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

FRIDAY, Q€TOBEIt 15, 1819..

83
,„L It 1•

CARIALE'S

..-

very -near himself in his profession of faith—that
nhey.were all tolerated, and .that, consequently, he
himself ought to be tolerated.'. He had a further ob-
ject in calling these persons, namely, to take their
opinionsxon certain parts of the Old and New Testa-
Mints. These were the principal objects he. hid in
view in calling witnesses, because he understood that
every one of the* sectaries would give a different
explanation 'of. certitin parts of the Old and New
Testaments.
The Cut EP Jusenci:—Do I understand you rightly,
that these are your only objects ?
Mr. CARLILE—There was another. I would pat
it to every one of the different professors of the
Christian doctrines, whether they conceive that Chris-
tianity requires the aid of the secular arm tosupport
it? These are the principal, and, I may say, the
only objects I had in view, in the examination of these
eminent mein.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Then I am very clearly of
opinion, that these persons cannot be examined for
any of • these purposes. -The truth of the Christian
Religion is not matter for question now. That there
ate many different denominations of Christians, dif-
fering widely from each- ether, in matters of faith, is
matter perfectly well known to the Jury and to all
of us. It would be most irrelevant to the present
case, and most injnrious arid improper indeed, to be
calling pet sons to give an account of the particulars
of-their religious faith.
Mr CaettLE—l don't mean to ask them as to the
truth of their faith.
The Citiar JUSTICE—You have told me your ob-
jects in calling these persons. If you will not have
patience to hear the reasons why I think I cannot re-
ceive such testimony, I must tell you that I cannot
receive it, without any reason at all.
Mr. Cannini—Am I to understand that your
Lordship will not receive such evidence as matter of
opinion ?
The Caine JUSTlCE—Certainly ; I can receive no
such evidence as matter of opinion. It would open
the door to a most dangerous precedent, and such
evidence is never received.
The defendant again attempted to urge the ne-
cessity of adducing such evidence, but the CHIEF
JUSTICE reiterated his opinion, that it could not be
received. The Jury alone were the judges of the
tendency of the alleged libel.
Mr. CARLILE then called the following witnesses
to character, who were examined by the Chief Justice:
Mr. William 'Comyn, with whom the defendant
had served part of his apprenticeship, said, he had
known the defendant for eighteen years ; he bore a
very good moral character. He was strictly. honest
and sober.
Mr. CARLILE said, he would wish the witness to
state his knowledge of his (defendant's) having an
aged Mother dependent upon him forsupport.
The Cite, Juan:ea—l cannot hear that. The
evidence you now produce is as to moral character
generally.
Mr. James Yan, a tradesman retired from business,
said, he had known the defendant about six{ years,
and he bore the character of a moral. man. He was
a tenant of his for three years.
Mr. Thomas Walker, messenger to the Navy
Office, with whom the defendant had lodged for three
years, knew him about four or five years. He was a
very honest, industrious, and sober man. He believed
that he also bore the character of a moral man ; he
knew nothing to the contrary.
Here the defendant's case closed.
REPLY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose CO reply. After
the very long, painful, and laborious attention which
the Jury had paid to the defence addressed to them,
it was with feelings of considerable regret he felt" it
necessary to-offer any observations to them by way of
reply ; because, as far as the charge against the de-
fendant was concerned on the prcsent occasion, any
observations from him must be perfectly unneces-
sary ; for if any doubt could exist in their minds when
the case closed on the part of the prosecution, with
respect to the intention of the defendant in publishing
the work in question, it. must have been long since
removed from all their minds, by the open declara-
don of the defendant himself—the best evidence that
could speak to them on this subject ; for he had most
openly, most clearly, and most directly avowed, that
not wily previous to this publication was he cogni-
zant of, and fully acquainted with, the contents of
this work, but that he (unhappy man, *he would
call him) admitted, and endeavoured, by the address
which had been made to them, to justify the senti-
ments and expressions used. ad it not been, there-
fore, for some observations made to them with respect
to the law of the case, lie did not know whether he
should not have discharged his duty better by sitting
silent, than by rising to address them on the present
occasion; because, if they had not been satisfied by
the defendant's address, of the intention with which
the work was published—of his knowledge of the
sentiments contained in it, nothing that he (the At-
torney-General) might urge, could induce such
conviction in their minds and sensations, with re-
a
spect to observations on the law. Much as they had
repeatedly heard upon this matter, in the course of the
defendant's address, the correspondence which he
bad himself read, as having taken place bespeen Mr.
