{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39055/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39055","id":"gutenberg_39055","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39055","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Hetherington, H. (Henry), 1792-1849 -- Trials, litigation, etc.","Trials (Blasphemy) -- England -- London"],"text":"Produced by David Widger.\n\n\n\n\n                   *THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON*\n\n                                  _By_\n\n                          *Henry Hetherington*\n\n                    _On an Indictment for Blasphemy_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    A FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON\n    THE TRIAL\n    INDICTMENT\n    Second Count:\n    Third Count:\n    Mr. Bult opened the proceedings\n    DEFENCE\n    OBSERVATIONS\n    Extract from The Sun Newspaper\n    \"TO LORD DENMAN, ON THE LATE PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY\n\n\n\n\nA FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON\n\n\nON AN INDICTMENT FOR BLASPHEMY,\n\nLORD DENMAN AND A SPECIAL JURY,\n\nON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1840;\n\nFOR SELLING HASLAM'S LETTERS TO THE CLERGY TO ALL DENOMINATIONS:\n\nTHE WHOLE OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE DEFENCE, AT FULL LENGTH.\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HENRY HETHERINGTON, 1-26, STRAND;\n\nAND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.\n\n1840\n\nPrice Sixpence.\n\nTo\n\nJAMES WATSON,\n\nBOOKSELLER,\n\nTHE FRIEND OF TRUTH, THE INFIDEL TO ERROR, AND THE LOVER OF LIBERTY,\n\nTHIS TRIAL\n\nIS DEDICATED,\n\nIN PROOF OF THE AFFECTIONATE ATTACHMENT THAT SUBSISTS BETWEEN TWO\nFRIENDS, WHO FULLY RECOGNISE AND ACT UPON THE PRINCIPLES AVOWED AND\nCONTENDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING DEFENCE; AND AS A TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM,\n\nTO GOD'S NOBLEST WORK--AN HONEST MAN!\n\nBY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND,\n\nHENRY HETHERINGTON.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRIAL\n\n\nCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, December 8, 1840.\n\nSittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Lord DENMAN and a\nMiddlesex Special Jury.\n\nPROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY.\n\nTHE QUEEN Versus HETHERINGTON.\n\nThis was a prosecution instituted by Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Sir\nJohn Campbell, against Henry Hetherington, bookseller, of 126, Strand,\nfor the publication of a blasphemous libel.\n\n\n\n\nINDICTMENT\n\n\nOf Easter term, in the Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria.\nMiddlesex:--\n\nBe it remembered, that on Tuesday, the twenty-eighth day of April, in\nthe third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace\nof God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen,\nDefender of the Faith, in the court of our said lady the Queen, before\nthe Queen herself at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, upon the\noath of twelve jurors, good and lawful men, of the said county of\nMiddlesex, now here sworn and charged to inquire for our said lady the\nQueen for the body of the same county; it is presented as followeth,\nthat is to say, Middlesex to wit. The jurors for our lady the Queen upon\ntheir oath present, that Henry Hetherington, late of Westminster, in the\ncounty of Middlesex, bookseller, _being a wicked, impious, and\nill-disposed person_, and having no regard for the laws and religion of\nthis realm, but _most wickedly, blasphemously, impiously, and profanely\ndevising and intending to asperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible\nwhich is called the Old Testament_, on the third day of February, in the\nthird year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace of\nGod, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender\nof the Faith, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did\npublish, and cause to be published, a certain scandalous, impious, and\nblasphemous libel, of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which\nis called the Old Testament, containing therein, amongst other things,\ndivers scandalous, impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning\nthat part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, according\nto the tenor and effect following, that is to say, \"What wretched stuff\nthis Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old\nTestament) is, to be sure! What a random idiot its author must have\nbeen! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got.\nSuch a book is actually a disgrace to ourang outangs, much less to men.\nI would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know\nwe believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our\nintellects? What must they think of our incredible foolery? And we not\nonly believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word\nof God, as a production of infinite wisdom. Was insanity ever more\ncomplete? I for one, however, renounce the book; I renounce it as a vile\ncompound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense, as a fraud and a cheat, _and\nas an insult to God,\"_ to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the\ngreat scandal, infamy, and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which\nis called the Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and\nagainst the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity.\n\n\n\n\nSecond Count:\n\n\nAnd the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,\nthat the said Henry Hetherington, devising and intending as aforesaid,\non the eleventh day of February and year aforesaid, at Westminster\naforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be\npublished, a certain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel,\nof and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old\nTestament, containing therein, amongst other things, divers scandalous,\nimpious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy\nBible which is called the Old Testament, according to the tenor and\neffect following, that is to say, \"One great question between you and me\nis, 'Is the Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called\nthe Old Testament) the word of God, or is it not? I assert that it is\nnot the word of God, and you assert that it is; and I not only assert\nthat it is not the word of God, but that it is a book containing more\nblunders, more ignorance, and more nonsense, than any book to be found\nin the universe,\" to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great\nscandal and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the\nOld Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace\nof our lady the Queen, lier crown, and dignity.\n\n\n\n\nThird Count:\n\n\nAnd the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,\nthat the said Henry Hetherington, further devising and intending as\naforesaid, on the day and year last aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid,\nin the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be published, a\ncertain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel of and\nconcerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old\nTestament, containing therein, among other things, divers scandalous,\nimpious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy\nBible which is called the Old Testament, in one part thereof, according\nto the tenor and effect following, that is to say, \"My object, and I\nfearlessly state it, is to expose this book (meaning that part of the\nHoly Bible which is called the Old Testament) in such a manner, that the\nchildren of the Stockport Sunday-school will reject it with contempt and\nin another part thereof, according to the tenor and effect following,\nthat is to say,\n\n\"Such a book (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the\nOld Testament) ought to be rejected by every one. The human race have\nbeen too long gulled with such trash. Moses was the inventor of this\ngrand cheat; and although it may have done some little towards\nfrightening people into what is called morality, the purpose for which\nMoses invented it is now out of date,\n\n\"to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal and\ncontempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old\nTestament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of\nour lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity.\"\n\n[Witness] ALEXANDER KERR,\n\nOne sworn in court.\n\nA true Bill.\n\nOn the names of the gentlemen summoned as Special Jurymen being called\nover, only five answered to their names.\n\nThe Attorney-General prayed a tales, when the following were sworn:--\n\nThe Jury.\n\nSpecial--\n\nRobert Savage, Esq., 11, Montaguplace, Bloomsbury.\n\nJames Arboine, merchant, 3, Brunswick-square.\n\nWilliam Fechney Black, merchant, Wilton-place.\n\nCharles Frederick Barnwell, Esq., 44, Woburn-place.\n\nRobert Eglinton, merchant, 29, Woburn-square.\n\nCommon Jurors--\n\nCharles Ricketts, stove-maker, 5, Agar-street, West Strand.\n\nWilliam Polden, licensed victualler, Villiers-street, Strand.\n\nJohn Osborne, confectioner, 401, Strand.\n\nJohn Johnson Ruffell, painter, 24, Church-street, Soho.\n\nThomas Reid, baker, 24, Old Compton-street, Soho.\n\nCharles Phillips, ivory brush-maicer, 20, King-street, Soho. J. Mahew,\nbaker, 84, Greek-street, Soho.\n\n\n\n\nMr. Bult opened the proceedings\n\n\nThe Attorney-General said, this was an indictment found by the Grand\nJury of Middlesex, for the publication of certain blasphemous libels. It\nappeared to him that all he should have to do, would be to prove the\npublication of the libels in question. He had not hesitated for one\nmoment, when he found there were only five Special Jurymen, to pray a\ntales, because it was to him a matter of perfect indifference from what\nclass of society the Jury was taken. It had frequently been laid down by\nthe Judges, that to insult and vilify Christianity was against the law.\nPublications insulting religion, and addressed to the vulgar and\nuneducated, were most dangerous. He would call a witness who purchased\nthese books in the defendant's shop, the defendant himself being\npresent; and he should prove that the defendant was rated to that house.\nIt gave him pain that it should be necessary for the Jury to hear such\nshocking attacks as were contained in this publication. It consisted of\na series of letters, and each number was sold for a penny. It was\n\"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations\" and was, in fact, an attack\nupon the Holy Scriptures, particularly on the Old Testament. He should\ncontent himself with reading one extract.--(The learned Gentleman then\nread an extract from Letter 8, contained in the first count of the\nindictment.) Mr. Hetherington was in person to defend himself: they\nwould hear what he had to say, and then he (the Attorney-General) would\nhave an opportunity of again addressing them.\n\nThe following witness was then called and examined by Sir F. Pollock.\n\nAlexander Kerr, a policeman, bought the \"Letters to the Clergy,\" 5, 8,\nand 13, at the shop of the defendant, 126, Strand, on the 5th of\nFebruary last. A young man served him. Knows defendant--he was standing\non the threshold of the door at the time; has known him for the last\nthree years; has seen him repeatedly at the shop. Paid one penny each\nfor the letters.\n\nCross-examined by Mr. Hetherington.--Did not come in his uniform to\npurchase them. Came from directions he had received, not from any\nreputation the work had acquired. Did not read the fifth number or the\neighth number of the book purchased at the shop. Stated at the Old\nBailey, at the trial of Mr. Cleave, that he had read a copy, but not the\none purchased of defendant. Curiosity induced him to read it. It did not\nshake his opinion--it did not make him burn his Bible; quite the\nopposite. He is a plainly-educated man. Was instructed to purchase all\nhe could get at defendant's shop. Purchased other numbers, but did not\nread them. The work produced no effect on him to induce him to follow\nthe recommendations of the author.\n\nGeorge Sherwill, collector of poor's-rate for the liberty of the Savoy,\nproved that defendant was rated for No. 126.\n\nThe libels were then put in and read: first, No. 8 of \"Haslam's Letters\nto the Clergy of all Denominations,\" then 5 of the same work, and then\n18.\n\nThe Attorney-General said, that was the case for the prosecution.\n\n\n\n\nDEFENCE\n\n\nMy Lord--Gentlemen of the Jury,\n\n\"In rising to vindicate myself from the charge preferred against me in\nthis indictment, I shall not attempt to justify the language alluded to\nby the Attorney-General; but I cannot refrain from expressing my\nsurprise that the Government, after having encouraged the circulation of\ncheap knowledge upon all subjects,--in Penny Magazines and Penny\nCyclopaedias,--should have placed me on my trial upon such a flimsy\ncharge as this--for flimsy it undoubtedly is, when, out of a work\ncomprising nearly 500 pages, the Attorney-General can only find one\npassage,--that in the eighth Letter, which is, I admit, expressed in\nvery improper language,--whereon to found an indictment. I contend that\nit is impossible to say where a person is to stop in his inquiries. If a\nperson is permitted to reject one tenet, another may reject another; and\nthere is no reason why another should not go on, and reject the whole.\nIn the whole work there is not one disrespectful word about\nChristianity; it is a rejection of the miracles ascribed to Moses in the\nOld Testament, which have been indignantly rejected by many learned men.\nThe work was not intended as a scurrilous attack, but as an inquiry into\nthe effects of the usages of society, founded upon the Old Testament.\nThe object of Mr. Haslam was benevolent; and however much he might err,\nhe was not criminal. He undertook to prove to the clergy that they were\nall in error that the doctrines they are teaching to the people are\nfalse, absurd, and irrational; that they are directly contrary to\nreason; and that, so long as they are preached to the people, so long\nwill the people be vicious, wretched, and unhappy.\n\n\"The Attorney-General has only read the objectionable passages: I will\nread a few passages from Mr. Haslam's first Letter, which will enable\nthe Jury to understand the nature of his work, and appreciate his\nmotives. Having frankly stated his object, he proceeds:--\n\n\"You, no doubt, will feel concerned at this; you will very likely be\nangry with me for this daring attempt; you will call me Deist, Atheist,\nInfidel, and many other charitable epithets; you will feel unutterable\nthings towards me; and I shall, no doubt, be subject to the _extreme\ncharity_ of your _pious_ congregations, who profess to 'love their\nneighbours as themselves,' and into whose minds you have crammed\nabsurdity after absurdity, until they have scarcely room for another. I\nshall, no doubt, expose myself to all manner of ill-feeling and\nuncharitableness, and to calumnies and lies of every description; but\nshall these deter me from making known the convictions of iny mind?\nShall these hinder me from exposing the errors and absurdities which I\nsee interested men instilling into the minds of the people? Shall these\nprevent me from telling the people that they are deceived and imposed\nupon, and that their beggary, and want, and wretchedness, are the\nconsequences of it? Shall these, in short, stop me from exposing the\nirrationalities which I see everywhere around me, and which occasion so\nmuch misery and unhappiness to my fellow-men? No, I tell you they shall\nnot. That power which sent you into the world, sent me into the world\nalso; and if you have a right to think and speak, I have a right to\nthink and speak also. I have received an organization for the purpose as\nwell as any of you; and as long as that organization remains unimpaired,\nso long will I tell the world what I think and feel.