Star.
London, England, 1819-11-17 00:00:00

Ind it was not necessary to say, in an in-
. -rv, that it was against the Statute.
BAytry here remarked, that it would
the nature of the offence, whether or
ci clergy should be prayed.
resumed..—The whole offence here
am' printing against the Holy
and this came within the express words
, ittne of William. This Act provided a va-
.` ucw disabilities,. and distinctly limited the,
:,cut that a defendant convicted under it'
he ,übect to. It disabled hint from holding
Cmplovineat of public trust, to sue, to
execa,ur, or take any legacy, and enacted
su!ier imprisonment for three years.—
il.at the person before the Court came
rise Furisions,ol that Statute, and ought to.
proceeded against under it. It applied
,th• to nil persons born in this country, and who
ore rthlcated in, or had professed, the Chris-
c!icion. Had he been Counsel on the.trial, he
.1 have been able to prove that this was the
situation,de-
s and brought him fully within the
:itr aid operation of the clause referred to. He
rieht, therefore, now to bring this question.
u.J, because this Act of Parliament, whilst it
T.! a :articular punishment, likewise conferred
;a r i‘ileges. By its second section it. was pro-
; t;iat ;1 time should be limited for commencing
•cutions under it—that was, four dayi should he
allowed for giving information after the offence,
hree months for carrying the prosecution into
. This referred to advised- speaking and
; and he subniitted that no distinction could
lie between that and the case of printing. By
J clause also it was treated as not being
a temporal offence, but as a heresy subject to
i,dittien of the Ecclesiastical urt.s. Now,
e y was proceeded against Ihr errors of a
aarure, he, on a renunciation, was relieved
those disabilities to which lia..had subjected
!h; provided that renunciation was made with-
mr months. This was a very peculiar Act of
ament, and framed in a marmer very unlike or.
St.oxes. As he understood it, it entirely re-
the common law. Certainly he never meant
tend that the crime here charged had not been
!ffence•abcommon law before the Statute. The
,)f Taylor, which had been tried before Lord
!, and which was to be found in Strangis Re-
which was for words spoken, was complete
i.rity upon that point. The Statute or William,'
.ver, was not then in existence ; it was subse-
alp to that that the Legislature had interfared.—
whole argument was, that there was a Statute,
'f which the Court could not travel, without de•
ng the subject of those benefits and privileges
which he was fenced round, and by one of
.h it was necessary that he should be convicted
,e oaths of two or more witnesses. The next case
that of the King v. Weolston' " for a libel
list the miracles of Christ. He had not lately
the case, but he understood the work to have
,ea those miracles as an allegory.
Ir. Justice BAYLEY observed, that the case might
and in Fitzgibbon.
Ir. DENMAN resuming, observed, that it was not
tr whether in that case, the offence came within
,tot of Parliament. The publication contained
denial of tie truth, or at least of the divine autho-
of the Christian Religion; nor was the. Statute
IViliiam refined to on the trial.
Justice BAILEY--..There was 2.:cist" Of the
1. *bete the objection nostinade by
. De..man was suggested and eonsateied. The
,art then ruled, that the case of Taylor was a suf-
tent precedent.
Mr. DENMAN TIMEAEIked, that it diel not appear
tether the offence in- that case had beost-Inid as
:ainst the Statute or not. - •
Mr. Justice 1-16rAtovn said, that in Vicusigon!scase,
!argument had been over-ruled"; altd it was held
,t to lie necessary to describe the a$ against

