  My Lord--Gentlemen of the Jury, "In rising to vindicate myself from the charge preferred against me in this indictment, I shall not attempt to justify the language alluded to by the Attorney-General; but I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise that the Government, after having encouraged the circulation of cheap knowledge upon all subjects,--in Penny Magazines and Penny Cyclopaedias,--should have placed me on my trial upon such a flimsy charge as this--for flimsy it undoubtedly is, when, out of a work comprising nearly 500 pages, the Attorney-General can only find one passage,--that in the eighth Letter, which is, I admit, expressed in very improper language,--whereon to found an indictment. I contend that it is impossible to say where a person is to stop in his inquiries. If a person is permitted to reject one tenet, another may reject another; and there is no reason why another should not go on, and reject the whole. In the whole work there is not one disrespectful word about Christianity; it is a rejection of the miracles ascribed to Moses in the Old Testament, which have been indignantly rejected by many learned men. The work was not intended as a scurrilous attack, but as an inquiry into the effects of the usages of society, founded upon the Old Testament. The object of Mr. Haslam was benevolent; and however much he might err, he was not criminal. He undertook to prove to the clergy that they were all in error that the doctrines they are teaching to the people are false, absurd, and irrational; that they are directly contrary to reason; and that, so long as they are preached to the people, so long will the people be vicious, wretched, and unhappy. "The Attorney-General has only read the objectionable passages: I will read a few passages from Mr. Haslam's first Letter, which will enable the Jury to understand the nature of his work, and appreciate his motives. Having frankly stated his object, he proceeds:-- "You, no doubt, will feel concerned at this; you will very likely be angry with me for this daring attempt; you will call me Deist, Atheist, Infidel, and many other charitable epithets; you will feel unutterable things towards me; and I shall, no doubt, be subject to the extreme charity of your pious congregations, who profess to 'love their neighbours as themselves,' and into whose minds you have crammed absurdity after absurdity, until they have scarcely room for another. I shall, no doubt, expose myself to all manner of ill-feeling and uncharitableness, and to calumnies and lies of every description; but shall these deter me from making known the convictions of iny mind? Shall these hinder me from exposing the errors and absurdities which I see interested men instilling into the minds of the people? Shall these prevent me from telling the people that they are deceived and imposed upon, and that their beggary, and want, and wretchedness, are the consequences of it? Shall these, in short, stop me from exposing the irrationalities which I see everywhere around me, and which occasion so much misery and unhappiness to my fellow-men? No, I tell you they shall not. That power which sent you into the world, sent me into the world also; and if you have a right to think and speak, I have a right to think and speak also. I have received an organization for the purpose as well as any of you; and as long as that organization remains unimpaired, so long will I tell the world what I think and feel. "Why should any of you be angry with me? If I can prove your doctrines to be false and erroneous, what occasion is there for anger? What can you want with doctrines that are false? As honest men you ought immediately to abandon them. Instead, therefore, of being angry with me, you ought to have the very opposite feeling; for of what service can error and nonsense be to any man, or any set of men? "But if I prove that your doctrines are not only false and erroneous, but that they occasion a vast amount of mischief to the people; that they occasion want and vice, and all manner of wickedness, and that, by removing them from the minds of the people, and substituting truths, all this want, and vice, and wickedness might be put an end to; if, I say, I prove this, why should you be angry with me for doing it? Surely you cannot wish the people to remain in a state of want, and vice, and wickedness; and yet, if you do not, why should you be angry at me for showing you the causes of them, and pointing out the means for their removal? "You talk a great deal about morality and religion; you manifest in your pulpits a great anxiety to spread them amongst the people; but who can believe you to be sincere, when you resist every attempt to remove the causes of immorality and irreligion? You must know that effects cannot be removed without removing the causes of them, and by resisting the removal of these causes, you evidently show a disposition to keep the people in wickedness. This wickedness proceeds from certain causes. We have pointed these causes out to you, and if you will not remove them, does not that evidently show that you would rather that the people were wicked? Can there be conclusions more logical? What ridiculous cant it must be then to talk about morality and religion? "My assumption then is, that the belief of every man is given to him independently of his will, and that, therefore, no just power can punish him for it. "Your assumption is the opposite of this; you assert that the belief of every man