\n\n\"Why should any of you be angry with me? If I can prove your doctrines\nto be false and erroneous, what occasion is there for anger? What can\nyou want with doctrines that are false? As honest men you ought\nimmediately to abandon them. Instead, therefore, of being angry with me,\nyou ought to have the very opposite feeling; for of what service can\nerror and nonsense be to any man, or any set of men?\n\n\"But if I prove that your doctrines are not only false and erroneous,\nbut that they occasion a vast amount of mischief to the people; that\nthey occasion want and vice, and all manner of wickedness, and that, by\nremoving them from the minds of the people, and substituting truths, all\nthis want, and vice, and wickedness might be put an end to; if, I say, I\nprove this, why should you be angry with me for doing it? Surely you\ncannot wish the people to remain in a state of want, and vice, and\nwickedness; and yet, if you do not, why should you be angry at me for\nshowing you the causes of them, and pointing out the means for their\nremoval?\n\n\"You talk a great deal about morality and religion; you manifest in your\npulpits a great anxiety to spread them amongst the people; but who can\nbelieve you to be sincere, when you resist every attempt to remove the\ncauses of immorality and irreligion? You must know that effects cannot\nbe removed without removing the causes of them, and by resisting the\nremoval of these causes, you evidently show a disposition to keep the\npeople in wickedness. This wickedness proceeds from certain causes. We\nhave pointed these causes out to you, and if you will not remove them,\ndoes not that evidently show that you would rather that the people were\nwicked? Can there be conclusions more logical? What ridiculous cant it\nmust be then to talk about morality and religion?\n\n\"My assumption then is, that the belief of every man is given to him\n_independently of his will_, and that, therefore, no just power can\npunish him for it.\n\n\"Your assumption is the opposite of this; you assert that the belief of\nevery man depends upon his own will; _that he can either believe in the\nBible, or not believe in the Bible_; that he can either be Christian or\nJew, Mahomedan or Infidel, and that, therefore, God will punish him if\nhe do not believe in a particular manner.\n\n\"These then, are our respective assumptions--and now let reason, 'the\ngrand prerogative of man,' determine between us.\n\n\"Gentlemen, contrast the spirit of Mr. Haslam in this passage with the\nspirit of my prosecutors. He invokes Reason, 'the grand prerogative of\nman,' to determine between them; the Clergy, on the contrary, resort to\nprosecution to crush a reasoning opponent.\n\n\"I beg to inform you that I have read the Bible attentively, and that\nthe more I read it the more reason I see for disbelieving it.\n\n\"The Bible asserts things which the whole of my senses tell me are\nfalse; and if my senses are independent of myself, how can I help\ndisbelieving it?\n\n\"I know that God gave me my senses; but how can I believe God made the\nBible, when it is directly opposed to these senses? To believe that God\nis the author of both, is to believe that God commits absurdities like\nyourselves; and to ascribe such a paltry and blundering performance as\nthe Bible to that power which governs the universe is to dishonour that\npower, if any thing can dishonour it.\n\n\"But a man's belief is not only formed independently of his will, but it\nis often formed in direct opposition to it. I, for instance, once\nbelieved that the principles which I now hold were false; I used to\nargue against them, and even write against them, and my will to\ndisbelieve them was so strong, owing to their apparent absurdity, that I\nused to be delighted when I imagined I had discovered a fresh argument\nwith which I might overturn them. Continuing, however, to argue, I began\nto see their truth; I saw the principles more clearly; I found I had\nmistaken them very much; and at last I saw into them as clearly, as\nCobbett used to say, as the sun at noon-day.\n\n\"Now here, you see, my will was to disbelieve these principles; but,\nafter the process of reasoning was over, I was compelled to alter my\nwill. This, then, being the case, was that will free? Could I have\ncontinued to disbelieve them, when my convictions told me they were\ntrue? And if I could not, where, I again ask, was my free will?\n\n\"Here, then, is reasoning enough to prove the truth of my assumption;\nand now I beg to call your attention to its peculiar effect upon your\nvarious systems of religion.\n\n\"In conclusion, therefore, I beg to call upon you to defend your\ndoctrines from the serious charges I have here made, and shall continue\nto make against them. You may either do it by writing, or by verbal\ndiscussion, whichever you please. But do not continue to act so meanly\nand dishonourably, as to preach doctrines to the people which have over\nand over again been proved to be false and absurd, and which none of you\nare able to defend.\"\n\nGentlemen, you will see by these passages that Mr. Haslam appeals to\nreason. He calls upon the Clergy to defend their doctrines, telling them\nthey may either do it \"by writing, or by verbal discussion.\" The\nGovernment, however, disregarded this appeal; they ought to have called\nupon the Bishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots of his class, to\ncome forward and confute Mr. Haslam. But instead of this they prosecute\na bookseller, who had never read a line of the book until this\nprosecution. They ought to meet Mr. Haslam with his own weapons; and it\nis disgraceful to the Government, which has always advocated the\ndiffusion of cheap knowledge, to submit to the taunts of the Bishop of\nExeter, and other bigots like him, by instituting these prosecutions for\nblasphemy. However we may disapprove of Haslam's doctrines, we cannot\nbut perceive that he is sincere in his belief.\n\nGentlemen, I will, as I proceed, prove to you that the convictions of a\ntat which he now believes to be true to have been false. Gentlemen, I\nreadily admit that the passage in the eighth number is offensively\nworded; but I will prove that the free exercise of the right of inquiry\nis not, and ought not to be, an offence in law. I will also call your\nattention to the hardship of a general bookseller being held responsible\nfor every book that he sells, and will call your attention to the oath\nyou have taken, and claim from you that acquittal to which I am\nentitled. I claim no exemption from punishment if I sell any obscene\npublication,--anything calculated to corrupt or demoralize society,--or\nany attacks upon a man's private character; but in cases of the\ndiscussion of abstract truths, is a man to be punished for the\nconvictions of his mind, which are not in the power of his will? It is\ntoo bad to bring a man into a court of justice on account of a few\nsolitary passages in a work of this nature.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, our great and popular moralist, Dr. Johnson, has\ndeclared that \"Truth is the basis of all excellence.\" This axiom is so\nclear and indisputable, that no intelligent man can hesitate to adopt\nit. How, then, can the truth, upon the various subjects interesting to\nhuman beings, be elicited? Not by letting interested men think for us,\nbut by judging for ourselves--by collecting and examining facts and\narguments, and communicating to society the impressions they\nrespectively make upon our minds. There is no effectual mode of arriving\nat truth, but by the exercise of the right of free inquiry, and the\nunrestricted publication of the result of such inquiry. This right has\nbeen deemed of pre-eminent importance from time immemorial, and by men\nof all sects and parties; and although corrupt and tyrannical rulers in\nthe past ages of the world have prosecuted honest men, and endeavoured\nto suppress the truth, you will find that in every case to which I shall\ncall your attention, the intrepid advocates of truth have ultimately\ntriumphed. Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will proceed at once to fortify\nmyself with a few authorities,--not that I think truth depends upon\ngreat names, however numerous and illustrious they may be, but because I\nam determined to advance nothing that is not, in my opinion, strictly\ntrue, and sanctioned and maintained by the greatest intellects of the\nage.\n\nGentlemen, I will begin with a Bishop.\n\n\"God has given us rational faculties to guide and direct us, and we must\nmake the most of them that we can; we must judge with our own reasons,\nas well as see with our own eyes; and it would-be very _rash, unmanly,\nand base_ in us to muffle up our own understandings, and deliver our\nreason and faith over to others blindfold.\"--_Bishop Burnett's\nThirty-nine Articles_, A. 39.\n\n\"Gentlemen of the Jury, will you, by your verdict, consign a man to a\ndungeon, because he is too honest and independent to act a '_rash,\nunmanly, and base_' part? Will you declare, by your verdict, that\nhenceforth we shall not '_judge_ with our own reasons, nor _see_ with\nour _own eyes_?' I feel confident you will not.\n\n\"_Dr. Whitby_, in his _Last Thoughts_, tells us, \"that belief or\ndisbelief can neither be a virtue or a crime, in any one who uses the\nbest means in his power of being informed.\n\n\"If a proposition is _evident_, we cannot avoid believing it; _and where\nis the merit or piety of a necessary assent?_ If it is _not evident_, we\ncannot help rejecting it, or doubting of it; _and where is the crime of\nnot performing impossibilities, or not believing what does not appear to\nus to be true?_\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, can you dispute the truth of the passage I have\nquoted from Dr. Whitby? Will you, by your verdict, pronounce it to be\n\"_a crime_ not to perform _impossibilities_, and endeavour to _force us\nto believe_ what does not appear to us to be true?\" Gentlemen, you\ncannot do it. Let us briefly trace the operations of the human mind, and\nwe shall find that the mind is governed by a law of necessity. Are we\nnot definitely and necessarily' affected by the circumstances which\nsurround us? Have we power to avoid receiving impressions from the\nobjects presented to us? If we have not, which is now universally\nadmitted by intelligent men, then the act of _perceiving_, or _forming\nideas_, is a necessary mental operation. Can we, for instance, have an\nidea of a man when a monkey is presented to us? Or of colours other than\nthose which are placed before our visual organs? We cannot, if the eye\nbe not diseased, perceive red to be green, or green red. The power of\n_perception_, therefore, appears to be perfectly involuntary--it is\ngoverned by a law of necessity.\n\nThe next operation of the mind is to form a judgment of the things\nperceived; and it is these two things--_perceiving_ and _judging_--which\nconstitute a man's knowledge or experience. If two bodies of different\nmagnitudes are presented to our view, are we not compelled to judge of\nthem according to the impression they respectively make upon the mind?\nIt is precisely the same with _men, manners, and opinions_. Must we not\nconclude that things are what they appear to be, till we know the\ncontrary? I would appeal to your own experience, Gentlemen, whether you\ndo not invariably and necessarily judge of men and things according to\ntheir inherent or imaginary qualities? Some men, indeed, are puzzled to\naccount for the diversity of judgment observable where different men\nexamine the same subject, and from the same data; but this circumstance\nis easily accounted for. It results simply from this fact, that men\njudge of things precisely as they appear to them: and the different\njudgments formed of the same things are ascribable wholly to the\ndifferent degrees of strength in the power of perception, and to the\nextent and variety of knowledge previously acquired. _Perception and\njudgment_, therefore, appear to be involuntary and necessary.\n\nGentlemen, if this be true, is a man who has arrived at conclusions\nadverse to the _received opinions_ of society a fit subject of\npunishment? If not, how much less so is the bookseller who merely sells\nhis book?\n\nMr. Haslam calls upon the Clergy to enter into the controversy with him,\nand to let _reason_ decide between them. Why do not the Government, and\nthe learned Attorney-General, adopt Mr. Haslam's recommendation, instead\nof instituting a prosecution against a bookseller who never read a line\nof the book till his attention was called to it by this unjust\nprosecution? Why do not the Government,--who patronise penny\nliterature--who affect to be friendly to free discussion, call on the\nBishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots, to defend the Bible\nagainst the assaults of Mr. Haslam? For the learned Attorney-General to\nattempt to crush the free expression of opinion by prosecutions of this\nnature, is most unjust and impolitic. I maintain that two out of the\nthree passages read would not support the indictment at all; and the\nthird passage--set forth in the first count of the indictment--so far\nfrom being blasphemy, declares that the author _rejects the Bible,\nbecause he looks upon it as containing statements that were insulting to\nGod_. In the passage immediately following that which is prosecuted, the\nauthor admits that the book contains some good precepts, but declares\nthat he deems mere precepts to be useless. I will take the liberty of\nreading the passage to the Jury.\n\n\"I allow that there are some good precepts in it, but I contend that\nthese precepts are useless. I contend that _all_ precepts are useless.\nOf what use have all the precepts in the world been to the human race?\nHave they made man wiser, or better, or happier? Have they lessened the\namount of his vice and his misery? 1 contend that they have not. Vice\nand misery have been increasing, although these precepts have been more\nand more preached to the people. Precepts, reverend ministers of the\ngospel, are mere wind; they are as empty as the vapour issuing from the\nkettle's spout; they have no effect whatever in making man wise, or\ngood, or happy; the present wretchedness of the world is a proof of it.\nThe way, reverend sirs, to make man wise, and good, and happy, is, not\nto preach precepts to the people, but to abolish the present irrational\nsystem of individual property; to arrange society in such a manner that\nthe interest of one man will be the interest of the whole. Until this be\ndone, all the precepts in the world, preached, too, with all the\neloquence in the world, will never remove man from his present\ndeplorable condition.\"\n\nGentlemen, you will perceive by this extract that the author is a\nsocialist. It is not necessary for me to maintain that he is right in\nthese opinions. All that I have to do is to show that these opinions\nwere sincerely believed by Mr. Haslam. I have clearly shown that belief\nis involuntary. No man can tell one day what his belief will be the\nnext. In my own person I furnish an instance of this. I married young,\nand having formed in my mind a standard of ideal perfection, I\ndetermined that my children should equal that standard, as far as human\nmeans could make them. I tried to effect my object by severity. Acting\nupon wrong principles, of course, I failed; but at that time I was young\nand ignorant, and believed myself to be right. However, a friend who\nknew better than myself, and who had had much experience, lent me Miss\nWilliams's Letters on the Philosophy of Education, and the reading of\nthat book put new ideas into my mind. It produced, in fact, a mental\nrevolution;--I changed my opinion and my system, and did so with the\nhappiest success. From that time I banished coercion as a principle of\neducation. I repeat, then, that belief is not voluntary, and that\ncompulsion is not a good means of producing good belief or good conduct.