S:aiute. . -
DENUAN continued—lt might not have been
'cc-sary in that particular case, and it did not ap-
-ir to have been strictly within, the Statute. In no
~e where the objection had hitherto been inci-
:Nally mentioned, was there a resemblance to the
Relying upon the argument which he had
use ofared to the consideration of the Court,. and
ion :he circumstance, that in the cases of Williams
his present objection had not been taken,
:;1(1 cimcluJe his observations, leaving to the
:a.:Liant to urge whatever matter he might think
the way of mitigation.
rise Low CHIEF JUSTICE immediately pounced
.s (Thiinn—drat the Statute referred to,did not take
way the common law. Its title was, " For the more
•
preventing if Blasphemy," &c. His Lord-
;+ Pere read the Act, and observed, that it specified
-,.:liar disabilities, several of. which were. of very
. Iderable severity. The general rule was; that ao
I....demeanour, at common law, could be repealed,
'xtept by the clear intention and express words of the
Justice BAYLEY rennarkell, that the point had,
,rolt.r cases, been pressed upon their attention, and
icceived the decision of the Court. It was, in
the same objection as had been argued is
(.4.: the " King r. Robinson," in aurrovei'
That arose in a case of disobedience to an
ot Sessions, and this disobedience bad been
a ir.i,derneaaour by a particular Act of Parlia-
ment, being previously a similar offence arcommon
14w. Lord Nlansfield took the tame view of the
Yleginti which the Court now entertained. If an
Act Parliament made a new offence, it could only
"A proceeded against in the particular way pointed
r'tt; but it the Statute only acted on what wasps
ly.ciiminal, and provided a specific punishment
en class of cases, then it did not !irate as
c,.inn of the common law. The Me would
be different if the Act went to reduce the
crin as to make what was felony a misdemeanour,
It' -2er3a, a misdemeanour a felotiy,then the corn-
rn law would be superseded. It was not, however,
in the case which had frequently happened, of a
making that felony which seas already felony.
11,e) had also before them the cases of Williams and
; and if the proceedings on the present occa-
sii,a wcre erroneous, great injustice had been done in

t!:(%! Übtances.
N.r. Jus,ice HOLROYD observed, that the rule, as
61 down by. his Learned liruther, was plat upon
which the Court had cnngantly acted. The Statute

did not alter the nature of the crime, but only alleal
particular penalties to those already in existence. The
Court had been guided by the same rule, in a late
case of Sir M. Lopez, upon the objection that an
Ait of Parliament required that the' prosecution
should be within two years after the offence. The
Court held it to be clear, that bribery was an offence
at common law.