W. Smith and Mr. Bentham, confirmed the opinion
which had been previously given of it by the Learned,
Judge on the Bench, and must have satisfied every
person, not only of what was the intention of the Le-
gislature in passing the Act of the .53d Geo. 111. but,
still further, of what was the intention of those who
caused tie passing of that Act—those who were
thankful for the toleration given by it—those nho re-
cc ved it, not with any intention of tolerating bias-
,
pliemy, not with any intention of, by one sweeping
assault, to strike out from our Constitution the happy
Ittligion which formed part of it, and to tolerate, in
the language of the defendant, not. only Deisra, but,
according to his andanity, Athei:un Polytheism, and

1,.,,t OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.
.0 ro_parciuded
CARLILL .....--...
frost the Sus of yeiterday.)
allided to what he had said
Kid
..
,c.;:w the 53ii of the lung, and he repeated Au
observations. Heithen produced a rani-
rcoerntaitrg some correspondence between Mr.
If 13entham and Mr. Wm. Smith, relative to the
%quell the two Archbishops and the Bishops
• that Bill. lie read Jer_elll/ Bentham's;
4.:ven on
4et, containing
his letter to Wiliam Smith,
i
ap the subject of the Bill broUght into Partin-.
I:relief of Unitarians, that Gentleman's
the and the Reply of the Writer to the
see
thfhecreett'r' ect of this document went to shew
.•-- Uaiiariaus had felt themselves grateful' to
~..
.: meat for the concession in their favour, but at
stax time expressly
approvingoi wthe.ilrelinin maig.. •
.14-
p .sions of the Statute am against
''''' ' "1
'n.• Christianity ; and which prowl-
',
e%iimePeeig•iietli-neUed by the Bill -in question.. He
eat his object in reading these 'letters was to
gin and intention o( the Statute, which,
.o:tetnt'de origin and
to repeal all penalties.. throughout
~,,,..i,e3 against pet sons professing Deism. This
.;e'. he contended, is ent to all. intents and pun.
- ' •• ' all the Acts of Parliament relating to
rei•Lai
-Derr''. It seas under this Act that he sheltered'
conceiving that such was its object. Linder
~:ea that he was at liberty, by virtue of this Act,
,tl;i4; Tom Paine's Works, he bad exposed hi m-
I to
• • • justifiable prosecution ;. and hence he
i ?is m'
Ir-Mended in the outset, that this Court could
le4l'lir take cognizance of the offence with
i which
vi; charged.
To bring a case of this kind before
....' I i1•,,:-.;
•,,:-.; iviw Legal-improper—it was a mockery—it
.e.,:rial, because the Court had no authority to
it. lie could have justified every expression
ieWork which was the subject of the prosecu-
- Lid he been suffered to conduct his defence in
.iiir he had prescribed to himself. But 'in this
1.-ai prevented, although be felt that he still had
.t.t so to proceed. In the present case, he was not
• the necessity of pleading that cause which was
Rs urged on the part of a bookseller, who, in
. was the innocent vender of the works of
-men without reading them—the mere midwife
.ke '.,las. This sort of defence he did not pre-
•:o se: up, because he had deliberately read the I
he had published-.was aware of its contents I
impoit, and had sent it forth into the world
a conviction of its truth and propriety. The
;..: of his defence, in the course he bad pursued,
.tat only to justify his own conduct, but to rescue
..nh.cr of the work from the general and unfoun-
* calumny raised against him. He had now to
• .lade with an appeal to the Jury, which he had
-...ghtit necessary to reduce to writing.-41-le pro-
ed 1 written paper, from which he read.:l—He
vied to their feelings as moral men, as husbands,
~ ,
:amen, as members of that society whose condi-
rhe had 'to doubt they would wish to ameliorate;
- lit v:ould presume that they were placed iathat
non, that, by giving a verdict of Not Guilty,
7 would do much towards ameliorating the pre-
• condition of society ; for by that verdict they
'. ameliorate that vague, that infamous Law of
xl, as zpplicable to publications on matters of Go.
'c lent and fleligiom.-by that verdict they would,
:'. a step to prostcutions for religious opinions. in
' 'i co'ney—by that verdict they would destroy, inl
' itte agasure, the various religious prejudices in
coarary. nil would give reason its fair exer-
!l, aal influence and dignity to the mind of man.
