The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-03-27 00:00:00

STA'r

-- _
who told them that religion was part and parcel of the
law of England. He would call upon legislators to
define explicitly what blasphemy was, in order that it
might be understood by the community at large.—(Hear,
hear.) The proceedings now carried on against
persons who questioned the divine origin of the Chris-
tian religion, were in the same spirit which they had for-
wily been carried.on by Roman Catholics against per-
stins who denied the real presence in the Eucharist.—
But those who instituted such prosecutions ought to eset
tend a charitable interpretation to the conduct of their
fellow-creatures. He would desire them to look into the
New Testament, and say in what part of it did the great
Founder of the Christian religion warrant the least per-
secution towards these who held different opinions upon
religious subjects? When our Savtoua was called upon
to bring down fire from Heaven to destroy unbelievers,
he rebuked the persons who urged his wrath, saying,
" you know not what you do." The prosecutors, in the
present case, englat.to fullow this Divine example„ and
show themselves guided by his precepts. The petitioner
had been found guilty of publishing the mere transcript,
of a work, which had originally made its appearance in
America. (Here some of the Members on the Ministe-
rial Benches smiled.) Gentlemen might smile, but he
assured them they would do well to follow some laws
that were now in force in America,
slittle as they might
be disposed to think of any thing in that country. The
lion. Member then referred to an Act of the Legislature
of Virginia, protecting persons from molestation in per,
son or property in consequence of their religious opi-
nions and creeds. He contended that we were depart-,
init., and had departed from those sound principles la
which, as Christians, we ought to act. %Ve ourselves had
claimed and vindicated the right of asserting our reli-
gious opinions in opposition to the See of Rome; surely.
then, we ought to extend the same indugence to others
in similar cases. If he bad been one of the Jury to try
the petitioner, he would have never taken the ipse dizit
of a Jude upon such a question. Sir 'Matthew Hale
seas the on':. authority noon which that ipse di.ri't was
founded ; an authority of no great weight, when it was
considered that that was the foamed Judge who had
sentenced so many to the stake for the crime of witch-
craft —(llear, hear.) He would say that people ought
_
to receive, with great caution, any opinion founded on
the opinion of such a man. The interpretation of blas-
phemy varied in every age, according to power and in-
tim nee. The petitioner on the 15th Sept. IS2I, was sen-
tenced to one year's imprisonment in Dorchester gaol,
Ruda fine of:Alet. After the expiration of such a sentence,
she was to give security, herself in 1,0001. and two
others in 100/. each. Site's a sentence was obviously at
variance with the law of the land, which laid down that
the subjects of the realm were not to be called upon for
excessive tines and securities, as was the case in the
reign of James 41. The petitioner had made an atillavit
before M. Moreton Pitt, an Honoureble Member of that
!loose, stating that she was possessed of noihing hut a
small quantity of wearing apparel, and a little furniture
for one room, with a few hooks. That affidavit be (Mr.
Wine). now held in his hand. He would ask then, if
this sentence was not such a one as James 11. bad been
accused of sanctioning, and which William 1 11. did away
with, by the first act of his reign. which provided that
the people of England should not be required to give
bail beyond their meant,. The House would recollect
that the Bishop of Cloglier bad only been required to
give bail to the amount of 1.0001., and the Magistrate
jus *tried himself for demanding so small a sum, upon the
ground that the law did not a.tberise him to call for ex-
cessive buil. Why then was such enormous bail required
from Mary Anne Carlile ? The sentence upon her
amounted to perpetual imprisonment. On the Ist of
November 1132•2, she presented a petition to his Majesty's
Government, stating that the term of her imprisonment
had expired, and praying that her case might be taken
it-to torsi leration, as she was unable to pay the fine.-
- The answer, howeyer, she received was, that the Govern-
ment did not deem it expedient to recommend her case
to his Majesty. It was quite clear that she was now de-
tained imprison contrary to the Statute of William and
Mary, and was the victim of oppression for the publish-
ing what was merely matter of opinion. He called
upon his Majesty's Ministers, as administrators of
Christian justice, to recollect that their anceetors.bad to
struggle with persecution, and to act with clemency to-
wards the petitioner. The Hon. Member concluded, by
moving for leave to bring up the petition.