Mr. Justice Besr remarked, that although this ap-
-plication was easily determined by the first principles
of law, he was glad that it had been made. If any
one, even the defendant himself, were before dissatis-
fied that he had not been permitted to pursue a cer-
tain line of defence, his objections must be removed
on finding, that, in the opinion of an able and itztelli;
sent advocate, such a defence could not be legally
admitted. No statatable remedies took away, unless
by express words, or by clear and manifest intention,
the principles of the Common Law. The Learned
Counsel had fallen into some mistakes in his-allusion
to the Statutes respecting Perjury and Forestalling.
The remedies given by such Statutes were accumu-
lative, and not abrogatory. In fact, this was a settled
principle, to be found in all the books most coma'
monly read. The object of the Act of William was,
he thought, obviously to confine the toleration then
afforded to Christians of every class, not-only so as to
prevent libels directly attacking the truth of Chris-
tianity, but also, whether wisely or not he would not
say, the discussion of certain topics in religion, lest it
should lead to the unsettling of men's minds on sub-
jects of such deep importance.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then read his notes of
the second Trial, for publishing Palmer's Principles.
of Nature; 'after which,
The defendant rose, and began by observing, that
he had little to offer in mitigation of punishment,
but would make some remarks to shew why no
punishment should be inflicted on him. He should,
however, make no reference to the books which had
been the subject of this prosecution—a prosecution
which would hereafter be considered as unwarrant-
able, but which, from its good effects upon the people
of this country, would still be viewed as a fortunate
occurrence. It had excited a spirit of free discussion,
and called the reasoning powers of man into exercise.
It would hereafter be regarded as casting a stain and
blot on those tribunals before which it had been con-
ducted--
The LORD Cuter JtisTier here interposed, and in-
formed Mr. Carlile, that if he had any thing now to
offer, it must be in the way of mitigation of punish-
ment, or in extenuation of his offence. It was not
competent to him to stigmatize the prosecution. By
the law of the land, the Work which he had pub-
lished was an offence; and that law, whether right
or wrong, it was the duty of the Court to administer.
The defendant resumed.—lf Christianity were; as
was asserted, a part and parcel of the law of the land,
and the foundation and security of all its establish-
ments, he trusted that the judgment which the Court
was about to pronounce on hits would be formed on
the same grounds, and be guided by the same prin-
ciples. which that religion inculcated. He conceived
that he ought to endeavour to shew the impropriety
of inflicter any punishment.in his case. Whenever
Courts of Justice had taken cognizance of matters of
opinion, they had gone wrong, and their proceedings
had afterwards been condemned. He would mention
the case of the celebrated Galileo, who, for maintain-
ing the true doctrine respecting the motion of the
earth round the sun, had been puni.hed as maintain-
ing what was contrary to the Christian religion; yet,,,
afterwards, the descendants of his prosecutors wil- ,
lingly embraced that doctrine which their ancestors
had condemned. In all countries there were nume-
rous instances of persecution for matters of opinion.
In those where the Romish faith was professed, these
instances were most abundant. What they called
heresy, was classed among their most enormous
crimes. What, however, was called heresy in one
age, was orthodoxy in another. In this
•country, the
national faith, at one time, consisted of the mytho-
logy of the Romans; at another, of the pagan wor-
ship of the Saxons; and, subsequently, of the super-
stitions of the Roman Catholics. At each of those
periods, the form of worthip was said to be a part
of the law of the land, and that mode of Aseash*
which was sow described as such was different from
all. All that he had done had been done upon his
firm conviction of its truth. With respect to the af-
fidavit of his having admitted that he sold 3,000 co-
pies of The Age of Reason, at half-a-guinea a piece,
he felt it necessary to state, that they were not all sold
at the same price. All that he had admitted was,
that this was the general price ; that it was known
that a reduction was always.made when sold to the
trade. He should now proceed to justify his conduct,
and to read a paper containing reasons why no punish-
ment should be inflicted upon him.
• The Louo Cuter JUSTICE asked whether the paper
in his hand was written by any other person?
Mr. Carlile said, that he had received it by the post
on the preceding night. It purported to be from one
who declared himself an enemy to his principles, a
supporter of the Bible and Missionary Societies, and
a true believer in the 'Christian worship. Yet he
(Carlile) was willing to rest upon this document for
his justification. He then proceeded to read the pa-
per, which appeared to have been drawn up in the
first person, and intended as a defence or apology
for the publication of the two libels. It stated, that
if he had been found guilty of any crime, of any in-
jury-done to another in the heat of passion, lie should
bow with submission to his sentence. But this was
not a case in which the Court had authority to inquire.
Justice was always the same. She sat above the clouds,
and held the balance equal at all times, and for
all men, and her decrees could net be altered.—
Hs trusted that the Court would pause before they
Consigned him to a dungeon, to poverty, and to un-
triefited disgrace. The intention was the essence of
every crime, and the proper object of justice, the
correction of the offender. Why shouhi the Court
act upcn principles, when considering libel as a cri-
initial act different from those by which they were
regulated in civil cases ? There the truth of the
publication was deemed fair matter of inquiry, and
if the truth were proved, the complaint was dis-
misse,l, In criminal proceedings, the inters ion, and
intention only, ought to be considered. Llow many
nice distinctions were there drawn between the cases
of wilful murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, I
and accidental killing? Yet, in all those cases, the'
difference was only made by the intention of the party
accused. By the same merciful rule, did he wish his,

