The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-10-15 00:00:00

Mk ST,

Boss were illegal. la 1813 a Bill was _
istelfarliesseN, whlgi vglb aftereards paged Mtn a
laW; tor t. •40i1,mak* ellesimenbed See seas t
it ites thew proltmlygibelleeed in the Besse of Leeds.
%bit AIDA hid *is iflatfor's lees lime for ..es
differeaces of opiate, a trent which was admitted by
the Dieeeeten, who 11,91tranless wished for this
ferthereeetNif.—Oort he Alia aide it was eem.tked,
that if they repealed that pert of the Statute of
Williams which applied to the Trialty. It behoved
them to prams the other parts of it, or other.
glee there wall as vied to dbe rolic:modf ilia
he Es Wesetry, and not only to the Est Re.
Igloo of she wonky, tut to that of the Disseeters
des --TM law enquired sot inte die religiose
Ilestitamits of say span, whilst he kept diem secret;
bet it could mat permit individuals mattemeliougly to
Mile either the Church or Christianity in grams!.
see would ado', under his Lardahip's aterectioo, that
any contumelious attack so the Trinity week) seen
este he liable to peacetime. Mr. Justice Black.
latiee, the liberelity of whose sentiments on the sob.
jest of religious tolerates were admitted ea either
Me, had observed In his celebrated work, that con-
tumely and contempt were what no establishment
ceeld tolerate: whilst every men was at entitled to
worship Gad la his own way, he was stet at liberty
to assert *peaty abet she Bible was a fable, the Chris.
Ilea revelation ea impostere, sod the whole religion
of the country a system of lies and of dealt. his.
missing, therefore, this branch of thd sidtject, he
wand refer I. some other. observatiene art the De.
lewdest, who, after esenhencing the greeted for.
Internees that ever was esbibited in a coed of justice,
who, after cattle( *a the Judge repeatedly fur his
*pieties, so snake heard it diem be controverted
It, thought proper to make some pessimist allesioes
to himself (the Attorney-Generel). These it was ga-
livanting in him to solicit, but the pablic ought to
be Babied with regard to the motives of this prose.
cation. TM Defendant, indreJ, wet eel very con.
slyest in Iris impetatines: at one time ',precutting
him to be a Deist, acting merely as the iesteement
of whets; and at another es ideated by a spirit
of persecutive, sad as desirous eves el bring.
leg bite to the stake. That the Defendant was is
geese degree an instrument is other heads, there was
great reason to believe: bet he could assure hies that
be knew little of his (the Attoreey.Ge mar.) ete-
rnally, if be imagined his citable of this subservience.
lle would metier preeemsto for mere opinions, nor
'seeps when en open sad deliberate attack was glade
upon the principles of our religion : for if our
glen were overtime's!, the Government might us well
I. overturned with it. Tinto, as to the insinuation,
that be was an unwilling ages' in the prosecution,
aid that it emanated from the Clergy, it was wholly
unfeended. This publication had attracted die scr.
lice of his esteemed and worthy peettecessor, who
&masked him respecting it : neither of them ettivr•
taintil the slightest doubt, nor coshi any reasonable
min, that it was a it subject for prosecution ; for so
long i; Gseuggseat itself was estimable, it esght
to be guarded against suit 4.llZeSaltS attacks as the
roast. How was it pessitila that it:7 t"'l4
seat in 1818 the akar thing to be doe* with imps.
sky, which had been prosecuted sad 'sashed as a
blasphemous aid impious libel in 1797 WA in ISIS.
The Defendant complained that here 11111. a promo.
Bea, and yet the Court declined to eater late the lield
ol controversy with him. The Coed coed mot at ea-
ter. The law of the land forbade it. To do so 'meld
be to doe thing to which it was in gooey way loam.
Was Chtistiseity redacted to tkat state that
'it was to be submitted to 12 Gentlemen ia thei beg
to confirm or reject its authority ? Whew an indivi-
dual was charged with insetting religi.a, gad silk
end kg to bring it into castanet, could it be
expected that a Court of Justice would enquire the.
thor religion deserved de be se treated? Where was the
prohibition to be found against striking at the life sad
prop. rty of your neighbour, if all religion were bet
• pretence ? As well might a men charged with theft
or merrier at she Old Brilsiy, tell the Gentleman of
the Jerry that he considered the Bible to be fabulous,
and that se his offence was forbidden only by the
Coalmen Law, the authority of which be equally
denied, they were incompetent to try him. The
charge against the Defendant was, that ho bad pub-
lished a scandalous, blasphemous, sad impious libel
on IM Old end New Testament. Had he done
an, or had be not ? The work spoke for itself, sad
the intentiee of publishing it was avowed. The De.
resident, after being's.g it forward, had voluntarily
eberitioned ilk 'geese of his being a mere bookseller,
and had declared (bet be published it as mare eloper,
reading for the people of this toiletry than the Holy
Scriptures. lie had read, indeed, the whole book,
ant of everp passage which it contained ; bet
there were some much wore* than those selected in
the information ; and with some of these be felt it
his palatal doty once mere to disgust them. These
in the information had been adore,' in order 'to
prevent all cavil, bong the same as bad on two former
oreasievis been pronounced landless by a Jege.-1..
[The Learned Gentleman here reed same offeesive
passages which we need not repeat.]—Coeld these
passages, he weeld ask them er any man, he de.
leaded as • candid and free disquisition epee coast..
vetted points, NIA as that of the Trinity ? No: the
abject was to strike away the Bible altogether. Die.
cession lOU easily to be &diminished from reviling
and defamation. If this were tolerated, it were
ter that religion should base no iniletace at all; mod
if religion were discarded, they might be assured
the Constitution would leaden likewise. The Da
fiesdent had been allowed to reed the whale work,
in order to show, if he could, that the passages
quoted differed from the sense imputed to them;
bat it turned oat, that the publicans* was full of
the most disgusting and offensive abuse that ever wee
produced. Could this, then, be called a persecu.
non of opinions, and met the peatecetirse of a gross
and Wetness libel ? l'aft Defendant had ea religions
hut (heath ho had none, had be confined his opinions
to himself, be might have contused to eatertain them
unmolested; but he bad no right, as Christianity was
a putt of the law, to tinily or defame it. With re.
gird to the alleged hardship of .0 many prosecutions,
he mail know that one only bad berg instituted at
the instance of die Government. Bet every day on
which the Defendant sold the work he had repeated
his offence, and if ho haul cestissed to sell it after
notice of the ktformetion, he had sinned with his
oyes amp and had little pawed at complaist.

.• • 1