\n\nGentlemen, I will now quote the opinion of Bishop Marsh, as to the\nimportance of free inquiry. I quote from the Bishops as persons of the\ngreatest authority on this subject, far greater than the\nAttorney-General, or any of his legal brethren.\n\n\"Investigation, it is said, frequently leads to doubts where there were\nnone before. So much the better. If a thing is false, _it ought not to\nbe received_; if a thing is true, _it can never lose in the end by\ninquiry_.\"--_Bishop Marsh's First Lecture_.\n\nGentlemen, you have heard the opinion of Bishop Marsh. You cannot\nsuppose that the Bishops are adverse to the Church--they are great\nsupporters of it, and so, perhaps, might I be if I got so much by it--(a\nlaugh)--as like circumstances produce like effects. Well, Gentlemen,\nBishop Marsh maintains that \"if a thing is _false_, it ought not to be\nreceived; if it is true, it can never lose in the end by inquiry.\" Why,\nthen, should the Attorney-General prosecute a person who rejects a thing\nthat does not appear to him to be true?\n\nGentlemen, let me now submit to your attention the opinion of Sir\nWilliam Temple.\n\n_Sir William Temple_ says, \"They may make me do things which are in my\npower, and depend on my will; but to believe _this_ or _that_ to be true\ndepends not on my will, but upon the light, and evidence, and\ninformation which I have. And will civil discouragements and\nincapacities, fines and confiscations, stripes and imprisonment,\nenlighten the understanding, convince men's minds of error, and inform\nthem of the truth? Can they have any such efficacy as to make men change\nthe inward judgment they have framed of things? _Nothing can do this but\nreason and argument_: this is what our minds and understandings will\nnaturally yield to, but they _cannot_ be compelled to believe any thing\nby outward force. So that the promoting of _true_ religion is plainly\nout of the magistrate's _reach_, as well as beside _his office_.\"\n\nHere, Gentlemen, you have the opinion of Sir William Temple, that men\ncannot be forced to believe anything by outward force and persecution,\nso that the promoting of true religion is out of the magistrate's power,\nas well as beside his office. This is a most true and proper\ndeclaration; and if the Attorney-General had reflected upon this\npassage, I am sure he must have fully appreciated its truth, and then\nthis prosecution would not have been instituted. I appeal to the learned\nAttorney-General, whether my being ruined and sent to a dungeon will\nalter the state of things? Will it alter the opinion of Mr. Haslam? Will\nit make me believe that I ought to be prosecuted for selling this book;\nor that a man has not a right to promulgate his opinions? I am placed in\nan awkward position in having to defend a man's right to publish, while\nI dissent from some of Mr. Haslam's opinions, and the manner in which he\nhas thought proper to express them. I have been told that the\nAttorney-General is a good kind of a man, who has no wish to press\nseverely upon persons in my situation; and some friends--not my true\nfriends--have urged me to forward a memorial to him on the subject of\nthis prosecution. Now what could I do? There was no way of inducing the\nAttorney-General to stay this prosecution, but by pleading guilty; and\nalthough I am well aware that your verdict, if adverse to me, will be my\nruin, yet I would rather terminate my existence on the floor of this\ncourt than plead guilty to this lying indictment, or admit that I am a\nwicked, malicious, and evil-disposed person, when I know that to the\nbest of my judgment and ability I am an upright, honest,\nwell-intentioned man. If I believed myself to be the man described, in\nthe indictment--which I must do before I could consent to plead\nguilty--I would fly to the uttermost parts of the earth; for a man is\ntotally destroyed when he has lost all feeling of self-respect, and the\nesteem and regard of his friends and associates.\n\nGentleman of the Jury, I have yet a host of authorities before me, but I\nwill not waste time by quoting them; as I am convinced you must now be\nquite satisfied, from what I have already adduced, that every Englishman\nhas an undoubted right to investigate all subjects--whether religious or\npolitical--and to publish the result of the investigation for the\nbenefit of society at large; but, Gentlemen, in closing what I have to\nsay on this part of the subject, I beg to lay before you two striking\nand convincing passages from Lord Brougham and Dr. Southwood Smith--two\nof the most intellectual and eminent individuals of the present day.\n\nGentlemen, the first passage I will quote is from Dr. Southwood Smith,\nwho strikingly and beautifully describes the proper boundary of human\ninvestigation; and I beg the particular attention of the learned\nAttorney-General to this passage.\n\n\"There is no proper boundary to human investigation,\" says the doctor,\n\"but the capacity of the human mind. Whatever the faculties enable it to\nunderstand, it ought to examine without any restraint on the freedom of\nits inquiry, and without any other limit to its extent than that which\nits great Author has fixed, by withholding from it the power to proceed\nfarther. When the means of conducting the human understanding to its\nhighest perfection shall have become generally understood, this freedom\nof inquiry will not only be universally allowed, but early and anxiously\ninculcated, _as a duty_ of primary and essential obligation.\"\n\nGentlemen, I now beg you to listen to the extract I am about to read\nfrom _Lord Brougham's Inaugural Address to the University of Glasgow_.\n\n\"As men will no longer suffer themselves to be led blindfold in\nIgnorance, so will they no more yield to the vile principle of judging\nand treating their fellow-creatures, not according to the intrinsic\nmerit of their actions, but according to the accidental and involuntary\ncoincidence of their opinions. The great truth has finally gone forth to\nthe ends of the earth, _that man shall no more render_ ACCOUNT TO MAN\nFOR HIS BELIEF, OVER WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF NO CONTROL.\n\n\"Henceforward nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame any\none for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin\nor the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect\nthose who conscientiously differ from ourselves, the only practical\neffect of the difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance, on\none side or the other, from which it springs, by instructing them, if it\nbe theirs, ourselves, if it be our own; to the end that the only kind of\nunanimity may be produced which is desirable among rational beings,--the\nagreement proceeding from full conviction after the freest\ndiscussion.\"--_Lord Brougham._\n\nGentlemen, after hearing these splendid passages, will it be possible\nfor you to sanction a renewal of persecution to crush freedom of\nopinion?\n\nGentlemen of the Jury,--I now come to the next point in the argument.\nHaving, I hope, successfully proved the right of free inquiry and the\nfree publication of opinions, I will proceed to show, by a reference to\npast events, that it is highly important that this right should be\npreserved, and handed down to our latest posterity unimpaired.\nGentlemen, it has been a uniform practice, from the earliest records of\ntime, to stigmatize those who introduce new truths, or who attack the\nexisting institutions of a country, as infidels, and to fix upon them\nall sorts of opprobious epithets.\n\n\"In all ages _new doctrines_ have been branded as impious; and\nChristianity itself has offered no exception to this rule. The Greeks\nand Romans charged Christianity with 'impiety and novelty.' In _Cave's\nPrimitive Christianity_ we are informed 'that the Christians were\neverywhere accounted a pack of _Atheists_, and their religion _the\nAtheism._' _They were denominated; 'mountebank impostors,' and 'men of a\ndesperate and unlawful faction.' They were represented as 'destructive\nand pernicious to human society,' and were accused of 'sacrilege,\nsedition, and high treason.' The same system of misrepresentation and\nabuse was practised by the Roman Catholics against the Protestants at\nthe Reformation. Some called their dogs Calvin; and others transformed\nCalvin into Cain,' In France, 'the old stale calumnies, formerly\ninvented against the first Christians, were again revived by Demochares,\na doctor of the Sorbonne, pretending that all the disasters of the state\nwere to be attributed to Protestants alone.'\"--*Combe on the\nConstitution of Man_.\n\nIn our own enlightened country, where the importance of truth--and free\ninquiry as a means of its attainment--is beginning to be appreciated, a\ndifferent practice should prevail. We ought not to persist in this\nunmanly course. Recollect, Gentlemen, the Prophets of the Jews were\n_blasphemers_ against the established religions of their day. Did that\ndeter them from denouncing the idolatry and false religions of the\nsurrounding nations? Elijah is represented as ridiculing the God of the\nMoabites in a most offensive manner: \"_And it came to pass at noon, that\nElijah mocked them and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is\ntalking f or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he\nsleepeth and must be awaked._'\" 1 Kings xviii. 27. And in Judea, Jesus\nand his Apostles were charged as blasphemers against Judaism, or the\nreligion established by Moses. We have a remarkable proof of this in the\ncase of Stephen, recorded in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\n\"And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he\nspake.\n\n\"Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak\n_blasphemous_ words against Moses, and against God.\n\n\"And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and\ncame upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,\n\n\"And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak\nblasphemous words against this holy place and the law:\n\n\"For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy\nthis place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered\nus.\"--Acts vi, 10--14.\n\nAnd Stephen defending himself before the Council, boldly asks them,\n\n\"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have\nslain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; _of whom\nye have_ BEEN NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS.\n\n\"When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they\ngnashed at him with their teeth.\n\n\"And they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran\nupon him with one accord,\n\n\"And cast him out of the city, and stoned him.\" Acts vii; 51, 52,\n54,57,58.\n\nNow, Gentlemen, is it just or politic that the proclaimers of new\ntruths, and new systems, should be treated in this manner? Would it not\nbe far more rational to hear what a man has to say, and answer him, than\nto \"gnash at him with the teeth,\" to \"stop your ears,\" to \"run at him\nwith one accord,\" and to \"stone him to death?\" Can you, Gentlemen, by\nyour verdict give your sanction to a course of proceeding similar to\nthat which deprived Stephen of life? All persecution is the same in\nspirit--highly unjust and impolitic--whether it be exercised against the\nApostle Stephen, or the humble individual who now addresses you.\n\nGentlemen, the supporters of the established religion in the days of the\nApostles, pursued the same course that the bigots of the present day are\npursuing. They applied to the High Priest, or to the Attorney-General of\nthat day, to prosecute Stephen for _blasphemy_, and stirred up the\npeople. In the present case the Bishop of Exeter did not stir up the\npeople, but he stirred up the Government. He sent a packet of papers to\nLord Normanby, who handed them to the Attorney-General, and he appears\nto have considered it to be his duty to institute the present\nprosecution. The learned Attorney-General, as was the case with the\npriests and rulers of the Jews, would not allow any discussion to take\nplace that was likely to change existing customs. I will do the\nGovernment the justice to say, however, that I do not believe they are\ndisposed to put a stop to the full investigation of any subject, if\nconducted with decency. I readily admit that the passage in the eighth\nnumber of Mr. Haslam's Letters is highly objectionable in\nphraseology--it is in very bad taste--but is that a reason for sending a\nbookseller to prison, because he has sold a book written in bad taste?\nIt cannot be--all published works must be left to the fiat of public\nopinion to determine their merit.\n\nGentlemen, the same spirit was evinced by the wicked and corrupt rulers\nof the Jews against the founder of Christianity. They sought false\nwitnesses against him; but at length, Jesus having spoken out\nexplicitly, the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, \"_He hath spoken\nblasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have\nheard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said_, *HE is\nguilty to death.*\" (Matt. 26; 65.) Will you, Gentlemen--a Christian\nJury--considering Christianity part and parcel of the law of the land,\nby your verdict say, that Jesus was rightly treated by the Jews? Ought\nthe constituted authorities of that day to have obstructed the glorious\ntruths of Christianity, and have put to death the Messenger of Man's\nsalvation? Unless you deliver a verdict of acquittal, in my case, you in\neffect sanction and justify all the cruelties exercised against Jesus\nand his Apostles by the rulers of the Jews?\n\nThe learned Counsel for the prosecution will, perhaps, think that there\nis no analogy between the cases cited and my own case--that Jesus and\nhis Apostles introduced truths of the greatest magnitude and importance,\nwhile I am indicted for selling a book that denies the truth of the\nJewish Scriptures. Why, Gentlemen, Dr. Adam Clarke says, \"There is some\nreason to fear that they (the Jews) _no longer consider the Old\nTestament as divinely inspired, but believe that Moses had recourse to\npious frauds_.\" And, Gentlemen, Jesus and his Apostles denied the\n_truth_ of the Jewish Scriptures--_as understood by the rulers of the\nJews_,--and for denying the orthodox and received sense of the Jewish\nScriptures were accused of blasphemy, and received the fate of martyrs!\nThat cannot be disputed. Was it just, then,--was it politic, I ask, to\nsettle this controversy by force and cruelty? To _scourg or imprison,\nand destroy_ those glorious men who had important truths to impart to\nthe world? If England has embraced Christianity--and we are not a nation\nof hypocrites--let us act upon the spirit of his religion. He says\nplainly and emphatically, that we are not to root up error by force or\ncruelty.\n\nIn the parable of the tares of the field, he sets forth our duty. \"The\nKingdom of Heaven,\" he says, \"is likened unto a man who sowed good seed\nin his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among\nthe wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and\nbrought forth fruit, there appeared the tares also. So the servants of\nthe householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good\nseed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares! He said unto them, An\nenemy hath done this. The servant said unto him, Wilt thou then that we\ngo and gather them up? But he said, _Nay; lest while ye gather up the\ntares, ye root up also the wheat with them_. *Let both grow together\nuntil the harvest.