case to be determined. Ile had but little mere to
offer to their consideration, but lie begged to remind
them, that it was nbt because his opinions differed from
theirs, that theirs Must necessarily he right; or because
they deemed his injurious to society, they therefore
were so. Those who agreed with him might still be'
pious worshippers of their GOD, just and moral in all
the relations of social life, and loyal and obedient
subjects. He might be as little likely to commit per-
jury, or disregard the obligation of an oath, as the
firmest believer in Christianity. All he had de-
manded was a fair trial—a trial at which the odds
should not be so much on one side, as they were be-
tween the dungeon and the mitre. Truth was
great, and would prevail ; and a time would come,
when he should no longer be considered as having
disseminated moral poison. The waters were now
gathering, and though slowly rising, would ultimately
overflow, and force their passage into the vale. If
the Christian religion were true, the present prosecu-
tion was a libel upon it. .Jesus Guam-had himself
said, that his kingdom was not of this world ; and
when on one occasion, a disciple drew his sword in
his defence, and cut off the ear of one of those who
had come to apprehend him, he was rebuked for the
act, and his Master ordered him to put up his sword,
adding, " that they who lived by the sword• should
perish by the sword." Upon what a different spirit
was the present prosecution instituted !
The LORD CHIEF Annex again interposed, ard
intimated that the defendant could not be allowed to
cast aspersions on the prosecution.
Mr. CARLILE.—If the Court were to act upon
principles of justice, he was satisfied that they would
dismiss him from further confinement. He would
state his reasons for this conviction. They certainly
were the reasons of a Deist. He did not now mean
to impeach the truth of Christianity, but contended
that no man oug.ht to be punished for abstract opi-
nions. The interposition of human tribunals in such
matters had led to much of persecution, much of
cruelty, and much of absurdity, in every country,
which made a succeeding generation blush for that
which had gone betbre it. Mr. Cathie then went on
to argue at some length on the injustice of being
brought before a criminal tribunal, for the assertion
of opinions, for which, he contended, he ought only
to be accountable to his Creator. In the course of
his observations he said, that they who should wish
to punish him for uttering his opinions, would sanc-
tion the crucifixion of him whom they called their
Lord and Master. .
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said. that the defendant
was pursuing a course which could not be tolerated
in any Court, and which he .would not sanction.
Mr. CA RLILE denied that he had intended to speak
irreverently of the founder of the. Christian religion,
:or.disrespectfully of the Courtss.
The Loa° CHIEN JUSTICE replied, that he had done
so ia.saying,.that they who prosecuted him would be
sanctioning the-crocifizion of Jesus Christ.
Mr.CARLUJ said,that Jesus Christ had been perse-
cuted todeath for preaching a doctrine which was
contra,, to the then
_law of the land in which he
lived, sand he intimated that it woulAje.. nearly
equally unjust to punish him (Carlile),fotisis consci-
entious opinions. Ile then went on to call upon all
those who worshipped an Eternal God .not to make
' themselves parties to a charge which, he said, nothing'
but the absurdity of the common law would have en-
abled 114 prosecutors to proceed in.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that no such
epithets could be suffered to be applied to the law of
the country.
Mr. CA RULE then said, he should conclude, and de-
clare in the sincerity of his heart, that his object had
been to promote the interests of morality. With this
consciousness he claimed, at the hands of the Court,
his immediate liberation from that unjust confine-
ment which he had already suffered.
The,. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, said, that
though it might be supposed to be the duty of a
person in his situation to address the Court, he should
have abstained froM doing so, had it not been for
the extraordinary circumstances of the present case.
Nothing in .extenuation had been urged, and the
offence remained as it stood when the verdict was
pronounced. The publication was not one of calm
and dispassionate discussion of particular doctrines,
but a direct attack upon the truth of our Holy Reli-
gion. He would not
_go over the painful and dis-
gusting passages which had been recited at the trial.
!'hey were all summed up in one assertion—namely,
that the Bible was a collection of lies, wickedness,
and imposture. The question was not, therefore,
whether the defendant had exercised the right of free
discussion, and of forming his own opinions? In
such a case, he should be the last man to call upon
him to answer. For opinions so promulgated he
could not so call upon him. But it was, whether he
had not attempted to undermine the Religious Faith
of the Nation; and whether, whatever ulterior objects
he had in view, this wasnot one which he had clearly
aimed at? With regard to his pretence of having
been desirous only for the propagation of truth, he
would ask whether the sale of 3,000 copies, at such
a price, did not indicate something of a meaner mos
tive ? • That number had been sold since December;
1818, which was after the period when he had notice
that he was committing an offence. Former trials for
the same publication had not sufficiently warned him
of that fact, but he thought proper to continue it.—
Vs ith respect to the high price of the work, one of the
arguments upon which the defendant chiefly rested
upon his trial was, that the work could not have cir-
culated among the poorer classes in consequence of
the high price at .which it was sold. There was,
therefore, no mistake in the affidavit. which had been
put in respecting the sale ; and it clearly shewed how
profitable a trade might be carried on in blasphemy.
He was not aware what he could add, as a further
inducement to their Lordships to visit with an ade-
quate punishment an offence of this description. He
asked them only to guard against theevil consequences
to which it lid, not to fetter religions distussion, not
to cramp religious toleration. But if an endeavour
had been made to annul our faiih, to cut off all those
hopes of an hereafter by which we had been hitherto
animated, and which had consoled uswnder the afflic-
tions of life, and to leave us without Ulm or anchor,
in pursuit of any wild theory which should be ()tiered,
then had all our great securities been struck at.—
Their Lordships would perceive, that incalculable
mischief to society might have been produced. "fhe
defendant had this day orsred nothing in alleviation,
but had avowed and repta:ed his (oroscr.scntiments,