the Petition was read through by the Clerk, and on
the motion that it do lie on the table,
Sir T. ACLAND rose, and observed that he knew of
no situation more painful than to feel himself called upon
to maintain severity of punishment, even in any
stion
case
however aggravated. But that was not the que
which he had to consider ; for if a petition to the Crown
were agreed to in the present instance, he.should take, no
part in it as being a Member of that Society, which bad
been visited with the reprehension of the lion. Gentle-
man who had brought forward this subject. He should
therefore hold himself of all others the least competent
to interfere in the case of an individual who had been
brought to punishment by his agency, either directly or
indirectly. Yet he would be one of the first to hail with
pleasure the first hope of returning peuitenceon the part
of one who bad already suffered so much, and was likely
to suffer more, from her inadequacy to pay the fine im-
posed upon her. If he could see any such hope he would
gladly blether the object of the petition. He would not
now advert to many of the topics which the Hon. Mem-
ber had introduced to his speech, because he deprecated
the principle of mixing up with the matter of a petition,
topics that were reserved for discussion at another pe-
riod. This was anticipating the debate which
of the Hon. must come
an in consequence of a previous motion
Member, relating to the law of blasphemy. lie (Sir T.
Acland) would consider that lie did not properly die.
charge his duty, if be were to take that debate on the
present occasion. The business of the Society, of which
he was a Member, was to denounce to the laws, offences
which outrht not to be neglected with impunity—(llear,
hear.) harther than this, the Society were not respuo-
sible, and if it could be shown that there /rum° error,
injustice, or oppression on their part, they ought not to
be visited with blame or reprehension.
.111 e would con-
fine himself to this particular case, bat not,sin the way
mem 1111 l ended by the Hon. Gentlemen. This was not a
single case, nor was the House to look on it as relating
to the insulated culpability of Mary Anne Oarlile. He
might say that the prosecution had not been instituted
with the mere view of punishing that individual, whose
brother, the original blasphemer, was still more severely
punished; therefore she had no right to assert, that she
was treated with peculiar rigour. The House would al-
low bier to advert to that systematic course of blasphemy
of which this act formed the link of connection. A de-
luge of blasphemy had been poured over the country by
a set of wretches, for what purpose he knew not ; hut this,
be dill know, that blasphemy had latterly bevels, the ,
precursor of crimes ate I outra es., In all the 5,1411.rna- I
ors publicatious that were put ortb,ltichaed Carlil9 e was',
implicated. Some of the worst and most infamoue lihelsd
that bad ever come from wan, had been *at forth jowl
the world by that individual. The Hew would, see '
whether, instead of blame, greet praise ought not to at-
tach to the person or persons who should endeavour to
suppress them. lie twilit not select the worst. p4ssagps
in those libels • for he verily believed that not, one nian
could be found' molt them, who would stand up in his
place sod read them. He would first mad:Carlisle's art
Dolmen:lent to the public after his own couvictien and.
that of his wife. It stated that "sin consequence of the
. verdict • silt which pronounced rig:oust Mrs. Ca,re
lilt, foe p e, ~• , , , , sis.r..:(j's Life of Paine, and \a,'>' of
the Rep • te"4"""t "4 -111 C• • in prison, and the basin's

VA

.
would be carried on by Mary Anne Carlile, on behalf of
the infant children and the whole family." 'the concluding
part which the Hon. Bart. read, expressed Carlile's into.
tion to defeat " the legit thieve's, by having another'
place for the sale of hie publications as near as possible
to the house Nit. 55, Fleet-street, which was taken from
him. It also said, that "if one web Was destroyed,A
few hours. would ,bet sufficient to spin another." . He (Sir
T. Acland) would ask, if this was not bidding open de-
fiance to the laws ? Did it not show Carlile's -firm deter
urination to continue his wicked career of blasphemy?
!He would now refer to No. 9, of the,first volume of The
Republican. These papers had issued from the very
:gaol in which the prisoner was now confined, and the
;only security which the author of them had, was his he-
lug a prisoner, else if he were at large be might, under
the existing law, be banished for ever from the country.
ißut it appeared, that while in confinement he might
publish whatever be pleased with impunity, as being un-
der punishment. The Hon. Member then mad so ex-
iract from The Republican, which stated, that before the
Public could be blessed with a pure Government and
perfect code of laws, they must reject the Bible, as
being the word of the true God, and totally disbe-
lieve the divinity of Christ. It also went on to say,
that the writer had, in his youth, been taught' to
read the Bible, and had learned to reverence it foe,
twenty years; nor did he entertain any dont*
with respectto it, except. at intervals, till he bid react tl
held and Paine's Age of Reason. The Hon: Bart.foinr,
mented on this and some other passages; which, frointliete,
impious nature, we forbear to report. Those blasphemer;'
denied that there was any such place as Heaven or Hell.