*\" Matt, xiii; 25--30.\n\nWhen his disciples demanded an explanation of this parable, he said,\n\"The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the Kingdom:\nbut the tares are the children of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed\nthem in the devil: the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers\nare the Angels. The Son of Man shall send forth his Angels, and They\nshall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which\ndo iniquity.\" Matt, xiii; 38, 39. 41.\n\nGentlemen, how unjust and impolitic, then, are these prosecutions. Do\nthey stop the progress of truth? Persecution for matters of opinion is\nthe same in every case--impolitic--for it never yet succeeded in\nstopping the circulation of a correct opinion or a prohibited book? Why\nshould _Christians_ prosecute men for disbelieving the _Jewish_\nScriptures, when, according to Dr. Adam Clarke, the Jews disbelieve\nparts of the Old Testament themselves? Why should professed Christians\ntake up and defend that which the Jews themselves reject? Paul, himself,\nteaches us that the Jewish law has been superseded by a superior system.\nHe tells us that the Jewish law \"was our schoolmaster to bring us unto\nChrist (or Christianity), but after that we are no longer under a\nschoolmaster.\" Gal. iii; 24, 25.\n\nI can assure the Jury that if Haslam's Letters to the Clergy is an\nimproper book, it cannot be put down by prosecution; it is far better to\nleave it to coldness and neglect. I could give many proofs of this. I am\nmyself an instance of the inefficacy of prosecution. I have been\nprosecuted, as I think with great injustice, for the publication of a\npaper called _The Poor Man's Guardian_. Five hundred men was imprisoned\nfor selling it; I was twice imprisoned, and the circulation of the\npaper, thus prosecuted, more than paid my losses; but at last, in the\nCourt of Exchequer, before Lord Lyndhurst, the Jury found a verdict in\nmy favour, for I convinced the Jury that the publication was one which\nwas not against the law.\n\nThe Attorney-General: The Jury found that it was not a newspaper.\n\nPrecisely so: and as soon as it was known that the _Guardian_ was a\nlegal paper, it went down at once. I could not sell copies enough to pay\nthe expenses (a laugh). It has been just the same with these Letters;\nthey have remained unsold till this prosecution, but as soon as it was\nknown that they were prosecuted, the man who published them could not\nprint them fast enough.\n\nGentlemen, the enlightened Christians of the present day, by sending out\nMissionaries to propagate Christianity, are guilty of blasphemy against\nthe established religion of heathen countries. It would be considered in\nEngland very unjust and cruel if the natives were to seize our\nMissionaries, and imprison and ill-treat them. If in this country we are\nin the habit of sending out Missionaries to proclaim new truths to\nforeign countries--is it not grossly inconsistent and unjust, while\ndoing this, to punish persons for free investigation at home? In a\nrecent case, cannon have been fired upon the natives of one of the Tonga\nIslands, because they would not receive these Missionaries. The argument\nof these Christians is, that truth must be propagated all over the\nworld--but why stop inquiry at home, while suffering a British\nman-of-war to fire upon these islanders, because they would not receive\nthe new truths of the Missionaries in the way they wished? Is it\nwise--is it not highly impolitic, then, to attempt to check the progress\nof intellect and human improvement? Can it be done by persecution and\nimprisonment? No, Gentlemen, the spirit of inquiry is abroad among the\nindustrious millions--no subject is too sacred for their investigation.\nThe mind has burst the fetters imposed on it, in the days of by-gone\nignorance, by the cupidity of interested and hypocritical priests, who\nare fully aware that their principles and practices cannot stand the\ntest of free inquiry. Even Mr. Wesley, the founder of Methodism, saw\nthat his darling system must ultimately fall before the searching eye of\nphilosophy and truth.\n\n_From the Life of the Rev. John Wesley, published in 1792_.\n\n\"Dear Sir,--For your obliging letter, which I received this morning, I\nreturn you thanks.\n\n\"Our opinions, for the most part, perfectly coincide respecting the\nstability of the connexion after my head is laid in the dust. This,\nhowever, is a subject about which I am not so anxious as you seem to\nimagine; on the contrary, it is a matter of the utmost indifference to\nme, as I have-long foreseen that a division must necessarily ensue, from\ncauses so various, unavoidable, and certain, that I have long since\ngiven up all thoughts and hopes of settling it on a permanent\nfoundation. You do not seem to be aware of the most effective cause that\nwill bring about a division. You apprehend the most serious consequences\nfrom a struggle between the preachers for power and pre-eminence, and\nthere being none among them of sufficient authority or abilities to\nsupport the dignity, or command the respect, and exact the implicit\nobedience, which is so necessary to uphold our constitution on its\npresent principles. This, most undoubtedly, is one thing that will\noperate very powerfully against unity in the connexion, and is, perhaps,\nwhat I might possibly have prevented, had not a still greater difficulty\narisen in my mind. I have often wished for some person of abilities to\nsucceed me as the head of the church I have, with such indefatigable\npains and astonishing success, established; but, convinced that none but\nvery superior abilities would be equal to the undertaking, was I to\nadopt a successor of this description, I fear he might gain so much\ninfluence among the people as to usurp a share, if not the whole, of\nthat absolute and uncontrollable power which I have hitherto, and am\ndetermined I will maintain so long as I live: never will I bear a rival\nnear my throne. You, no doubt, see the policy of continually changing\nthe preachers from one circuit to another, at short periods: for should\nany of them become popular with their different congregations, and\ninsinuate themselves into the favour of their hearers, they might\npossibly obtain such influence as to establish themselves independently\nof me and the general connexion. Besides, the novelty of the continual\nchange excites curiosity, and is the more necessary, as few of our\npreachers have abilities to render themselves in any degree tolerable\nany longer than they are now.\n\n\"The principal cause which will inevitably effect a diminution and\ndivision in the connexion after my death, wilt be the failure of\nsubscriptions and contributions towards the support of the cause; for\nmoney is as much the sinews of religious as of military power. If it is\nwith the greatest difficulty that even I can keep them together, for\nwant of this very necessary article, I think no one else can. Another\ncause, which, with others, will effect the division, is the disputes and\ncontentions that will arise between the preachers and the parties that\nwill espouse their several causes; by which means much truth will be\nbrought to light, which will reflect so much to their disadvantage, that\nthe eyes of the people will be opened to see their motives and\nprinciples; nor will they any longer contribute to their support, when\nthey find all their pretensions to sanctity and love are founded on\nmotives of interest and ambition. The consequence of which will be, a\nfew of the most popular will establish themselves in the respective\nplaces where they have gained sufficient influence over the minds of the\npeople: the rest must revert to their original humble callings. But this\nno way concerns me: I have attained the object of my views, by\nestablishing a name that will not soon perish from the face of the\nearth; I have founded a sect which will boast my name long after my\ndiscipline and doctrines are forgotten.\n\n\"My character and reputation for sanctity is now beyond the reach of\ncalumny; nor will any thing that may hereafter come to light, or be said\nconcerning me, to my prejudice, however true, gain credit.\n\n    _\"'My unsoiled name, the austereness of my life,_\n      _Will vouch against it,_\n    _And so the accusation overweigh_\n      _That it will stifle in its own report,_\n    _And smell of calumny.'_\n\n\"Another cause that will operate more powerfully and effectually than\nany of the preceding is, the rays of Philosophy, which begin now to\npervade all ranks, rapidly dispelling the mists of ignorance, which have\nbeen long, in a great degree, the mother of devotion, of slavish\nprejudice, and the enthusiastic bigotry of religious opinions. The\ndecline of the Papal power is owing to the same irresistible cause; nor\ncan it be supposed that Methodism can stand its ground when brought to\nthe test of Truth, Reason, and Philosophy.\"\n\n\"City-road, Thursday morning. J. W.\" (1)\n\n    1. As my defence had extended to a great length, I was anxious\n    to spare the time of the Jury, and did not, therefore, trouble\n    them with the whole of this letter. I merely described the\n    nature of it, and read the last paragraph, being the only\n    portion applicable to my purpose; but as I deem the letter a\n    valuable curiosity, and worthy of preservation, I have inserted\n    it entire.\n\nGentlemen, you see Mr. Wesley anticipated that his system must yield to\nphilosophy, and do you believe the Church of England can stand when\nbrought to the test of \"truth, reason* and philosophy?\" A church that\nwill keep a man in prison nearly two years for 5s. 6d. church-rates? If\nyou suppress Biblical examination, and the free publication of opinion,\nthe next step will be to stop inquiry into the _practices_ of the\nChurch, and to make us all the fettered slaves of the priesthood. No,\nGentlemen; Methodism and Church-of-Englandism are doomed to fall; and\nsuch will be the fate of all systems not based upon the rock of truth.\nBut, Gentlemen, that is no reason for suppressing inquiry, because the\nmore the truth is investigated, the more beautiful it will appear.\n\nGentlemen, has not our country raised itself to the highest pinnacle of\nhuman greatness as regards civilization and the arts? What rapid\nstrides--what useful discoveries it has made in the arts and sciences!\nConsider its vast achievements in steam navigation--in railroad\ntravelling--in the improvement of machinery. To such perfection have\nthey brought machinery, that it is now almost capable of superseding\nhuman labour altogether. If all these magnificent improvements in the\narts and sciences are good to society, and have resulted from free\ninquiry--why hesitate to apply it to social, religious, and political\nsubjects? Are we ever to remain drivellers in religion? The true crime\nis that Haslam's Letters are sold at a penny. Why should two-guinea\nblasphemers be tolerated and penny ones prosecuted? How can the learned\nAttorney-General, whose shelves are, doubtless, adorned with Drummond's\nAcademical Questions, Voltaire, Gibbon, Volney, and Shelley, uphold this\nprosecution; and what must that law be which can find the crime, not in\nthe contents of the book, but in the fact of its being sold for a penny?\nThey might for two guineas buy a magnificent book full of blasphemy. The\nAttorney-General, in his opening speech, had told the Jury that such\nworks were \"dangerous to society if addressed to the _vulgar, the\nuneducated_, and the _unthinking_\" but I will appeal to his own witness,\nwho had read the book, and on whom, an uneducated man, it had proved\ninoperative. It had done no mischief: and I hope the Jury will not\nconsign me to a dungeon for having sold a book which it has been proved\nby his own witness has done no mischief. Paul said the Baereans were\nmore noble than those of Thessalonica, because they searched the\nScriptures daily to see whether these things were so or not. The\nAttorney-General is about to punish me for doing the same thing. Christ\nhimself said, the truth shall make you free; but the Attorney-General\nsays the truth--or that which you believe to be the truth--shall make\nyou a prisoner. In the parable of the tares, to which I have already\nreferred, Jesus expressly forbade the rooting up of the tares, lest the\nwheat should be rooted up also. He did not recommend persecution, but\nsaid let them both grow together until the harvest. These passages are\nsufficient to show that persecution is opposed to the whole spirit of\nChristianity.\n\nGentlemen, I will now call your attention to the law on the subject. In\nentering upon this topic, of course I shall labour under a great\ndisadvantage, because I am unacquainted with legal technicalities and\ncases. I will commence, therefore, by reading to you the opinion of\nChief Baron Eyre, in his Charge to the Grand Jury, on the commission for\nthe trial of persons on the charge of High Treason, in 1794, in the\ncourse of which he made use of these liberal expressions:--\n\n\"All men may, nay, all men must, if they possess the faculty of\nthinking, reason upon every thing which sufficiently interests them to\nbecome objects of their attention; and among the objects of attention of\nfreemen, the principles of government, the constitution of particular\ngovernments, and, above all, the constitution of the government under\nwhich they live, will naturally engage attention, and provoke\nspeculation. _The power of communication of thoughts and opinions is the\ngift of God; and the freedom of it is the source of all science_--the\nfirst fruits, and the ultimate happiness of all society; and therefore,\nit seems to follow, _that human laws ought not to interpose, nay, cannot\ninterpose, to prevent the communication of sentiment and opinions, in\nvoluntary assemblies of men._\"\n\nHere, Gentlemen, we have an eminent legal authority, in addition to the\nBishops I have quoted, who declares that \"human laws _ought not to\ninter-pose_, nay, cannot interpose, _to prevent the communication qf\nsentiment, and opinion_.\" Under what law then can I be condemned? This\nprosecution goes a step further than any other has gone; it in effect\ndeclares that you shall not dispute the truth of the Jewish Scriptures,\nwhich I have already shown are superseded by the introduction of\nChristianity. Paul declares that the Jewish law was only intended to be\nour schoolmaster to bring us to Christianity; but if Christianity, as is\nasserted, be part and parcel of the low of England, even then this\nprosecution has not a log to stand upon. In the \"Life and Correspondence\nof Major Cartwright,\" however, there is a letter from Jefferson, himself\nan eminent lawyer, and President of the United States of America, who\nhad deeply studied the laws of England, in which he has proved the\nfallacy of the notion that Christianity is part of the common law, by\nshowing that the common law had existed long before Christianity was\nintroduced into this country; and that the axiom had its origin and\nfoundation in a misquotation and mistranslation of a decision of Justice\nPrisot, recorded in the Year Book, substituting the words _Holy\nScriptures_ for _Ancient Scriptures_. Jefferson denominates it a\n\"judiciary forgery,\" and I hope your Lordship will to-day confirm\nJefferson's view, and put an end to this illegal iniquity.\n\nGentlemen, the passage I am about to quote from Jefferson's letter to\nMajor Cartwright, contains the opinion of Justice Prisot, in old French,\nbut I have procured a literal and a free translation, which I will read\nto the Jury. Your Lordship can refer to the original in the Year Book.