declaring that they mete tight, and that be was dra
termined to maintain them. He now, therefore, called
upon,their Lordships to pronounce their sentence upon
him, satisfied that they would not forget those prin-
ciples of religion to which the defendant had referred
them, in apportioning his punishment ; but that they
would at the same time feel the necessity of holding
him out as an example to those who might otherwise
feel inclined to tread in the same fontsteps. -
Mr. GURNEY rode, and also declared his intention to
abstain from reading the libellous passages of the
work for which the defendant had been found guilty
on the second trial. The defendant's address, how-
ever, of that day, coinained matter quite as disgust-
ing, and was probably intended less for the consi-
deration of the Court than for the encouragement of
others, if there should be found any who would dare
' to publish it. - It had been urged,i that Voltaire, Vol-
pey,
and others had publi4ied similar works in
France with impunity ; bat how unfortunate it was
that they had not been prevented the world had -
since received an awful example. The history of
their consequences was written in characters of blood,
and seemed to shew what a beast mail was without
the lights and guidances of religion. The Court
would see, that they had before them an offender of
no common quality. One who maintained that the
crime of which be was convicted was no clime...".
Every other malefactor might, upan grounds equally
just, maintain the same doctrine, if he could only add
to his original transgression the audacity to justify it.
He hoped that what was now done would serve to
deter others from pursuing the same course, and
scattering the same pernicious notions through so-
ciety. He concluded by priying the judgment of
the Court upon the second conviction. . • •
Their Lordships then consulted together for a short
time, after which,
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, with much emotion, addressed
the defendant:—" It is," said the Learned Judge,
1" my painful drity.to pass on you the sentence of this
Court. The offenci-of which you have been Con-
victed is known to the laivs under the character ofblas-
phemy, and tends to undermine that faith on which
all our hopes of future happiness are founded. You
I have expressed a hope;That the judgment of the Gault
will be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity;
and I also hope, that nclt only the seineice of this,
but .of every other Court, will be guided by that
spirit. The laws of this country give to every Man
the free enjoyment of his opinions; the law impbses
no art Mes of faith on any man; and while he con-
fines his sentiments to his own breast, no earthly tri-
bunal can call him to account. But you have at-
tempted to introduce disbelief into the minds of others,
and, it is to be feared, have succeeded to a great ex-
tent. If, unfortuaateiy for yourself and for others,
you have stripped them of the dread of an hereafter,
and thereby urged them to offences they would not
otherwise have dared to.coMmit. you have much to
answer for at a higher tribunal; but it is the ditty of
the laws, which we are bound to administer, to pre-
vent as much a, possible the injurious consequences,
in this life, of ofiences such as you have connni:ted.
I observe that the libellous Works you have published
are not written by yourself, but published a number
of years ago. Neither of them, lam happy to say,
are the offspring of our land. One of these publi-
cations had undergone judicial discussion, and the