E. that verdict they would acknowledge the neces-
ity :Id value of sentiment, when proceeding from
enure deliberation, and minds well stored with
is? ledge respecting the interests of society; for it
1..,:r0m ignorant prejudices alone that the peace of
i.:ittv Sra, so often disturbed—by that verdict they
tzdtireccive the thanks of all unprejudiced men, and
';:id slew, that they had an interest in preserving
„7ht of publishing opinions u'aich proceeded from
•'%l and conscientious conviction—by that verdict
...* would evince a regard for a privilege which
',.!'.e most conducive to the interests of society ;
. - vith these last words 110 begged to impress them
:•.. the necessity of guarding their minds against
-. ..iiSair advantage which the Attorney-General
t•- ...i.(l ia miking a reply, when he had no further
,:tu'l:ty of answering what might be urged against
.. 1k had already stated, that the Attorney-Ge-
'•.2 ;lii a, much as himself at stake. If he himself
1..-... o:.: imacl lost their verdict, utter ruin must
;am i but if, on the other, he gained it, the
::•:.y-Gcnia al milt give up all hopes of further
-• _tcr,eat in his profession. Having said thus
-_-.- , is II to thank them for the candid attention
...,:eat deliberation with which they had heard
- ..• •g d,feace ; and he confidently relied, that
'.". .:....11; 'cm merchants of the City of London
~, .
. - • -•-c t. .e necessity of tolerating free discussion
• . t '5:7 :3ubj,.ct of this nature. Relying upon
...: l'--,;:ity and firmness, he rested his expectation
I .:,,, kin from villa charge, which was not only un-
;7".."'d l'Y 1 i•v, but di4ountenanced by that law
r ... -•••••,. he Lad sought for shelter and protec-
''
1.1:•:, ti. it law, he hoped they would redeem
1. - 1 ,„
.
• -... r,:. peril. fms situation.
••1-1-1:1C il lonce Wa i closed, the Jury were allowed
--,,:','• t..: rn.tives. 'When they resum ed their places, '
. - i,.C.‘ F T.I LI: atidresed the Learned Judge, and
.1.:,.•!, .: bcf..re 1..2 ventured to call any evidence, he
• 11":!,1'• !')}, r.'e a more distinct explanation of what
-.1• , !erd'h•i, ~ i •.tiki yesterday upon this subject.
~t 4,11 e C'l; L' club TIC C-- 'fell me to what points yon
..., t-, c....ia-,:ii: witnesses. .
! I'. 1 .0': :I.: said he intended to have brought
'' le. th." .1 .1 y, certain ethinent persons, who were
(7 • dc. I'l. .i a, tile leading characters of different pro-
!' c: of the Christian Religion, for the pur-
l' '' si sb.-a-ing, that some of them approached


' that he was animated with a spirit of piteetiftiotieee •
any other Religion, to which people, like himself,
might chuse to subscribe or adopt. Fottunately for I Little did the defendant know of his feelings, s#hee
this country (and he trusted it would ever be so) the 'he advanced such a proposition ; and he had assuitied •
period had not yet arrived, whatever might be the an acquaintance with his motives not warrented by
wishes of the defendant, or those by whom he was reality. Personal feelings in this case he had riche,
fed with his defence on this occasion—who had sup- beyond what every friend to the Constitution of his
plied him from time to time with the matter brought country must entertain. The responsible duties aids .
before the Jury—happily, he said, for this country, office had impelled his conduct.; hut he confessed, in
the period had not yet arrived (and GOD forbid it speaking of the defendant, he did not know Whether •
ever should), at which Religion was to be swept from his feelings of pity as a man, did not overcome his *.
ear law, by which men are to be tolerated in the free feelings of indignation on the present occasion, Far! •
enetcise of their opinions. The law interfered with although the defendant had openly avowed his senti-
no opinion—no, not even with the opinions of Atheists ments, he could not but believe that he was an instriv.
or Deists, if indulged in private. But the object now ment in the hands of others., Placed, however, in the
seemed to be; not that men should enjoy their opi-
office he had the honour to hold, he felt it to be his duty,
nions, but that they ,should circulate them as they whilst he held that office, to discharge his duty, by ups
pleased—to sap the morals of the country—to un- holding the Constitution as establishedin Church and
dermine the religious feeling of the community—to State. He would never be found a persecutor, or prose-'
' set all Religion at defiance, and to introduce one cutor for religious opinions; but when they were prop*.
chaos of Atheism and profaneness ! Such were the gated in pamphlets or other works, similar to that
r
voweckebjects of the present defendant, and such published by the defendant, with a tendency to strike
dbjects were attempted to be justified under the pre-
at the root of all religion, he would, whilst he held.