If Miss Carlile persisted in that course 'of deluging the
country with the most dangerous publication!, relying on
the difficulty of detection or defying the laws, he would
ask time Hoo. Gentleman whether in his opinion those
who had the safety of the country at heart, had dealt too
severely with her by effectually putting a stop to those
diabolical sentiments, such as he had read to the House.
The principal object lie had in reading, was to justify
the proceedings of that Society of which he was ii mete
ter, from the attacks of the Hon. Member who presented
the petition. He was sorry that in the performance of
that duty he had to detain the House so much longer
than he wished.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that it was. not
his intention to enter into any defence of that SoCiery of
which the lion. Gentleman complained in presenting the
petition. After the observations made, and the extracts
read by the lion. Member for Devonshire, it was itupos
sible, he thoeght,,that there could be a single person in
that House who cotild concur in, the charges against the
prosecution of those persons. The Hon. tientleman who
presented the petition had gone out of his way in order
to attack the Judge Who tried the petitioner and the
other individuals who were officially engaged on that tri-
-1
al. Against a charge of that nature, without notice to I
those inditiduals and in their absence, be most earnestly
protested. He did not believe that there was any
thing illegal or unconstitutional in
.those prosecutions.
to his opinion the thanks of the country were rather due
to those gentlemen who stepped forward and conducted
them. That Society had been instituted about 30 years,
and he believed that instead of bring injurious, it pro-
duced very good effects.requested of the House not
to confine themselves to the solitary case of Mary Anne
Cathie, Wash to be said that too niuch severity was used
against those persons, who, in defiance of the laws, per-
severed in the course that was adapted by them. 'the of-
fence of which the petitioner was found guilty, was not'
the first offence of that individual. The brother Richard
Carlile, and his wife, were before prosecated by the same
Society for blasphemy, and not with the view of putting ,
down fair discussion, as the Hon. Member said, but to pre-
vent
the spreading of such noxious opinions. The tiro-
pagation and diffusion of those opinions in such pubitca-
twits, were any thing but fair discussion. After thecon-
viction of this man and his wife, one after another, this
woman, whose petition was before the House, was then
set up to carry on time same odious business. That sys-
tem called for unusual severity of punishment, inasmuch
as that woman, warned as she was by the conviction
and consequent punishment of her brother and his wife,
pursued the same course. In her petition site complained
that she was not heard in her defence. Certainly she was not
heard, because her object was not to defend herself, but to
reiterate the same blasphemy for which she was under pro
secutionitwas the uniform rule on which all Judges acted,-
when indecency or blasphemy was attempted to be intro-
duced under the pretext of a defence. She complained that
she moved fur a new trial and that her motion was re-
fused. It was refused on the same grounds as those set
forth in the petition. The imprisonment to which she
was sentenced was not so much a punishment on her as
to deter others from committing the same offence. The
Hon. Gentleinan had complained that excessive bail was
required of the petitioner after the expiration of her term
of imprisonment. The bail required was two sureties in
1001. each for her good conduct id future. That cer-
tainly ougle not to be considered too much, viewing.the
greatness of her offence. Besides that, she was required
herself to sign a bond for 1000/. This latter could not
be any impediment to her discharge. As to the charge
of time lion. Member on the laying down of the law by
the Jude, Mr. Fox often lauded and praised the prac-
tice which left the Jury the whole of the law and the
fact; but at the same time he acknowledged that it was
the right of the Judge to explain the law of the case to
the Jury, and it was for them to apply the law to time
fact. Time law in this, as in all other cases, was in the
breast of the Judge, who would state it to time Jury,
leaving them to apply it to the facts as they appeared in
evidence. There was no criminal case in which the
Judges did not lay down the law. The Hon. Gentleman
advanced another proposition more dangerous than any
to which lie had yet adverted. It was in effect that the
Jury, before they pronounced on the guilt or innocence
of a prisoner, were to consider what would be the punish-
ment which would be inflicted.—(No, no.) He appealed
to the recollection of the House, whether the Hon. Mem-
ber did not say that Cause Jury wore to know the punish-
Ment, they would p before they would pronounce
the sentence of guilty. No proposition could be more
dangerous to the pure administration of justice.—(Hear,
hear.) It was no matter what the punishment was to be.