\n\n\"I was glad to find, in your book, a formal contradiction, at length, of\nthe judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have\nusurped in their repeated decisions that Christianity is a part of the\ncommon law. The proof of the contrary which you have adduced is\nincontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the\nAnglo-Saxons were yet Pagans; at a time when they had never yet heard\nthe name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever\nexisted. But it may amuse you to show when, and by what means, they\nstole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit, in the year-book,\n34 H. 6, fo. 38, (1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical\nlaw was to be respected in a common law court? And Justice Prisot, c. 5,\ngives his opinion in these words:--\n\n\"'A tiel leis que ils de seint eglise ont en _ancien scripture_, covient\n\n\"'_To such laws which they of the holy church have in ancient writing,\nit is proper_\n\na nous a donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners\n\n_for us to give credence; because that is the common law on which all\nsorts of leis_\n\nsont lor des--et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obliges de conustre leur ley de\nsaint\n\n_laws are founded--and thus, Sir, we are obliged to know their law of\nthe holy_\n\neglise; et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre nostre lev: et,\nSir, si\n\n_church; and in like manner they are obliged to know our law; and, Sir,\nif_\n\npoit apperer or u nous que Tevesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en\ntiel\n\n_it can be shown thus to us that the bishop has done as a layman would\nin such_\n\ncas, adonq nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,' &c.(1) See\nS. C,\n\n_a case, then we ought this to judge good, or otherwise not at all._\n\n      1. _Translation read to the Jury._\n\nFitzherbert's Abr. qu. imp. 89. Brown's Abr. qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his\nfirst book, c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and\nmisstates it thus, 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in _holy\nscripture_ our law giveth credence,' and cites Prisot, mistranslating\n'ancien scripture' into 'holy scripture;' whereas Prisot palpably says,\n'to such laws as those of holy church have in _ancient writing_ it is\nproper for us to give credence to wit, to their ancient written laws.\nThis was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot.\nWingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the\ncommon law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wingate's\nMaxims, 3; and Sheppard, tit. 'Religion in 1675. copies the same\nmistranslation, quoting the Year-book, Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses\nit in these words, 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.'\n\n\"It is proper for us to respect the laws which the members of the holy\nchurch have in _ancient manuscripts_, because they are the general\nsource from which all laws are drawn. Thus, Sir, it is necessary for us\nto be acquainted with ecclesiastical law, and in like manner the judges\nof the ecclesiastical courts are obliged to understand our law: in\nconsequence, Sir, if it can be shown to us that the ecclesiastical court\nhas decided as a court of civil law would have done in the same case,\nthen we ought to deem the judgment good; but if a civil law court would\nhave decided otherwise, the judgment of the eclesiastical court must be\ndeemed erroneous.\"\n\n\"Ventr. 293. 3 Keble, 607, but quotes no authority. By these echoings\nand reechoings from one to another, it had become so established in\n1728, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, 2 Strange, 834, the\ncourt would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against\nChristianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law. Wood,\ntherefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and says, 'that all\nblasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law,' and cites 2\nStrange. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale,\nthat 'Christianity is part of the law of England,' citing Ventris and\nStrange: and finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in\nEvans's case in 1767, says, 'that the essential principles of revealed\nreligion are parts of the common law,' thus engulphing Bible, Testament,\nand all, into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we\nfind this chain of authorities hanging link by link one upon another,\nand all ultimately on one and the same hook; and that a mistranslation\nof the words 'ancien scripture,' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot;\nWingate does the same; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate; Hale\ncites nobody; the Court, in Woolston's case, cites Hale; Wood cites\nWoolston's case; Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale; and Lord\nMansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might\ndefy the best-read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this\n_judiciary forgery_; and I might go on further to show how some of the\nAnglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the\n20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 10th of the Acts\nof the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead\nmy pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this between Church\nand State! Sing Tantararara, Rogues all, Rogues all; Sing Tantararara,\nRogues all!\"\n\nGentlemen, after hearing this statement from the pen of an educated and\neminent lawyer, can you hesitate to return a verdict of acquittal? You\nhave now a complete history of this \"_judiciary forgery_\" as Jefferson\nterms it, before you; and I am satisfied that that which originated in a\n_fraudulent mistranslation_, cannot, now that the fraud is detected,\nlong retain the force of law. On this ground, then, I confidently claim\nyour verdict.\n\nGentlemen, I now come to the trade argument--that it is a great hardship\nand injustice to hold a bookseller responsible for the contents of the\nbooks he sells.\n\nI am a general bookseller; and so great is the competition, and so fully\nis my time occupied, that I have no time to spare for reading the\nvarious works in my shop, even if I had the inclination. My excellent\nand amiable son, before his death, and before I had any idea of this\nprosecution, drew up a paper for the management of my business, by which\nit appears that upwards of seventy weekly periodicals pass through my\nhands every week, besides books and many other periodicals that are\nmerely collected to order. Amongst them will be found every possible\nvariety--\"The Church of England Magazine,\" \"The Sacred Album,\" and many\nothers maintaining contradictory and conflicting opinions; but I do not\nhold myself responsible--either legally or morally--for any of them. I\nhave no right to set myself up as a censor of the press. I sell them\nall--and am not responsible for any man's opinions upon an abstract or\ngeneral subject. When the subject matter of a book relates to the people\nat large, the public alone should decide upon its merits. If the book be\na good one, they will support it; if a bad one, they will condemn and\nreject it. This is the only proper punishment for a bad author. The line\nof duty I mark out for myself in that I will never sell obscene\npublications--works that demoralise and corrupt society--nor any attacks\nupon private character; and if a person comes to me complaining that his\ncharacter has been falsely and slanderously attacked, I sell no more of\nthat work. What more can be expected from a general bookseller? If the\nsale of a controversial book is to be suppressed, because it contains a\nfew passages in bad taste, and of objectionable phraseology, then the\nsale of the Bible itself must be prohibited, for that book contains many\npassages far more objectionable in the present day than any to be found\nin \"Haslam's Letters to the Clergy.\" I have here a list of passages from\nthe Bible, of a highly objectionable character; but as I perceive a\nnumber of ladies in the court, I will not pollute their ears, nor shock\nthe feelings of the Jury, by reading them. My only object in alluding to\nthem, is to show that if the principle of selecting two or three\nobjectionable passages from a work is to lead to its condemnation, and\nthe punishment of the bookseller, then I might with equal justice be\ncondemned for selling the Bible itself. On this ground, also, I claim\nand am entitled to your verdict.\n\nGentlemen, the Attorney-General has not done justice to Mr. Haslam; he\nhas dwelt upon the passages contained in the indictment, but has left\nthe Jury in total ignorance of the general nature of the work. In many\nparts of the book are to be found passages of great beauty. So far from\na charge of blasphemy fairly attaching to Mr. Haslam's Letters, he\nuniformly declares that he rejects the Jewish Scriptures because they\nare _irrational_, and _dishonour_ the God \"that governs the universe.\" I\nwill read a passage from his Second Letter, which shows the veneration\nhe entertains for the Deity.\n\n\"But is it not monstrous, that that power which gives life and motion to\nmillions of worlds; which guides them in their eternal revolutions in\nthe boundless ocean of space, and which preserves them in everlasting\norder and harmony; is it not monstrous that that power should be\nrepresented in this ridiculous point of view? Vain, violent, and\nboisterous, without the least indication of any thing rational, good, or\nmerciful in any of his proceedings. Such a God may be the God of the\nChristians, but he is not the God who governs the universe. That God is\nno more to be compared to the Bible God, than the dazzling sun is to be\ncompared to the glimmering light of a candle.\"\n\nMr. Haslam's work has many other passages of the same description; and\nthe Attorney-General will see that the passage in the Eighth\nLetter--almost the only objectionable passage in the work--was not\ndeliberately designed to give offence, when I tell him that the author,\nin deference to the opinion of his friends, has cancelled the\nobjectionable passage, and re-written it. Now what would the learned\nAttorney-General have more? The object of prosecution has been always\nheld to be preventive, or corrective, not vindictive. The object sought,\nthen, is already attained. Mr. Haslam has anticipated your wishes by\ncorrecting the objectionable passage.\n\nGentlemen, I have urged sufficient, I hope, to induce you to give me\nyour verdict; but before I conclude, I will read a passage from the\nworks of Dean Swift, which is worthy of your profound attention.\n\"Whoever,\" he says, \"could restore, in any degree, brotherly love among\nmen, would be an instrument of more good to society than ever was or\nwill be done by all the statesmen in the world.\"\n\nGentlemen, let us commence the glorious work to-day. I will tell you how\nyou can do more towards spreading brotherly love among men, than all the\nstatesmen in the world will be able to accomplish. Say to the\nGovernment, by your verdict, the publication of opinions shall be free.\nThis will spread brotherly love among men; for what is it that prevents\nbrotherly love from dwelling among men? The odious principle of\ncoercion. I do not believe the Government wish to follow up these\nprosecutions if they can avoid it. They have a precedent, then, in the\ncase of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Carlile was in prison nearly _seven years_,\nand many of his shopmen were imprisoned for various terras. Did such\nvindictive persecutions change their opinions, or stop the sale of the\nworks prosecuted? Quite the contrary. The individuals became confirmed\nand strengthened in their opinions, and all the prosecuted works are now\non sale in every bookseller's shop in London. The public began to\nconsider them martyrs, and Sir Robert Peel and the Government of that\nday saw the injustice and cruelty of such proceedings, abandoned all\nprosecutions, and liberated those whose terms of imprisonment were\nunexpired. Surely those now in authority are not the men to recommence\nthese prosecutions for matters of opinion; and my quarrel with them is,\nthat they have not the moral courage to reply to the taunts of the\nBishop of Exeter, by alluding to this case of Sir Robert Peel's\nGovernment; and boldly declaring that henceforth public opinion shall be\nthe only censor. Abolish that hateful principle of coercion for matters\nof opinion, and mutual toleration, respect, and brotherly kindness, will\nhenceforth prevail.\n\nGentlemen, Christianity gives no sanction to persecution. The religion\nof Jesus, rightly understood, is a practical and benevolent system. It\nis founded on two great commandments, love of God and love of Man. The\n_first_ commandment, in fact, resolves itself into a practical\nobservance of the _second_; for it is expressly declared that, \"_If a\nman say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that\nloveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he\nhath not seen_?\"(1) Recollect, Gentlemen, \"_Love worketh no ill to his\nneighbour_.\"(2) Jesus encourages all men to think for themselves. This\nis his exhortation--\"_Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is\nright?*(3)\" But while he has encouraged the exercise of mind, he has not\nmade eternal happiness to depend upon *belief_ but upon their _actions_;\nand the great evil of society is attempting to coerce people into the\nbelief of that which they cannot believe--a system to which, I hope,\nyour verdict to-day will put a stop.\n\n      1. 1 John iv.; 20,\n      2. Rom. xiii.; 10,\n      3. Luke xii.; 57\n\nGentlemen, the Founder of Christianity, in his parable of the Last\nJudgment, tells us distinctly that men are to be judged by their\n_actions_ and not by their _opinions_; for he describes himself as\ninviting the righteous to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the\nfoundation of the world: \"For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I\nwas thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:\nnaked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in\nprison, and ye came unto me.\" He then represents the righteous as\nsaying, \"Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee I or thirsty,\nand gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or\nnaked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and\ncame unto thee? And the King shall answer, Inasmuch AS YE HAVE DONE IT\nUNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, ye have done it unto me.\" He\nthen represents himself as denouncing the unrighteous for giving him no\nmeat, nor drink; for not clothing him when naked, nor visiting him when\nsick; and when they desire to know when he required these things, and\nthey did not minister unto him, he replies, \"Inasmuch as ye did it not\nto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me.\" Here,\nyou perceive, there is no particular belief enjoined, none condemned.\nAll men are to be judged by their actions--not by their belief.\n\nGentlemen, I have now urged all that I deem necessary to ensure an\nacquittal. I hope you will consider well the consequences of your\nverdict, and reflect upon the wickedness and impolicy of tearing a man\nfrom his family, for selling a book in the ordinary course of his\nbusiness. If I have said anything in the course of my address to raise a\nprejudice in your minds, I hope you will discard it, and do justice by\npronouncing an acquittal.