law am I brought here?'
Upon being told, by common law—, No,' he may say,
there is no law to justify this : it is unjust to put me
hire : lam at liberty to do as I please, and he who
attempts to prevent me places an unwarrantable re-
striction upon me. I may pick a man's pocket : you
think I am wrong, but that is only a difference of
•(Here there was a laugh in Court.) A man
r:ry argue in this manner upon murder, and the in-
d algence of odious passions ; and this is the reasoning
of the Defendant. Good GOD and is a man to call
hiMself prosecuted who is called in question for such
a crime as this which I have been describing ?

" The defendant, upon his first trial, read to the
Jury a passage from the eminent bishop Watson, to
t'ie following effect Goa forbid, that a search
after truth should be discouraged from a feat of the
consequences.'l read the same passage with great,
pleasure, and I repeat it from my soul; but is this
pamphlet a calm and dispassionate search after truth,
or is it a base and abominable offence against the Re-
ligion of Omar ? And this is all to be vindicated
u con the ground of the Liberty of the Press. I shall
yield to none in my approbation of, and respect for,
a free Press. lam not to be deterred from declaring
these to be my sentiments, by the apprehension, that'
they will be called the cant of one who is the enemy
to that liberty. Irreligion and sedition have, in-
deed, a cant, and pretend to support what they are
calculated and intended to destroy. Does the defen-
dant think, that the Press sanctifies what is polluted ?
that, however contaminated the source from which
the streams flow, they become pure by passing through
a printing machine ? No, Gentlemen of the Jury,
you are the guardians of that liberty ; and, if I have
invaded it, you will stand up as its protectors. I
call upon you to protect the Press against the attempts
of those who render it odious by abuse, by reviling
Religion, until every good man begins to think that
the benefits issuing from the Liberty of the Press
would be more than counterbalanced by the vice and
immorality with which the nation is deluged.
" Lou are assembled here upon your oaths on the
Holy Gospel, and what will he say ? That the Gos-
pel oa which you rely and call upon GOD to help
you as you perform or neglect your duty, is false. I
s':.111 be told, that §y reminding you of your oath, I
aln exciting an unfair prejudice. This is the natural
lal:guage of those who would wish to overturn the
oSligation of all oaths,' by attacking that upon which
oaths are founded. Ile has already accused those
url'io study the laws of their country, and appear in
their professional capacity, of being unqualified to
comprehend the march of the human mind, and to
form an estimate upon subjects of a general description.
—ls this a fair opinion of the characters and attain-
ments of men who had intercourse with the most en-
Tightened, and were engaged in a daily collision of
ioe;llect? Are they to be told that their habits lam.

' ~y