**nee of law. The defendant set out in his defence the office of Attorney-General, prosecute the authors ,
to the best of his ability, and bring them to justice ;
by protesting, in the first instance, against the juris-
b
diction of this Court, under pretence that there was being convinced conscientiously, that Religion could
no common law of the land, which could take cogni- not exist without Government, and that Government
zance of this offence. He ha.. said that there was no could not exist without the establishMent of Religion.
legal denunciation in the country—that no written. But then the defendant had said, thathe (the Attorney-
law could be found against blasphemy, and, there-
General) WAS animated by an improper zeal—but
fore, he said, unless the Attorney-General could pro- added, that with respect to himself, the prosecution •
duce some written Statute upon the subject, there was was unwillingly cast upon him by his predecessor in
an-end to the prosecution, and the supposed law upon office. Let the defendant be undeceived upon this te
which it-was founded. Why, was the defendant so latter point. He (the Attorney-General) here pnbe
ignorant that he or his advisers were not aware, that licly avowed the fact, that with respect to the prose=
with respect to almost all the crimes punishable in cution, the person who had the honour to hold the
:Courts of Justice—such as murder, theft, and others, office before him--his most estimable and worthy
there was no written law upon the subject?--
predecessor had suggested it; but that it met with
—Was he so ignorant that the punishment 'of these the concurrence and joint approbation of himself, in
crimes depended upon the Common Law alone?-- recommending the proceedings. It was a prosecue •
'Was he so ignorant that the rights of property, the tion solely originating with the mutual approbation
rights by which we possess the property we enjoy, of himself and predecessor, and did not emanate, 2iS
depended not upon the written law, but the common was suggested by the defendant, from the suggestions
law of the land? But the object of the defendant of any persons connected with the Church Govern
here was, with respect to Religion, to set all law at ment of the country. As to his supposed improper
defiance—to demolish and get rid of it, and throw it zeal, lie felt none, but what he hoped every devout
into a never-ending state of confusion. This was the Christian, every admirer of the Constitution of his
object of the defendant or his friends; but he trusted country, entertained in common with himself. Ap-
that we should not live to see, what we had still hi- pealing to the Jury, with icseezt to their duty on the
therm enjoyed—a pure religion, secured and main- present occasion, he warned them against allowing it
mined by a free Constitution. Whenever that time to be supposed that the Jury who convicted Williams
in 1796, that the Jury.who convicted Eal‘,D in 1313,
should come, there would be an end of our freedom
—of our property—our security, and all the heppi-
*for publications of thtser—ame description, and that
ness we enjoyed in this highly favoured country,
the Attorneys-General who prosecuted. these cases,
acted without any just foundation. Let not an The defendant having thus stated that there was no
At-
Common Law, proceeded to state, that he would torney-General in 1819, be blamed for &lee; what
thew there was a Statute Law completely tolerating his predecessors thought to be their duty. It was
Deism. Because, by the 53d of the King, argued their duty to put the case in force, as far as they were
the defendant, toleration was granted to those per- able to do so; it was their duty, not to prescrve re-
ligion, because it was imperishable, and rested upon
re-
sons who differed upon some religious points, there-
fore it opened the flood-gates of infidelity and bias- a foundation not to be shaken—but to prevent, as far
phemy, extending to every man the liberty of disse- as possible, the disemination of opinions, which, if
minating the most pestilential doctrines amongst permitted to be disseminated, would sate not the
mankind. Nothing could be more infatuated than principles of those who were able or willing .to es-
such a notion. The law to which the defendant al- amine into their truth, but those of the ignorant and
luded, was too plain to admit of mistake or misre- unwary—to prevent the circulation of doctrines
presentation. But what had already been said upon which were likely to unhinge the sentiments of the
this subject, rendered any further comment unneces- unguarded; it was their duty, not to save the religion
sary. He need only remind the Jury what the opi- we professed, because it
,could not, be affected after
nion of his Lordship was, over and over again ex- the exertions of Tindal, of Bolingbroke, of Gibbon,
pressed. Here the Learned Attorney-General re- and the whole train_ qf infidel writers, whom the de-
peated what has been before detailed in the course of fendant was anxious to lay before them—but to rescue
the trial upon this part of the case, pointing out the the character of religion from infamy, with a view,
fallacy of the defendant's arguments; and at the .through the medium of this trial, to demonstrate
same time referring to the convictions of Williams whether the revilers of religion shall scoff at it with
and Eaton, to shew that those persons were prosecu- impunity ? With respect to Christianity, no man alive
ted, not upon this law, but upon the common law of could be blind enough to say, that it could be affected'
the land. The Statute of the 53d of 'the King, he by such publications as this; but although it could
said, cautiously extepted the provisions of the Statute not in itself be affected, yet there were many ins*
of William- against general•attacks upon the Chris- viduals amongst whom this Weirk had been circulated
tian Religion, that Act being only a recognition of who might be affected by its taleful influence. It
the then existing common law. He dwelt with con- was for their protection—for. the protection of the •
siderable ingenuity Upon the caution with which the• established religion of 4lie .country from being
Statute alluded to was passed,
.in order to .preserve defamed and vilified, that this example was neces-
inviolable the common law in favour of Christianity, sary. The defendant had complained, that be, had .