\n\nThe Attorney-General claimed his right of reply. He commenced by\nobserving that the Defendant, in his very long address to the Jury, had\nnot advanced anything that would call for many remarks from him, so that\nhe should occupy bu ta very small portion of their time. The Defendant\nhad contended that the blasphemous attack on our holy religion, which\nthey had heard read, was only free inquiry; and had taunted the\nGovernment, and himself, who desired the extension of useful knowledge,\nwith having prosecuted this book. But was this book of Haslam's useful\nknowledge? The Defendant said, Why not answer it? But he, the\nAttorney-General, contended that it could not be answered. The only way\nto do with it was to prosecute it. This publication--for the sale of\nwhich the Defendant was indicted--was not fair argument and inquiry, but\nblasphemous invective. The Defendant accused him of not objecting so\nmuch to the matter of the publication, as to the price at which it was\nsold. Not withstanding what the Defendant had said on this point, he,\nthe Attorney-General, contended that the low price at which it was sold\nmade the publication doubly mischievous, as it caused it to circulate\namong the working classes of society, who were from their habits,\nincapable of thought or discrimination; their time was so entirely\noccupied that it was impossible they could devote sufficient time to\nreading to guard themselves against the evil tendency of such works;\nwhile the Jury, and men in their class of life, were, from their\neducation, furnished with an antidote to the poison. If attacks on the\nScriptures were to be permitted, what was to prevent the pious feelings\nof the community from being outraged? Suppose a man were to carry a\nboard through the streets on which was inscribed in large characters,\nthat \"Christ was an impostor.\" Could it be tolerated? Yet this,\naccording to the Defendant, was only free inquiry! Again, suppose any\none preferred a republican to a monarchical form of government, and was\nto excite and recommend the substitution of the one for the other by\nforce of arms, inciting, by inflammatory appeals, the people to murder\nthe Government and the Queen--yet this would be, according to Mr.\nHetherington, only free inquiry! The Defendant had said that Mr. Haslam\nwas a Socialist; now the Socialists held an opinion that marriage was an\ninstitution that ought to be abolished. If a man, under that plea, were\nto recommend the seduction of his neighbour's wife or daughter--would\nany one contend that such opinions should be published with impunity?\nyet the Defendant considers this the free investigation of opinions; and\nto prosecute a blasphemous publication, he says, is to prevent freedom\nof opinion. No one wished to interfere with Mr. Hetherington's private\nopinion. The policeman, when he went to Mr. Hetherington's shop to\npurchase the numbers, did not inquire as to his particular belief. If\nthere were persons so unfortunate as to disbelieve the Scriptures--which\nwere the foundation of our holy religion--the law did not interfere with\nthem so long as they kept their opinions to themselves, and did not\npublicly attack the authenticity of the Bible. Mr. Hetherington had\nspoken of the effect of prosecution in extending the sale of such\npublications, alluding particularly to the _Poor Man's Guardian_; but\nhe, the Attorney-General, called upon the Jury to do their duty by\nbringing? to punishment those who outraged the law, that others might be\ndeterred from offending. If the Jury looked at the immoral tendency of\nsuch writings, and the doctrines of non-responsibility laid down by Mr.\nHetherington, who declared that he was neither responsible for his\nbelief, nor his actions--\n\nMr. Hetherington here interrupted, declaring that the Attorney-General\nwas acting most unfairly towards him. He never used such language, but\nquite the contrary; what he maintained was, that he was not responsible\nfor his _belief_ but that he _was responsible for his_ actions. If he\ninjured a friend, a neighbour, or a fellow-citizen, he was amenable to\nsociety for the injury done. The Attorney-General, he contended, was not\nreplying to him, but perverting his arguments and misrepresenting facts.\n\nLord Denman said that he agreed with the Defendant in the first\ninstance, and therefore he thought he was justified in putting the\nAttorney-General right; but the Attorney-General, he thought, was\nentitled to make any remarks upon facts which came out in evidence.\n\nMr. Hetherington (with great vehemence).--But he is mis-stating facts,\nand making statements calculated to mislead the Jury.\n\nLord Denman.--You must not interrupt.\n\nThe Defendant.--But my liberty is at stake, and I will speak. (Applause\nat the back of the court, which was instantly suppressed by the\nofficers.)\n\nLord Denman.--You shall be heard in correction of anything you may think\na misrepresentation, afterwards; not in reply, but merely in correction.\n\nThe Defendant.--Thank you, my Lord.\n\nThe Attorney-General observed, that the Defendant denied being the\npublisher, but he would convince the Jury that he was, by reading the\ntitle to them. He then read the title of the book--omitting the\npublisher's name, and reading the name of the Defendant only, till Mr.\nHetherington insisted upon his rending the whole title as\nfollows:--\"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations, showing the\nErrors, Absurdities, and Irrationalities of their Doctrines. By C. J.\nHaslani. Fourth Edition. Manchester: A. Heywood. 56 and 60, Oldham\nStreet. London*; Hetherington, 126, Strand; Cleave, Shoe Lane, Fleet\nStreet; Watson, City Road, Finsbury; and J. Guest, Birmingham; and all\nBooksellers in Town and Country.\"\n\nThe Attorney-General then proceeded.--Conceive, gentlemen, a servant or\nan apprentice reading this work where the institution of private\nproperty was said to be the great evil of society--would he feel any\ncompunction at appropriating the goods or money of his employer to his\nown use? Would he not find arguments in this work to justify him in his\niniquity? Mr. Hetherington had taken credit to himself for disinterested\nmotives, but he feared that he was actuated by mercenary\nmotives--looking only to emolument--careless of the effect it might have\non the morals of the unthinking working-classes.(1) He called upon the\nJury, by the oaths they had taken on the Holy Gospel--which this book\nblasphemously attacked--to consider the effect of a verdict of\nacquittal, and to do their duty to the public. By such a verdict they\nwould license the most infamous attacks on the Holy Scriptures, and\nwould loosen the bonds which held society together.\n\n    1. This comes well from a gentleman who descended from his high\n    professional position to attend at the Old Bailry, for a fee of\n    L. 100, to plead for a man charged with murder.\n\nMr. Hetherington explained that it was the custom of the trade to place\nthe name of any bookseller, with whom the real publisher did business,\non the title-page of the book, and that his name had been so placed by\nMr. Hey-wood, of Manchester, the real publisher, without his knowledge.\nMr. Heywood was the original publisher; he received no punishment, and\nwas now at liberty.\n\nLord Denman, in summing up, observed, that the law considered the vendor\nof a work the publisher of it, and that consequently he must be held\nresponsible. It had also been constantly laid down that blasphemy was an\noffence at common law. In the Defendant's defence, TO WHICH HE HAD\nLISTENED WITH FEELINGS OF GREAT INTEREST, AYE, WITH SENTIMENTS OF\nRESPECT TOO, he had complained of the hardship of a general publisher\nbeing held responsible for the contents of all the works he might sell,\nbut he had himself answered that argument by the conduct which he stated\nhe pursued with regard to obscene and personally libellous publication,\nand from the title-page of this work it was scarcely possible not to be,\nin some measure, aware of its contents. Discussions on a subject, even\nthe most sacred, might be tolerated when they were conducted in a fair\nspirit; but when appeals were made not to reason but to the bad feelings\nof human nature, or where ridicule or invective were had recourse to, it\ncould not be considered discussion. As to the impolicy of these sort of\nprosecutions that was a question with which they had nothing to do; the\nonly question for them to determine was, whether the publication in\nquestion was a blasphemous libel, and whether it had been published by\nthe Defendant.\n\nThe Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.\n\nThe Attorney-General prayed the immediate judgment of the Court.\n\nLord Denman.--I think the passing sentence had better be deferred, until\nwe have had the opportunity of considering the subject.\n\nThe Defendant then retired, and the Court adjourned.\n\n\n\n\nOBSERVATIONS\n\n\nThe renewal of a series of Government prosecutions for alleged\nblasphemy, will justify me in accompanying the publication of the\nforegoing trial with a few words of comment.\n\nThe points upon which I deem it my duty to animadvert--are the conduct\nof the Government, the Attorney-General, and the Jury.\n\nI consider that the Government have acted towards me, in this\nprosecution, in a very unjustifiable manner. They first placed Mr.\nCleave on his trial for selling the fifth, eighth, and thirteenth\nnumbers of Haslam's Letters. He pleaded _Not Guilty_, but was convicted\n(after an able and convincing speech from his-Counsel, Mr. Chambers), by\nas stupid a Jury as ever sat in judgment on an honest man. The Judge\nsentenced him to four months' imprisonment, and a fine of L20. Such was\nthe force of public opinion, however, on the injustice and impolicy of\nsuch prosecutions, that Mr. Cleave was liberated, upon paying the fine,\nafter five weeks' imprisonment.\n\nThe trial of Mr. Heywood, the original publisher, came next. His known\nintegrity and respectability had attached to him many influential\nfriends, who represented to the Government the folly and injustice of\nthese proceedings, and Lord Normanby at length yielded to their\nimportunities, by agreeing, on condition that he pleaded guilty, that\nMr. Heywood's prosecution should proceed no further. Mr. Heywood\ncomplied, and was left at liberty, on entering into his own\nrecognizances, to appear when called upon.\n\nPublic opinion unequivocally declared that such prosecutions were\nindefensible, and it was very generally believed that the Government\nwould abandon them from a conviction of their injustice and impolicy.\nInstead of which they proceeded against me for selling the same numbers\nof the identical work that Messrs. Cleave and Heywood had been\nprosecuted for selling, though the punishment of Mr. Cleave was\nremitted, and the Government compounded blasphemy in the case of Mr.\nHeywood. To injure and annoy honest and industrious tradesmen, because\nthe author of a book has in two or three instances expressed his ideas\nin vulgar and objectionable phraseology, is unworthy of an enlightened\nGovernment. I feel pity for the Jury who could ignorantly pronounce a\nverdict of guilty against a man who never wilfully injured a\nfellow-creature, merely because he had sold a book that combated the\nestablished opinions of the day; but I entertain very different\nsentiments against the Government that could institute and carry forward\nprosecutions of this nature, when, from their superior knowledge, they\nmust be fully aware of the iniquity of their proceedings. They encourage\n\"reason and free inquiry,\" while it favours their objects; and they\npersecute and ruin all those, who, by the exercise of reason and free\ninquiry, arrive at conclusions adverse to the established opinions of\nsociety. The time has passed, however, for a renewal of persecution for\nmatters of opinion. No Government can stand that will attempt it; and I\ntell Her Majesty's Government, that when they interfere with the\nreligious or anti-religious opinions of the people, they step out of\ntheir province,--and to inflict punishment upon either the original\npublisher or the general bookseller, who supplies all works to order,\nfor the opinions contained in the works they respectively publish or\nsell, is an odious act of tyranny that good men of every opinion should\ndenounce and oppose. I, for one, will never sanction or submit to such\ntyranny. Whether any and what sentence will be passed upon me I know\nnot; but I have made up my mind that I will maintain, at all risks, and\nunder every privation, to the utmost extent of my ability and means, the\nright of all men to freely publish their opinions upon every subject of\ngeneral interest--whether social, political, or religious; aye, or\nanti-religious,--and if the Government would receive a suggestion from\nme, I would suggest to them to take their stand on this glorious\nprinciple--perfect freedom is the formation AS PUBLICATION OF OPINIONS\nFOR EVERY SECT AND PARTY. That is the most effectual way to elicit truth\nupon all subjects; and I would respectfully ask them, whether they ever\nknew the truth injure any sect or party that was disposed to act\nhonestly?\n\nI hope the Government will reflect upon the injustice and impolicy of\nthis new crusade against the free expression of opinion, adopt my\nsuggestion, and abandon all prosecutions against those who honestly\ncontrovert the received opinions of society.\n\nHaving now expressed my feelings with regard to the conduct of the\nGovernment, I must say a word or two respecting the behaviour of the\nlearned Attorney-General towards me, on my trial. He made very few\nobservations in opening the case, but reserved himself for his Reply; a\nprivilege which I think he was not entitled to, as I called no\nwitnesses. Had I anticipated he would have claimed the privilege of\nreply, and abused it in the shameful manner that he did, I could have\noverthrown, by witnesses, the false impression which he so unjustly\nlaboured to establish on the minds of the Jury--that I was the publisher\nof the work, because my name was affixed to the book first of the London\nagents. What is the object of a reply? It is to answer the facts and\narguments adduced by the Defendant; to show that he has reasoned\nillogically; and to point out to the Jury, succinctly and clearly* the\npoints in which he has failed to answer the charge laid against him in\nthe indictment. In addition, however, to this base attempt to hold me up\nto the Jury as the original publisher, the Attorney-General obviously\nsought to make the Jury believe--(and there is every reason to think\nthat he triumphed in this his unjust attempt to injure me)--that I\nclaimed immunity not only for my belief but my actions, When I insisted\nupon setting him right, by showing him the utter falsehood of his\nassertion, in which I was supported by Lord Chief Justice Denman, he\ntreacherously aimed at fixing upon me the consequences of doctrines to\nwhich I had not even adverted in my speech, and which had no reference\nwhatever to the subject then before the Court. He basely insinuated that\nI was virtually claiming immunity for all acts of aggression--such as\nrobbery, murder, seduction, unjustifiable rebellion, and assassination\nof the Queen; striving to raise in the minds of the Jury a confusion\nbetween the right of freedom of opinion and the wrong of licentious\naction! This, too, was slanderously repeated, after my open appeal to\nthe Court against such malignity; and this the learned Attorney-General\ncalls availing himself of his privilege of reply! I was not allowed to\nanswer these falsehoods of the Attorney-General; though, as the accused\nparty, I was in justice, if not in law, entitled to every opportunity of\nmaking the truth apparent to the Jury.\n\nAs to the Jury--What shall I say of them? I can only pity men who\nexhibited such woful ignorance and imbecility as to be led away by\nmisrepresentations that had not even the appearance of truth. Let me ask\nthe Jury one simple question. They were bound by their oath to give a\ntrue verdict according to the evidence. Now let me ask them, was there\nany evidence of BLASPHEMY?