depends upon his own will; that he can either believe in the Bible, or not believe in the Bible; that he can either be Christian or Jew, Mahomedan or Infidel, and that, therefore, God will punish him if he do not believe in a particular manner. "These then, are our respective assumptions--and now let reason, 'the grand prerogative of man,' determine between us. "Gentlemen, contrast the spirit of Mr. Haslam in this passage with the spirit of my prosecutors. He invokes Reason, 'the grand prerogative of man,' to determine between them; the Clergy, on the contrary, resort to prosecution to crush a reasoning opponent. "I beg to inform you that I have read the Bible attentively, and that the more I read it the more reason I see for disbelieving it. "The Bible asserts things which the whole of my senses tell me are false; and if my senses are independent of myself, how can I help disbelieving it? "I know that God gave me my senses; but how can I believe God made the Bible, when it is directly opposed to these senses? To believe that God is the author of both, is to believe that God commits absurdities like yourselves; and to ascribe such a paltry and blundering performance as the Bible to that power which governs the universe is to dishonour that power, if any thing can dishonour it. "But a man's belief is not only formed independently of his will, but it is often formed in direct opposition to it. I, for instance, once believed that the principles which I now hold were false; I used to argue against them, and even write against them, and my will to disbelieve them was so strong, owing to their apparent absurdity, that I used to be delighted when I imagined I had discovered a fresh argument with which I might overturn them. Continuing, however, to argue, I began to see their truth; I saw the principles more clearly; I found I had mistaken them very much; and at last I saw into them as clearly, as Cobbett used to say, as the sun at noon-day. "Now here, you see, my will was to disbelieve these principles; but, after the process of reasoning was over, I was compelled to alter my will. This, then, being the case, was that will free? Could I have continued to disbelieve them, when my convictions told me they were true? And if I could not, where, I again ask, was my free will? "Here, then, is reasoning enough to prove the truth of my assumption; and now I beg to call your attention to its peculiar effect upon your various systems of religion. "In conclusion, therefore, I beg to call upon you to defend your doctrines from the serious charges I have here made, and shall continue to make against them. You may either do it by writing, or by verbal discussion, whichever you please. But do not continue to act so meanly and dishonourably, as to preach doctrines to the people which have over and over again been proved to be false and absurd, and which none of you are able to defend." Gentlemen, you will see by these passages that Mr. Haslam appeals to reason. He calls upon the Clergy to defend their doctrines, telling them they may either do it "by writing, or by verbal discussion." The Government, however, disregarded this appeal; they ought to have called upon the Bishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots of his class, to come forward and confute Mr. Haslam. But instead of this they prosecute a bookseller, who had never read a line of the book until this prosecution. They ought to meet Mr. Haslam with his own weapons; and it is disgraceful to the Government, which has always advocated the diffusion of cheap knowledge, to submit to the taunts of the Bishop of Exeter, and other bigots like him, by instituting these prosecutions for blasphemy. However we may disapprove of Haslam's doctrines, we cannot but perceive that he is sincere in his belief. Gentlemen, I will, as I proceed, prove to you that the convictions of a tat which he now believes to be true to have been false. Gentlemen, I readily admit that the passage in the eighth number is offensively worded; but I will prove that the free exercise of the right of inquiry is not, and ought not to be, an offence in law. I will also call your attention to the hardship of a general bookseller being held responsible for every book that he sells, and will call your attention to the oath you have taken, and claim from you that acquittal to which I am entitled. I claim no exemption from punishment if I sell any obscene publication,--anything calculated to corrupt or demoralize society,--or any attacks upon a man's private character; but in cases of the discussion of abstract truths, is a man to be punished for the convictions of his mind, which are not in the power of his will? It is too bad to bring a man into a court of justice on account of a few solitary passages in a work of this nature. Gentlemen of the Jury, our great and popular moralist, Dr. Johnson, has declared that "Truth is the basis of all excellence." This axiom is so clear and indisputable, that no intelligent man can hesitate to adopt it. How, then, can the truth, upon the various subjects interesting to human beings, be elicited? Not by letting interested men think for us, but by judging for ourselves--by collecting and examining facts and arguments, and communicating to society the impressions they respectively make upon our minds. There is no effectual mode of arriving at truth, but by the exercise of the right of free inquiry, and the unrestricted publication of the result of such inquiry. This right has been deemed of pre-eminent importance from time immemorial, and by men of all sects and parties; and although corrupt and tyrannical rulers in the past ages of the world have prosecuted honest men, and endeavoured to suppress the truth, you will find that in every case to which I shall call your attention, the intrepid advocates of truth have ultimately triumphed. Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will proceed at once to fortify myself with a few authorities,--not that I think truth depends upon great names, however numerous and illustrious they may be, but because I am determined to advance nothing that is not, in my opinion, strictly true, and sanctioned and maintained by the greatest intellects of the age. Gentlemen, I will begin with a Bishop. "God has given us rational faculties to guide and direct us, and we must make the most of them that we can; we must judge with our own reasons, as well as see with our own eyes; and it would-be very rash, unmanly, and base in us to muffle up our own understandings, and deliver our reason and faith over to others blindfold."--Bishop Burnett's Thirty-nine Articles, A. 39. "Gentlemen of the Jury, will you, by your verdict, consign a man to a dungeon, because he is too honest and independent to act a 'rash, unmanly, and base' part? Will you declare, by your verdict, that henceforth we shall not 'judge with our own reasons, nor see with our own eyes?' I feel confident you will not. "Dr. Whitby, in his Last Thoughts, tells us, "that belief or disbelief can neither be a virtue or a crime, in any one who uses the best means in his power of being informed. "If a proposition is evident, we cannot avoid believing it; and where is the merit or piety of a necessary assent? If it is not evident, we cannot help rejecting it, or doubting of it; and where is the crime of not performing impossibilities, or not believing what does not appear to us to be true?" Gentlemen of the Jury, can you dispute the truth of the passage I have quoted from Dr. Whitby? Will you, by your verdict, pronounce it to be "a crime not to perform impossibilities, and endeavour to force us to believe what does not appear to us to be true?" Gentlemen, you cannot do it. Let us briefly trace the operations of the human mind, and we shall find that the mind is governed by a law of necessity. Are we not definitely and necessarily' affected by the circumstances which surround us? Have we power to avoid receiving impressions from the objects presented to us? If we have not, which is now universally admitted by intelligent men, then the act of perceiving, or forming ideas, is a necessary mental operation. Can we, for instance, have an idea of a man when a monkey is presented to us? Or of colours other than those which are placed before our visual organs? We cannot, if the eye be not diseased, perceive red to be green, or green red. The power of perception, therefore, appears to be perfectly involuntary--it is governed by a law of necessity. The next operation of the mind is to form a judgment of the things perceived; and it is these two things--perceiving and judging--which constitute a man's knowledge or experience. If two bodies of different magnitudes are presented to our view, are we not compelled to judge of them according to the impression they respectively make upon the mind? It is precisely the same with men, manners, and opinions. Must we not conclude that things are what they appear to be, till we know the contrary? I would appeal to your own experience, Gentlemen, whether you do not invariably and necessarily judge of men and things according to their inherent or imaginary qualities? Some men, indeed, are puzzled to account for the diversity of judgment observable where different men examine the same subject, and from the same data; but this circumstance is easily accounted for. It results simply from this fact, that men judge of things precisely as they appear to them: and the different judgments formed of the same things are ascribable wholly to the different degrees of strength in the power of perception, and to the extent and variety of knowledge previously acquired. Perception and judgment, therefore, appear to be involuntary and necessary. Gentlemen, if this be true, is a man who has arrived at conclusions adverse to the received opinions of society a fit subject of punishment? If not, how much less so is the bookseller who merely sells his book? Mr. Haslam calls upon the Clergy to enter into the controversy with him, and to let reason decide between them. Why do not the Government, and the learned Attorney-General, adopt Mr. Haslam's recommendation, instead of instituting a prosecution against a bookseller who never read a line of the book till his attention was called to it by this unjust prosecution? Why do not the Government,--who patronise penny literature--who affect to be friendly to free discussion, call on the Bishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots, to defend the Bible against the assaults of Mr. Haslam? For the learned Attorney-General to attempt to crush the free expression of opinion by prosecutions of this nature, is most unjust and impolitic. I maintain that two out of the three passages read would not support the indictment at all; and the third passage--set forth in the first count of the indictment--so far from being blasphemy, declares that the author rejects the Bible, because he looks upon it as containing statements that were insulting to God. In the passage immediately following that which is prosecuted, the author admits that the book contains some good precepts, but declares that he deems mere precepts to be useless. I will take the liberty of reading the passage to the Jury. "I allow that there are some good precepts in it, but I contend that these precepts are useless. I contend that all precepts are useless. Of what use have all the precepts in the world been to the human race? Have they made man wiser, or better, or happier? Have they lessened the amount of his vice and his misery? 