lie would contend, that it was the duty of the. Jory to
pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the parties on the
facts in evidence before them, without the exercise of
any discrt Lion as to the punishment to be 'inflicted. He
therefore protested against the dangerous proposition of
the Hon; Member. If the petition had set forth the re-
formation and coptrition of that woman, be should know
on what grounds he would receive it, but it contained no
expression to that effect. lie deprecated time interference
of the House with every sentence pronounced by the
Judges. If the Hon. Member had any charge aialost
the Judge, letltiat cbaege be brought forward in a spe-
c* form. He Would maintain that no min, Consider-
ing the cline of the petitioner, .could lay his hand on his
heart and that the ptiniehinent inflicted on her was
too severe. Notbiig else could prevent those permitis
from Continuing . those scandsions publications.. He
hoped the Home joined him in the !pillion that the* I
was noshing in the conduct of thiLearnid'Jddge lOW
presided at the trial of the petitioner, to Merit the epi•
diets that were so liberally bestowed on him. .
11. c. RICARDO wished to notice the sttinge piopool..
00 of the Ifeo. and.Lenined 6entienir, that this WV4lli
would he-entitled to the iolfsitleieion meat HOW if A
had.eaprepted contrition fur the yclenc wap'tq'sa-;
of
it'l4 Filenitilt declared to be wron . (Witt 'opinions
i'vlitil ilse WilatelY held tos be 4 fit. Hear, be-ar,)
$4Ol-.lfaffltire made a derYive, . 114 r uptuton.,, lOW
Was the Heim now in Minim of her s2.Cliaige them
.. .

.
Her adherence to those opinions was a proof of her ho-
.nesty.. If tbi petitioner was not allowed in her defence
to read, for the sake of justification, „passages from the
publication, lest they uld go forth to the public, for
the same reason the lAi. Member for Devonshire ought
not have cited them as e did. He maintained that pro-
... Options of that nature, instead of doing good, produced
i_ireet deal of mischief. Besides, it was impossible to
say what blasphemy was, in strictness. There was no
definition of the crime. It was one thing here, and ano-
.ther thing in other countries.—(Hear, hear.) The peti-
(theme, continuing still to believe those doctrines which
Ate professed on her defence, acted honestly in not stat-
ipg in her petition that she repeated, when she really
felt, so contrition. The Hon. Attorney-General had
said, that no doctrine could be more dangerous than
that proposition, that if the Jury knew the punishment,
they would pause before they would fiiathe party guns
tv. Did' out Juries daily exercite that discretion?—
(Hear, hear.) In cases of robbery, did they not usually
find the value of the thing stolen less tinutit really was,
with a view to change the punithment '?—e(Hear, hear.)
He contended; that nb presecution shield' be instituted'
fur religious opinions.—(lleac, hear.) He should like te:
know why one man should set up a doctrine to which all
others should confeconform?—(llear, hear.) It was no le
thin the scandalous doctrine of the Spanish I nernsition,
to °bike all pervede to conform to the same religious
Opiiiion. Why were not those who sent forth new doc-
trines, met and• put down by the force of argument ?
No good effect followed from prosecittions, and only for
'them he ventured to assert, that the doctrines of the Car-
tiles' would never have been so extemively known.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that nothing could be more
dangerous thari to suffer those new doctrines to be spresti
among those classes of the people whO bad neither !eisure
nor capacity to discover their fallacy. It was part of the
law of the country to repress blasphemy, and while it
continued part of that law he would support it. If
blame was to be imputed to' any one fut the continuance
of this wo,nan's imprisonment, that blame was a•tachable
to hetelf. His Hon. and Learned Friend did not desire
a change of opinion in the petitioner. The judgment of
the Court was, that, at the expiration of her term of ini-
pris.mment, she should pay a tine of 5001. and give secu-
rity for further good behaviour, which she might easily
olnain if abe expressed contrition for the offence. His
Hon. and Learned Friend was, therefore, justified in no-
ticing the absence of that *motile petition. There might
be cases in whiCh the flour* !bight interfere fur the ex-
tending of niercy ; but it would not be wise to advis-e a
remission of punishment to those who triumph over the
laws of the country.. The EiMile of the petitioner had
run a long career in defiance cf the laws. (Here the
Right Hon. Gentleman went into a history of the differ-
ent prosecutions against R. Cathie and his wife in the
Michaelmas Terms of IM9 and 162.0, for blatphelny,
and of the punishment to which they were sentenced.)
These punishments had not deterred Mary Anne Carlile
from following the same course. She was accordingly
prosecuted and found in 1531, and sentenced tootle year's
imprisonment, to the payment of 4001. fine to the King,
and to be further confined till that suns was paid ; and fur-
ther, to give security for her good behitivioor, herself in ,
1,0001, and two sureties in MU/. each: But Arat did'
not amount to perpetual imprisonment, as the lion.