\n\nThe evidence adduced merely proved the sale of a certain book. There was\nno evidence that the contents of the book were blasphemous. This\nquestion--(that is to say, the very question in dispute--the question\nwhether or not there was any blasphemy)--this question was decided by\nJudge and Jury without an iota of evidence, without even an attempt at\nany evidence bearing Upon it. The opinions of the Judge and Jury decided\nthe question of the indictment---Was there blasphemy or no! There was no\nevidence at all upon it. Gentlemen of the Jury--common and special--was\nyour verdict in accordance with the EVIDENCE brought forward for your\nenlightened consideration--was your verdict in accordance with the terms\nof your oath? The verdict to which I was entitled from honest and\nreasoning men was the following:--either a direct \"Not Guilty of\nblasphemy\"--or this, \"Guilty of selling a certain book concerning the\nnature of which wc=e have had no evidence\"--matters of opinion not\nbeing, in fact susceptible of evidence.\n\n  H. HETHERINGTON.\n\nI cannot close these Observations without tendering my best thanks to\nthe editor of _The Sun_ for the zeal and ability with which, in a\nsuccession of leading articles, he defended the right of Free Inquiry\nand the Free Publication of Opinions. The _Morning Chronicle_ published\nan impartial report of the Trial, and gave a good leading article on the\nsubject. The _Morning Advertiser_ and the _Weekly Chronicle_ also\npublished a fair report of the Trial. The _Weekly Dispatch_ and The\n_Statesman_ are both entitled to thanks for their advocacy of Truth and\nLiberty, in reference to the principle contended for in my Defence. The\nthree Letters of Publicola, in The _Weekly Dispatch_, are invaluable;\nand I regret that I cannot find room for the whole of them in this\npamphlet, without considerably enhancing its price and defeating my own\nobject of extensive circulation for my Trial. They are worthy of a\ndistinct publication. I can only fill up the space I have left by the\ninsertion of the following excellent article from _The Sun_ of Friday,\nDecember the 11th, 1840, and Publicola's Letter to Lord Chief Justice\nDenman.--H. H.\n\n\n\n\nExtract from The Sun Newspaper\n\n\nWe brought evidence yesterday to show that the suppression of objections\nto the Scriptures by penal enactments is tyrannical, unjust, and absurd,\nand that the law is partially administered. If we return to the subject,\nit is from a deep sense of its almost immeasurable importance. Our whole\ninternal A policy, nearly, is framed with a view to support the Church.\nThe Church is founded, or rather pretends to be founded, on the Bible;\nbut we are now told by the decision of the Jury on Tuesday, that it is a\ncrime to object to its statements. The happiness of society, then, is to\nbe chained and bound by principles and doctrines, which society must not\nexamine; for if men must not object, what is the use of examination?\n\n\"We see disorder pervading every part of society. The poor are set\nagainst the rich, and the rich are zealously engaged in oppressing and\ncoercing the poor. Crime increases, and though more churches are\nbuilding, religion is decaying. The remedies suggested for our\ndisorders, within the bounds sanctioned by the Church, are more numerous\nthan the disorders themselves; but though confusion and anarchy threaten\nus, the law forbids men to say aught against principles which our rulers\nhave followed, while society has been brought into its present\ncondition.\n\n\"What the law now decrees against what it calls blasphemy, it decreed,\nnot two centuries ago, against witchcraft. It now denounces the former\nas displeasing to God; it then denounced the latter for the same\noffence. Men and women were in those less humane days burned for\ndispleasing God, while now they are only fined and incarcerated. By the\nprogress of knowledge, lawyers, both barristers and judges, have been\ncompelled to give up that portion of the perfection of human reason, and\nthe law against witchcraft has become obsolete. If our view of the law\nfor suppressing objections to the Scriptures, under * the name of\nblasphemy, be correct, it is not more reasonable than the law against\nwitchcraft. While no lawyer, however, will now lend himself to revive\nthe latter or carry it into execution, there are numbers, we say it to\nthe disgrace of the profession, zealous and eager to apply the former,\nat least to the penny tracts which are addressed to the poor.\n\n\"It is therefore with deep regret that we saw so eminent a man as the\nAttorney-General lending himself to this sorry work. We are ready to\nadmit, as a Tory contemporary has stated, that he has done his duty, and\nhe finds his reward in the praise of the Tories. Nor did he show, as far\nas we can learn, certainly not in his reply, any reluctance to perform\nit; people say he did it as if he had something to atone for, and was\nrather eager to gain the approbation of Bishop Philpotts. His labours\nwere crowned with a success which his own party reprobate. In\nWestminster Hall he has triumphed, but an appeal lies from that to the\nworld; and even the Whigs, who have heretofore denounced prosecutions\nfor blasphemy as for witchcraft, consider that in the last resort he\nwill sustain a terrible defeat.\n\n\"Mr. Hetherington has already suffered in body and mind, in purse and\nhealth; and probably awaits with apprehension the sentence, which may\nconsign him to prison and ruin. He is down-stricken by the law; but\nthose who have read his defence, and prefer reason to legal fictions,\nwill place him far above the triumphant Attorney-General. He made an\nadmirable pleading for free inquiry, which plain John Campbell\ninstituted a prosecution to suppress. In his reply Sir John so far\noverstepped the bounds of propriety, that the Defendant would not allow\nhim to proceed, and was supported by the Court. In a bad cause the\nAttorney-General used poisoned weapons. He upheld a prosecution for\nblasphemy, which is as ridiculous as a prosecution for witchcraft, and\ndescended to misrepresent the accused. With our opinion of the law he\nwas enforcing, we are bound to say that Sir John Campbell should have\nleft such a duty to be performed by some taker of a half-guinea fee, who\nnever got beyond the precincts of the Old Bailey. It was wholly unworthy\nof an eminent lawyer, who has risen into political power as a professed\nfriend of free discussion. The slaves to lust have some pleasure for\ntheir punishment, but the servants of the grimgribber of Westminster\nHall, who sacrifice present fame to a sense of duty to it, reap little\nmore than disgrace for their nauseous drudgery.\n\n\"Sir John Campbell prosecuted Mr. Hetherington, in the language of the\nindictment, for being 'a wicked, impious, and ill-disposed person,\nhaving no regard to the laws of this realm, but most wickedly,\nblasphemously, impiously, and profanely devising and intending to\nasperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old\nTestament.' Now, having no respect whatever for the fictions of the law,\nwe have no hesitation in branding such accusations of a publisher as a\nmonstrous tissue of falsehoods, and to affirm that it is a disgrace to\nany man who has the least respect for truth, to defend such a charge. We\ncare not about its being the customary language of the law, for truth\nand men's liberties are not to be sacrificed by and for such\nabsurdities.\n\n\"Further, this said aspersing and vilifying the Bible is said by Sir J.\nCampbell, at least such is the language of the indictment, which he used\narguments to sustain, to be greatly 'to the displeasure of Almighty\nGod.' Who knows that? What worm dares to say that the Almighty God is\ndispleased with another worm for uttering or writing a few words.' Who\nis the vain and arrogant man that claims for himself the task of\ninterpreting the thoughts of the Most High, and demanding that a man be\npunished for having displeased Almighty God? What name does the Court\ndeserve which, being instituted to do justice and protect the people,\npunishes one of them because he displeases the Almighty? Can He not\npunish those who displease Him? To doubt it, to undertake to protect or\navenge Him, to describe Him as displeased, while he showers prosperity\nand contentment on the man said to displease Him, is far more impious,\nmore blasphemous, more dangerous to religion than anything Mr.\nHetherington ever published, or Mr. Haslam wrote. Such, however, was the\ncrime charged against Mr. Hetherington, which Sir John Campbell\nendeavoured to substantiate, and of which a Jury, who are as much\ndeserving of reproach as the prosecutor, found him guilty. Such is the\ncrime for which the Court will hereafter pass sentence, undertaking,\nlike the Inquisition, to decide for the Almighty, and punish actions as\ndispleasing to Him, at which He, by the course of nature, shows no\ndispleasure.\n\n\"At the present time, when a great portion of the Whig press will\nsupport the Attorney-General or be silent, leaving _The Sun_ to defend\nthe great principle of free inquiry and free printing, as they left it\nto defend the same sacred and noble cause when it was assailed in the\nperson of Mr. Harmer, we think it our duty not to be silent. As we\nshould assail any Tory Attorney-General who had instituted such a\nprosecution, or carried it on, so we cannot allow it to pass\nunstigmatized because it has been instituted by a Whig Attorney-General.\nWe know that the wisest and best politicians of the party deprecate such\nproceedings, and not the less because they will call forth in many\nindependent journals, to the injury of the Whigs, an expression of\nhonest indignation.\"\n\n\n\n\n\"TO LORD DENMAN, ON THE LATE PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY\n\n\nMr Lord Chief Justice.\n\n\"Your conduct on the Bench, upon the recent trial, 'The Queen v.\nHetherington,' for a religious libel, a nominal and an impossible\noffence, the fiction of fraudulent bigotry, has much increased the high\nesteem in which you have been always held by the public. Your Lordship's\nopinions on this impolitic, irreligious, and thoroughly infamous species\nof prosecution have oft-times been expressed with the integrity and high\nmoral courage that have ever distinguished your public life. I never\nshall forget the manliness with which I heard you avow from the Whig\nTreasury Benches, in the House of Commons, in your place as Attorney\nGeneral, your detestation of indictments for religious opinions; and the\nHouse hailed you when you fairly acknowledged your deep regret that, as\nCommon Serjeant, you had been obliged, in obedience to your oath and to\nthe law, to impose even the smallest punishment possible upon three men\nconvicted by an ignorant Jury of a libel on the Scriptures; and you were\nstill more cheerfully received when you expressed your joy at the\nliberation of the prisoners whom you had so unwillingly punished. There\nwas one part of your speech that did not certainly satisfy me. I respect\nyour sense of obligation to an oath; but when you punished men whom you\nconscientiously believed to be undeserving of infliction, and this 'in\nobedience to the law,' your Lordship might have reflected, that it was\nnot Parliamentary, but Judge-made law--'Common-law,' as it is called;\nand you might have acted upon the principle that if a corrupt and\nignorant Judge made a law to suit the prejudices of a brutal age, a pure\nand well-informed Judge might reverse that law in favour of an age more\nhumane and more enlightened. I recollect with great satisfaction that\nwhen, in the case of Lord Langford, the Counsel, Mr. Thesiger, asked a\nwitness (Mr. Nathan, a Jew) 'what religion he was of?' your Lordship\nexpressed your strong displeasure; and, under your Lordship's sanction,\nthe witness refused to answer the interrogatory, and treated both the\nquery and the querist with the utmost contempt; and the whole Court and\naudience seemed strongly to approve of the result. In the recent trial\nyour Lordship's conduct was a contrast to that of your immediate\npredecessors on the Bench, Lords Tenterden and Ellenborough, the last\nrepresentatives of a most disgraceful school of political, prejudiced,\ncorrupt Court Judges. You did all in your power to induce the Jury to\nacquit the accused. I am now credibly informed that the Attorney-General\nhad the same object at heart; and having, intentionally, gone in a most\nslovenly and unimpressive manner, through his technical duty, he was\nabashed and mortified when he heard the verdict of guilty. Familiar as\nhe must be with the extreme ignorance, stupidity, and corruption of\nJuries, on such occasions, he was still surprised at such a verdict. I\nam willing to give him credit for these common reports in his favour;\nbut should the Government be so infatuated as to bring the defendant up\nfor judgment, the country expects of you, my Lord Denman, that the\nsentence will be nominal, and that it will be accompanied by your\nreprobation of all such trials.\n\n\"If it be true that hope is the last passion that leaves a man, equally\ntrue is it that the spirit, the accursed spirit of religious\npersecution, is the last passion that man deserts, or is willing to\nabandon. I sincerely believe that if the alternative were put to a\nhundred dying men, at their last, moment of consciousness, at their last\ngasp of breath, whether they preferred their own future salvation or\nbeatitude, or the persecution of man upon earth for conscientious\ndifferences of opinion on religious subjects, full ninety-nine out of\nthe hundred would choose the latter, on the ground of its being the\nturnpike-road to the former, and from the inherent delight in the spirit\nof religious intolerance. Fanaticism is the primeval curse of our\nnature. From its first victim Abel, to the present hour, it has raged\nthrough the human race. Moral sins and physical or corporeal diseases in\nthe course of ages wear themselves out, or can be cured by instruction\nor medical treatment; but the most foul, leprous, and crime-engendering\nof all maladies that flesh is heir to, fanaticism--call it if you\nplease, bigotry or superstition--admits of no cure, and of little\nmitigation. If this hellhound were now let loose from the restraints of\nlaw, we should in one year have every gaol and dungeon full of\nprisoners, and in another, the fires and faggots of the olden times\nwould be raging more fiercely than of yore, and more furiously in this\ncountry than in any other. Whatever Catholics might have been in the\nmiddle ages, there has been more of religious persecution in Great\nBritain and Ireland, in the last century, than in all the Catholic\ncountries of Europe within the same period. On the Continent the spirit\nis on the wane; in England it is on the increase.\n\n\"My Lord Denman, in the very abstraction of our individual nature, and\nof the nature of society, a court of justice cannot take cognizance of\nopinions. Its functions are confined exclusively to facts. Can any two\nclasses of things be more distinct and opposite? The one is fixed, the\nother perpetually varying. Law, cultivated reason and common sense have\nrescued subjects of opinion from judicial interference, except with\nrespect to politics and religion, the two which of all others most need\nthe exemption. The interference of courts of justice with religious\nopinions had immensely decreased, and it is now reviving; but it is in\nyour Lordship's power to annihilate it by passings nominal sentence on\nthe defendant. The effects or results of a fact are ascertainable; those\nof an opinion are but speculative and uncertain. There is not in\nexistence, there never has existed, and probably never can exist, a\nreligious opinion that has not been deemed blasphemous, and of a\ndestructive tendency to morals and social peace, by its opponents, who,\nif they had been strong enough, have relied upon the arguments of\ntorture and death, or punishments as severe as society would permit.