because the framers of the Bill, and those in whose not been permitted to go into all the powers of con,
favour it was passed, knew that the Religion upon
which the Established Church and the faith of all troversy to prove what he called his case, and he had
vainly argued from this, that the season why he was
Christians rested, must be shaken to the foundation, refused this Privilege was, that his principles could.
unless the provision to protect it horn scoffing and not be answered. This observatiou was always made
reviling Was preserved. Therefore it was, that 317 in such cases.; „By the law of the country, the de.
though certain disabilities were removed from Uni- fendant could not be permitted to adopt such a
tarians, yet. the substantial provision of the former course as he proposed to himself. This was the law
Act was preserved. By that Act the fullest latitude of the land, and so long as Christianity remained the
l
of toleration was given to the followers of CIIIIIST,aw of the land, it must be taken as true, conformably
with the reason upo.n'which every other established
but at the same time they were not empowered to
scoff and revile Religion—to say that the Bible was law could not be questioned. lf the argument of
a fable, and that Christianity nas an imposture. If the defendant on this occasion were to prevail, every
this were so, was not this a question in which the criminal on his trial at the Old Bailey ivauld have a
Establishment was concerned ?—was not this a ques- right to question the law by .which he should be ac-
cused of murder, robbenneor any other atrocicus crime;
tion in which Christians of every denomination were
concerned ? For if such publications were suffered, -
he might'
ti deny the aethenticity of, the Ten Coni-
they must strike at the root of all Religion founded mandinen, and say that Moses was an impostor,
,on Christianity. .So far.-therefore, us the law of the and that that part C.: f the Bible upon which Chris-
case was concerned, the defendant had no refuge.— tianity was founded -.nes a fable and a cheat —But
The defendant, indeed, had complained that he (the
the Jury would think he was spending his breath idly
i
Attorney-General) had called upon the Learned Judge in answering the observations of the defendant. The
to state what the law was. lie had done no such
defendant was charged with publishing a scandalous
thing 1 he had stated his own conceptions of the law,
and impious libel,_ of and concerning the Old and
but at the same time distinctly said, that the law New Testaments.. The question was, whether he had
would be received from the Learned Judge, and not
from himself. The defendant, it was true, had over done so ? That question was to be determinedhy
simply applying their understandings to the matter
on the record. The defendant had complained that
and over again elicited the law from the Leerned
Judge, who, together with the Jury, had exhibited-
passages had been invidiously selected from the hets,
c
more patience titan was ever witnessed in the course contending that the context of the whole publication
of judicial inquiry. That law, so expounded, was
would completely e-plain away the noxious import
confirmed by the arguments and authorities which
passages. For this purpose, he bad availed
the defendant himself had adduced. But the delete- `himself of the privileges allowed to defendants in
dart bad made some observations respecting the na-
ref those
similar cases, to read the whole book. The passages
tore whicliwere prosecutedwere precisely those fur which
had been adopted, and he Isad directed personal ob-
of this prosecution and the proceedings which
Williams and Eaton were convinced, in order that it
servations to him (the Attorney-General) touching
might not be said the Attorney-Genera] had made an
without the
natureslight-
invidious selectit n; but the defen a a s inconsistency
leti,st
fmeo.atLveasti,obnt.it
observationsailllisofwhichne
•
were
o ‘f s
the
latter
was manifest, because the while work was of the
clearly chewed his ignorance of the. character of the (' saute tissue, and tine were lettuces-I-Able passages-at
person t.f n lulu he spoke. The detzt Went had sent
. .