publisher was punished long ago; and yet, with
the knowledge of that fact, you took upon yourself
to_ republish a prohibited work, in defiance of the
laws of your country, which had condemned it. It
has been observed, by the Attorney-General, that this
attack on Christianity has not been made in calm
discussion, but that throwing in the back ground the
divine precepts of the Christian Religion, and taking
no notice of the great foundation on which our faith
is grounded, you declaim against what you may net
understand, and condemn, what you have not el,t-
mined : for, the parity of the contents of the hook,
you have defamed, and the purity of; its precepts,
must be admitted and admired by every man who
has the slightest pietensions to reason. No man .
can open a page of the Holy Bible, without
finding in it rules 'of comfort for this life, and the
best and surest guide to happiness in the life to ccme.
'Peace on earth, and good-will towards men,' are its
god-like precepts. The King upon the Throne takes
an oath, as Goo may so help him in this life and
hereafter, that he will discharge the duties of his high
office; the sanction under' which Courts of Justice
are held is the same. Ydu, on your trial, had the
most patienthearingwhich ever honoured a Court of
Ju tice ; aad to-day you have been heard to an ex-
tent which pet haps some may blame. The Juries
that convicted you, gave their verdict on their oaths,
as they should hope for punishment or reward here-
after. It is on this principle that justice has been
administered for centuries, and, I trust, ever will be.
You tellhus, you do not believe in the doctrines of
Christianity, and are entitled to disbelieve them—but
can you think that you are conferring a benefit on
mankind, when you release them from the sacred
duties and obligation which religion has enjoined?
And when you tell us that a man should be punished
for his intentions only, are you not aware, that it is
by his acts, that his intentions can be inferred ; and
that offences are criminal, in proportion as they
are injurious to the well being of society.—Our
religion teaches us to forgive others, as we hope
for forgiveness hereafter.; but when you teach a
man that there can be no forgiveness hereafter, or
that it can avail him nothing, to what an extent may
you not injure mankind. You state that this is not
a place to discuss Christianity ; and as it is not ne-
cessary for me to defend it, I shall not make the
attempt, although I have examined its doctrines,
and admired its precepts ; and, I trust, the result of
such examination will be beneficial to me in this
world, and to my eternal happiness in the world to
come, since it has given me a r
deemer. It is the object of tl
cpriunmisel.nFernotn,
Itaon
affidavitrefomQtlfriac'tnhti:
it appears that profit has been ,
you have made it to a considerate,
itOwever, the bounden duty alb(
that crime shall not be profi;al,)
has been yoorobject, it shall
is necessary: also that the punts
as to deter others .frons;attempi
.byldoctrines of the most dangerous
~.wurk was not one of discussior
would have pointed out the al
.divines,and those laymen who

-
9.• • •

ti
1
1
11 1
;lii
i tfi
' 1
I'l
. , .
II:1'
t.,
) ~,

• t
1
.

r firm belief in my Re, I • k
the law, in awarding
der's, and, to present
has been read in Court,
your object, and that
*Table amount. It is,
'.the Court to take care
able; and that it such
not be successful. It
ishment should be such
piing to disturb society
serous tendency. Your
m; had it been so, you
ible arguments of those
11,
o have opposed the fatal 10
•