The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-05-01 00:00:00

LAID' INI ELLIGENCE.

(111.1111 OF KiNti'zi iSENCH. Argil. 30.
Till: JUNG C. VANILL ISAAC EATON.
The ArrouNLY-GLNLitAt. prayed the judgment
f the Court against tha Defendant, who had been
t i 441 hetore Lord Ellenbtirough, at Guildhall, in
t!le Sittings after last Hilary Term, and found
p.iiltv of publishing a blasphemous pamphlet, pur-
pecting to be the Third Part of Paiue's " Ago of
Beasou."
The minutes having, been read;,by Lord Eeette-
poeouert, the affidavits of James Webb, Charles
l'ourphy, Fenthem, and Thomas Cantham,
w ore put in. They all spoke lii the_ highest terms
of the Defendant's moral character. The affidavit
se Defendant was next real, iu which he dis-
!Aimed any iutention of publishing a' libel. He
Lad erred through a misconception of the law—as
w ork was written by, another person, he had
net felt himself at liberty to alter any of ,its pas.
sle,•s—and he conceived, by publishing it, lie was ad.'
v.incing the interests of religion, because he had no
tionltt that it would call forth an answer. from some
e.msetetit person, which would tend to place the
Christian Religion in the most excellent light. He ,
adverted to his personal acquaintance with his Ma-
,Testy, and his late Royal Brother, Ldward Duke of
York ; and observed, that when he was formerly out-
ed,, in consequence of his representations, mercy
had teen extended to him. While in America, he had
eiscosered the art of making a peculiar description
of soap, which was verrefficacious in scorbutic cases;
and he intended to give up the bookselling business
eteirely, and confine himself.to llomanufacture of
this article.
Mr. PRINCt Stems then addressed tke Court-
great length, in mitigation of puniskment. He prO7
Rased himself warmly attached to the doctrines of the
Christian Religion, and felt no inclination to dispute
the propriety of the verdict which had been returned,
or the law on which it was founded. The change of
Mmes; however, might induce an alteration in the
administration of particular laws. They must fall
entirely into disuse, or be tenderly expounded. In
fr•rmer ages, every person who dissented from the
prevailing religion, was considered a heretic—and the
Chinch, in its zeal for proselytism, conceiving these
persons were out of the pale• of salvation, endea.
voured, either by persuasion or force, to put them in
the right path. But that principle had long ceased
to operate; and there were at present at least three
millions of individuals, assisting in the support of the
dignity of the Throne, who utterly disbelieved and ab-
horred the Christian Faith. Would their Loidships
visit with a severe punishment the present Defend.
ant, the vulgarity and stupidity of whose publication
could not possibly do any mischief .-when the se-
ductive works of 'Voltaire, of Hume, and of Gib.
bon, were passed over unnoticed ?• The works also
of the Greeks and Romans, whose infidelity was as
great as possibly could be imagined, were not prohi.
Cited. if the work of Lucretius were confined to
its original language, society could be but little en.
dangered by it—because, it could only be read by
those who would be enabled to detect its errors—
although both Bolingbroke and Pope were said to
have been influenced by it. That work, however,
1w found, was about to be translated by Dr. Busby,
and the name of the Learned Attorney-General, who
prosecuted the Defendant, be observed, was amongst
the list of subscribers. However the Defendant might ,
have been misled by mistaken *pinions of religion
and of politics, it was clear, from the affidavits
which had been put in, that his morality was unim.
peached,--and, though the obnoxicuis work treated
the miracles and prophecies lightly, still not one
word could be found, from beginning to end, reflect-
lug on the system of morality. inculcated in the
New Testament. He concluded by expressing a
lsope, that though their Lordships were called on
by the Attorney-General to punish the Defendant in
an exemplary manner, they would not visit him with
a severity which the occasion did not call for. . _

The :ATTORNtY-GINERAL replied. He pointed
out the evil cflects which must result from pub-
lications similar to that which the Defendant had
disseminated. The works of Gibbon and Hume
were not likely to be read by any but persons of
scuitd understanding and reasoning minds—to such
tko3e works carried their remedy along with them.
T;toy ould see in them the vanity of man,
setting itself up against the omniscience and omni-
pmence of Cod. lle shortly dwelt on that part
of the speech of the Learned Gentleman, in which
he alluded to his Or Vicary's) having subscribed to
Vie translation of Lucretius. It was ridiculous, he
olr.,rved, to suppose or imagine, that because he had
so subscribed, he was an admirer of the doctrines con-
tai+A fl in that work.

Lord ELLTS As well might a sub..
scciL.l- to an edition of the Classics, he accused of
believi;:g in the Heathen Mythology."
The Defendant was remandod to the custody of
the Keeper of Negate to be brought up on Fri-
day sennight, to receive the judgment of the
Court.

DISTURRItota RELIGIOCS w,oitsoiin• •
Mr. Jettioe.GßOSZ pronounced the sentence of
the Court on Jules Meat and William Squires, eors-
victed of au outrage on a religious Meeting, io near-
tliv following words _ _

" You are here to receive the Jutleent of. the
Court, having been convicted mos,t propetly, of a very
dangerous offence to society, of no less dangerous
offence than that of brealiingand entoripittltadwell.;
log-house of another, doing tnicliket, to, the doors
and windows, and assaulting the mistress of. that
dwelling-house, Mrs.•Tamlins; When we consider
the whole of this case it 4 ap ettactme guts) whe-
ther we look to the violence useii, to tbq dtb to the
;lumbers assembled, or tp the purpose .for wAkth
were assembled ; the violence was great, and great
deal of injury was done to the eAllis, prQQerty, al-
though you pretend you did not meet there for the
purpose of debts en injury either to their persons or
their property; you did meet there tell, thatoaliich
is as bad—you met there for the purpose of disturb.
it 4 those who had assembiedfor.the purposes of reli.
gious worship, and when ire recollect what the law
tolerates with respect to religious worship, it is
must abominable in private individuals to disturb
441.ers in celebrating that worship which the law al.
s. Your numbers were alarrrijng, the mischief
s uu did was very injurious to these persons, and the