\n\n\"My Lord, legism, or jurisprudence, are sufficiently understood to\nrender it indisputable that punishments cannot be vindicatory or\nretrospective, and less than either, vindictive. All religious\nprosecutions seek only for revenge. The object of a legal punishment\nrelates solely to the prevention of the offence. If a sentence against\nMr. Hetherington cannot effect this object, it cannot be justified. Will\na sentence alter his opinions? will it alter conscientiously that of any\nclass or single member of society? and, above all, will it stop or check\nthe dissemination of his doctrines? The two first points are nugatory;\nthe last is defeated in its pretended object. All history and experience\nprove that persecution, let its form or degree be what it may, increases\nthat which it is meant to destroy. Whether the tyrant be called Pope or\nInquisition, Attorney-General or Court of Queen's Bench, the principle\nand the result are the same.\n\n\"Every religion, church, and sect, that exists or is defunct, in Europe\nand in Asia, from the earliest record, has had at its origin, and\nthrough its infancy, to encounter obloquy and persecution. The Jewish\nreligion received animation and vigour from the contempt and cruelties\nof surrounding polytheists, and the Jews sought in one God a protection\nfrom the horrors which had been inflicted on them by the worshippers of\nmany; and well did this atrocious people revenue themselves 011 their\nformer persecutors, and this by assuming their own claim to the right of\npunishing men for differing in opinions. The progress of Christianity\nwas accelerated by the Jews, in their attempts to crush it by inflicting\nan ignominious and most cruel death on an innocent individual, under\nthat absurd fiction of blasphemy, in the foul name of which your\nLordship is now called upon to punish, against your will, another\ninnocent individual. If blasphemy has any meaning, its definition must\nbe--'a resistance to a predominant priestcraft.' Every religion, at its\ncommencement, is but a confluent mass of blasphemies to the\npreviously-established religions; and persecution is the reverse of\nannihilation, Where would Protestantism have been but for its\npersecution by the Catholics, and _vice versa_? From the dawn of\nProtestantism in England, under Wycliffe, and the burning of the first\nProtestants by the priests, in the reign of the Hero of Agincourt (what\na hero!) down to the death of Mary, English Protestants were tortured,\nburnt, hanged, and punished, and yet the religion spread. Throughout\nGermany the same effects proceeded from the same cause. Our English\npersecutions of the Catholics in Ireland have been long, incessant, and\ntoo dreadfully cruel to reflect upon, and yet Catholicism has increased\nunder them. We have not one respectable sect in England that has not\narisen in despite of persecution, and increased by means of it, and\nthese, with hundreds or thousands of other instances (for history\nabounds with them), prove that persecution or punishment does not, and\ncannot, effect the object in view; and that, consequently, punishment\ncannot be justified by its only legitimate principle of\njustification--utility. It is madness to punish for an offence which\nmust be increased by the very nature of the punishment. Formerly, in\npunishments for blasphemy, men, women, and children were burnt and put\nto every variety of torture, for the good of their souls--now, we\nsubstitute for the word soul, the phrase--'_the security of society_,'\nor other jargon equally nonsensical. The Court of Inquisition was, and\nis, wherever it exists, more honourable than the Protestant Court of\nQueen's Bench, for the Inquisitors tortured and destroyed for the sake\nof the soul, but our Courts punish only for the profit of the priest.\nThe old plea, the impudent and barbarous plea, of 'Benefit of Clergy,'\nis annulled by law, and yet an indictment for blasphemy is nothing more\nor less than a process for the 'Benefit of Clergy.' Thus, my Lord, have\nI humbly attempted to prove that your punishment of this individual will\nbe in strong and violent opposition to the principles, opinion, and\nfeelings which you have avowed on the Ministerial Benches of the House\nof Commons; and if the Whig Administration is so infatuatedly base as to\ncall the defendant up for punishment your Lordship will be in the\nunenviable position of passing a sentence, as Lord Chief Justice of\nEngland, against the nature, principles, and objects of which you have\nexpressed little less than abhorrence in the character of Her Majesty's\nAttorney-General in the House of Commons. At that period, my Lord, you\nwere the freely and most honourably chosen representative of one of the\nlargest and most enlightened constituencies of Great Britain--the town\nof Nottingham--and your constituents expressed no dissatisfaction at\nyour speech. Is there not a sympathy between Nottingham and other large,\nand populous, aud enlightened towns and cities, and between them all and\nthe general population of the empire? I have likewise, my Lord, shown,\nto the best of my very humble abilities, as a legist, that any\npunishment inflicted on this individual, violates the only principle on\nwhich all punishments can be justified--the prevention of the\noffence--if it be one.\n\n\"What, in other respects, will be the effects of this brutal\nprosecution? Burn Mr. Hetherington alive,--slowly roast him, torture him\nby every device, hang him, quarter him, and stick his head on\nTemple-bar, and his quarters on the gates of four of our principal\ncathedral towns, as in all such cases used to be the practice of our\nmost pious Christian ancestors in 'the good old times'--or let your\nLordship pass the most lenient sentence on him, and what will be the\nresult? Will any thing be proved, disproved, strengthened, or\ninvalidated, by either mode of punishment? If divines or laymen argue\nupon the Scriptures _in toto_ or in parts, _en masse_ or in detail,\ncould any of the disputants establish his point by arguing that Mr.\nHetherington or Mr. Snookes, for the names are indifferent, was or was\nnot in gaol, or that the sentence was six days' or six months'\nincarceration--how would the case stand syllogistically? A asserts that\nthe Bible ought to be burnt--A is not prosecuted--ergo, the Bible ought\nto be burnt. B asserts that the Bible ought to be burnt--B is\nprosecuted--B is acquitted by the Jury--ergo, the Bible ought to be\nburnt. C asserts that the Bible ought to be burnt--C is prosecuted--C is\nfound guilty--ergo, the Bible ought not to be burnt. Again, D, E, F, and\nG, are prosecuted for saying that the Bible ought to be burnt. They are\nall found guilty under different Judges, and their sentences vary from\nthree, six, twelve, and eighteen months' imprisonment. Here the public\nmind is in utter confusion between the cases of A, B, and C, and between\nthe ratios of punishment inflicted on D, E, F, and G, I have gone to the\nextent of the musical gamut. Ratios might be calculated by\narithmeticians aud algebraists. Thus--'As burning the Bible is to the\nacquittal of B,--so is not burning the Bible to the sentence on D, E, F,\nor G.\" Really, my Lord, as a man of the most cultivated intellect, you\nmust see the monstrous absurdity, the atrocious cruelty, of subjecting\nopinions on Scriptures to 'Trial by Jury.' If opinions on a book are to\nbe brought before a Jury, so might its author. I speak in no disrespect\nof Scriptures, but I speak in utter disgust and abhorrence of bringing\nthem before Juries. What, in fact, does a verdict of 'Guilty' or 'Not\nGuilty' amount to, in case of an opinion on the Scriptures? The ignorant\nJury men unwittingly set themselves above the Scriptures, and tyrannise\nover the Deity himself. The impiety lies all in the Jury, and not in the\naccused. The trial my Lord, proceeds entirely on the conceded point that\nthe Scriptures are the word of God; a word is an empty, unintelligible,\nworthless sound, except by the interpretation put upon it; and if the\nJury will be the interpreters, they are the authors of the word, and\nusurp the powers of the Deity. God may say 'this is my word and\ncommandment,' and a Jury replies, 'the substance utility,\nintelligibility of a word depend entirely upon the meaning attached to\nit, and we Jurymen will put and make all other men put what construction\nwe please, upon it, under pains and penalties, so that the word is not\nyours, but ours.' A Defendant may argue, 'my construction is a matter\nbetween my conscience and my God.' The verdict replies, 'God has nothing\nto do with it; your construction is entirely a case between your\nconscience and us Jurymen, stock-brokers, bill-brokers, pawnbrokers,\ngambling-house-keepers, and, peradventure, keepers of houses of a still\nworse description.' My Lord Denman, the manly character of your mind\nwill make you fearlessly grapple with this important subject, and will\ninduce your Lordship to feel that I have as fearlessly and as honestly\nstated the merits of the case. Pause, my Lord, before you ruin, and\nalmost torture a man, for whose defence you have expressed respect from\nthe Judgment-seat, and this by a sentence for the nature and principles\nof which you have publicly and officially declared an abhorrence.\n\n\"Our laws, Lord Denman, lay down a principle that every man is presumed\nto be acquainted with the business, profession, or study to which he\nbelongs, or to which he has devoted himself. The converse--a most\nrational converse, is that he is unacquainted with what he does not\nbelong to, or has not studied; or, in plain terms, that he is\nunacquainted with that of which he knows nothing. Sir Isaac Newton would\nhave been a most ignorant Juryman upon a case resting upon the details\nof business in the butter trade of Cork; and a Mr. Jones, in that trade,\nwould be an equally ignorant Juryman on a case involving the complex\nobservations and abstract calculations of Sir Isaac's Observatory.\nShakspeare, as a Juryman, would have been puzzled to determine a\ndisputed point of commerce; and a tradesman would be as equally\nperplexed in deciding a point upon the machinery of Arkwright, or the\nsteam-engine of Watts. In the present case, a man named Haslam, (but the\nname is immaterial, for I apply myself to abstractions and not to\nindividuals,) has devoted himself to the study of a subject. He is\nevidently a man of strong mind, of great knowledge, and of the most\nhonest intentions. On many points I differ with him, but individual or\npublic difference is not the case at issue. His very able work is\nsubmitted, not to the public mind, but to 'Trial by Jury;' and its\nmerits or demerits are determined upon by merchants, brokers, tradesmen.\n\n\"Our laws, Lord Denman, lay down a principle that every man is presumed\nto be acquainted with the business, profession, or study to which he\nbelongs, or to which he has devoted himself. The converse-a most\nrational converse, is that he is unacquainted with what he does not\nbelong to, or has not studied; or, in plain terms, that he is\nunacquainted with that of which he knows nothing. Sir Isaac Newton would\nhave been a most ignorant Juryman upon a ease resting upon the details\nof business in the butter trade of Cork; and a Mr. Jones, in that trade,\nwould be an equally ignorant Juryman on a case involving the complex\nobservations and abstract calculations of Sir Isaac's Observatory.\nShakspeare, as a Juryman, would have been puzzled to determine a\ndisputed point of commerce; and a tradesman would be as equally\nperplexed in deciding a point upon the machinery of Arkwright, or the\nsteam-engine of Watts. In the present case, a man named Haslam, (but the\nname is immaterial, for I apply myself to abstractions and not to\nindividuals,) has devoted himself to the study of a subject. He is\nevidently a man of strong mind, of great knowledge, and of the most\nhonest intentions. On many points I differ with him, but individual or\npublic difference is not the case at issue. His very able work is\nsubmitted, not to the public mind, but to 'Trial by Jury;' and its\nmerits or demerits are determined upon by merchants, brokers, tradesmen\nand jobbing peculating Jurymen called 'Tales.' as totally ignorant of\nMr! Haslam's studies and works, as he most probably is of their\ndifferent lines of traffic. Is this a test of the merits of the case? Is\nthis any barometer of the truth of the Gospel, of public feeling, or of\nthe intelligence of our population?\n\n\"My Lord Denman, the Attorney-General, tried, in the usual slang of his\nprofession, or rather of his office, to attach moral imperfection and\nsocial dangers to speculative points of theology-to points of creed. We\nhave now on our Bench, including Ireland and Scotland, Catholic Judges,\nJudges belonging to the Church of England, to the creeds of the\nBaptists, Anabaptists, Unitarians, and to the no-creeds of the Deists,\nand yet what barrister, attorney, or client, ever complained of a Judge\non account of his creed or his construction of the Scriptures? In\nIreland we have Catholic Judges, in Scotland Presbyterian, and in\nEngland Judges of the Clutch, and of every dissenting sect, and yet,\nwhen in 'Term time,' a new Trial is moved for, on account of a\nmisdirection of a Judge, who ever heard of the misdirection lying\nattached to the Judge's creed? The Solicitor-General of Ireland is a\nCatholic, the Attorney-General of England is a Presbyterian (if he has\nany religion at all), and the Solicitor-General of England is of the\nChurch (the refuge of all sceptics), and what does this amount to with\nrespect to the discharge of their duties? Lord Chancellors Shaftesbury\nand Thurlow, and very many others, were avowed Deists, and yet in moving\nthe House of Lords to set, their judgment aside, their creeds or\nopinions were never put upon the briefs.\n\n\"Let me suppose, my Lord, that our most pious Monarch, George the Third,\nhad indicted David Hume, the most perfect, of unofficial characters; or\nAdam Smith, a great benefactor of his species; or Edward Gibbon, the\nmost illustrious of historians, for their Atheism or Deism; and let me\nstate the fact, that the pious Monarch bestowed upon them all very good,\nand, in one instance, very confidential employments, what difference\ndoes this make? in either case the men, their public functions, and\ntheir doctrines, would have been equally at issue with public opinion at\nthe present day. The merchant, in reading Adam Smith; the philosopher,\nin studying the superior works of Hume; and the scholar, in tracing\nGibbon's magnificent outline and correct details of Roman history, never\ncondescend to inquire whether the authors were patronised by a pious or\nan impious monarch, or whether they were indicted by a Presbyterian,\nEpiscopalian, or Atheistical Attorney-General--the slave of an order\nfrom the Secretary of State's office. This species of scrutiny expired\nyears ago, and why should it be revived?\n\n\"My Lord Chief Justice Denman, the eyes of the country, and of foreign\ncountries, are upon you. The issue of your sentence is the same, except\nto the individual; for, liberate him, you respond but to the voice of\nall enlightened men throughout Europe; incarcerate him, and by passing\nan inhuman sentence upon an innocent man, you enforce a judgment that\nyou have promulgated in Parliament to be abhorrent in principles and\nfeelings, and this will produce a powerful redaction.\n\n\"PUBLICOLA.\"\n\n                                  ----","title":"The Trial of Henry Hetherington, on an Indictment for Blasphemy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":21166}