Member supposed. When she completed the term of her
imprisonment, it would be then competent to the Crown to
ettehd . mercy ; and when that time arrived, when she ex-
piated her offence by suffering imprisonment proportion-
ed to the fine, be would take care, if he should then fill
the office which lie now held, to recommend her to the
Royal mercy.—(llear.)
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said %lest it would have been
better to keep Out of view of the House some of the topics
adverted to by the Hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir T.
`Ached.) Ile thought it would have been more advisable
to discharge this woman irons prlion, because no good
could result froth the continuance of her confinement. The
case was one of most gross and monstrous oppression.
He agreed with the opinion of the Itpn. Member for Port-
arlingtoo, and his other friends, that n 4 prosecutions should
be intituted n those subjects. Opinions should not and
coulds not be suppressed by
.acts of violence. No true be-
liever in the Christian religion could sanction prosecutions
for religious opinions. The Christian religion itself WAS
once called blasphemy—(Hear, hear)—aud CHRIST was put
to death for the propagation of his opinions. Many ab-
surd opinions were held in the name of religion ; and many
perseotions were set on iii required ,and it was of them. But
only the
it was
only the grand inquisition that
Court of the Spanish inquisition that heard of the necessity
of contrition in order to extend mercy. Such doctrines
would always find supporters among those like the Ifon. and
Learned Geut. whose motto would seem to be as desire an
rirtus. Those legal Gentlemen always endeavoured to make
up by voice and action the deficiencies of their argumeut.—
punishment on this wo-
m(levilearm, lasieaor,uatnodfa
alialupghrojporittioen to her crime. No one
could justify the impoaltlon of the scandalous fine
of 5001. on a person not worth 500 pence. He never
knew that it was the object of prosecutions of that to
produce the contrition of the parties. But this difference
of religion was entirely a matter of opinion, and no hu-
man legislature could coutroal it. Our actions and not
our opinions were the objects of legislative coercion.
But it was impossible to get hold of the definition of
1 blasphemy. He would defy the Attorney-Geoeral to tell
1 the House what blasphemy was. He could not define
rwhat was a libel. lie stood in the same situation with'
'the petitioner as to any future prosecution for libel, if he
'were imprudent enough to write any thing that could.
be eo construed, and if the Attorney-tleneral could find
a Jury to convict him. The Right Hon. Secretary of
State said, that this was not an imprisonment for hie;
for, if she found security for future good behaviour,
Which was difficult, the Crown would then be advised to
extend mercy. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that
when, by his computation, she expiated her offence by
5001. worth of iumnsonnient, he would then recommend
her to mercy. No racks, no inventions, were more tee-
tering than undefined imprisonment. Had the Right
Hon. Gentleman a tenure of his official situation that he
could be able to compute the term of imprisonment into
which the flue was to be commuted ? The Hon. Baronet
tben expressed his disapprobation of prosecutions Wild-
. tuted by any society of men, suit said nothing could be
('more dangerous.
1 Mr. WILBERFORCE contended that the societies in
question had rendered very impoetant moral tervices to
atglniievdectoohufeunititiroyn.ouHra deliberationi, fiee are
e Member
ttbhiirtftootrhtletoHreotonansrioituintragtutbololnen,
hadonf a rt
°h
notnees these
semiotics or to their own opinions on the subject, It
*as to be remarked, that this was the only country which
ever existed in which a religious tribunal was .not re-
iognised by the State. Not only in modern days, but is
Athens, Sparta, and in Route, .establishments were
founded to protect the religion of the people from ea-.
croachnient. Some institution was necessary in this
country to watch the progress and correct public Offences
; against religion or morality ; as it is now seen that in
• the class of public offences, no one individual was 'Mil-
ciently excited to indpce him to become a prosecute!.--
It was asked how opinions, whether false or not, could
he put down by the force of persecution? If, howeogress
ver,
they gould not instantly be put down, their•pr
Might be arrested. He would riot be an
ima
to
attacks upon opinions which Merely appe to rs.
He would' Id 41 be saidlitat liliratean eter saidw , if the
reason of the people and nit their "pinions wax orked
opuo. He contended, on theintboiity of Paley, that
blasphemous publicatiess,ehiald be .proieenti.d. 'With
regard to one of the Societies, which -had been . particu-
larly Added to--that for the suppression of vice, it bail
rendered iMportatit benefits. It had brooght thlity-two
prosecutient, in not one of which hid it Mild. The 91).

11