1 contend that they have not. Vice and misery have been increasing, although these precepts have been more and more preached to the people. Precepts, reverend ministers of the gospel, are mere wind; they are as empty as the vapour issuing from the kettle's spout; they have no effect whatever in making man wise, or good, or happy; the present wretchedness of the world is a proof of it. The way, reverend sirs, to make man wise, and good, and happy, is, not to preach precepts to the people, but to abolish the present irrational system of individual property; to arrange society in such a manner that the interest of one man will be the interest of the whole. Until this be done, all the precepts in the world, preached, too, with all the eloquence in the world, will never remove man from his present deplorable condition." Gentlemen, you will perceive by this extract that the author is a socialist. It is not necessary for me to maintain that he is right in these opinions. All that I have to do is to show that these opinions were sincerely believed by Mr. Haslam. I have clearly shown that belief is involuntary. No man can tell one day what his belief will be the next. In my own person I furnish an instance of this. I married young, and having formed in my mind a standard of ideal perfection, I determined that my children should equal that standard, as far as human means could make them. I tried to effect my object by severity. Acting upon wrong principles, of course, I failed; but at that time I was young and ignorant, and believed myself to be right. However, a friend who knew better than myself, and who had had much experience, lent me Miss Williams's Letters on the Philosophy of Education, and the reading of that book put new ideas into my mind. It produced, in fact, a mental revolution;--I changed my opinion and my system, and did so with the happiest success. From that time I banished coercion as a principle of education. I repeat, then, that belief is not voluntary, and that compulsion is not a good means of producing good belief or good conduct. Gentlemen, I will now quote the opinion of Bishop Marsh, as to the importance of free inquiry. I quote from the Bishops as persons of the greatest authority on this subject, far greater than the Attorney-General, or any of his legal brethren. "Investigation, it is said, frequently leads to doubts where there were none before. So much the better. If a thing is false, it ought not to be received; if a thing is true, it can never lose in the end by inquiry."--Bishop Marsh's First Lecture. Gentlemen, you have heard the opinion of Bishop Marsh. You cannot suppose that the Bishops are adverse to the Church--they are great supporters of it, and so, perhaps, might I be if I got so much by it--(a laugh)--as like circumstances produce like effects. Well, Gentlemen, Bishop Marsh maintains that "if a thing is false, it ought not to be received; if it is true, it can never lose in the end by inquiry." Why, then, should the Attorney-General prosecute a person who rejects a thing that does not appear to him to be true? Gentlemen, let me now submit to your attention the opinion of Sir William Temple. Sir William Temple says, "They may make me do things which are in my power, and depend on my will; but to believe this or that to be true depends not on my will, but upon the light, and evidence, and information which I have. And will civil discouragements and incapacities, fines and confiscations, stripes and imprisonment, enlighten the understanding, convince men's minds of error, and inform them of the truth? Can they have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment they have framed of things? Nothing can do this but reason and argument: this is what our minds and understandings will naturally yield to, but they cannot be compelled to believe any thing by outward force. So that the promoting of true religion is plainly out of the magistrate's reach, as well as beside his office." Here, Gentlemen, you have the opinion of Sir William Temple, that men cannot be forced to believe anything by outward force and persecution, so that the promoting of true religion is out of the magistrate's power, as well as beside his office. This is a most true and proper declaration; and if the Attorney-General had reflected upon this passage, I am sure he must have fully appreciated its truth, and then this prosecution would not have been instituted. I appeal to the learned Attorney-General, whether my being ruined and sent to a dungeon will alter the state of things? Will it alter the opinion of Mr. Haslam? Will it make me believe that I ought to be prosecuted for selling this book; or that a man has not a right to promulgate his opinions? I am placed in an awkward position in having to defend a man's right to publish, while I dissent from some of Mr. Haslam's opinions, and the manner in which he has thought proper to express them. I have been told that the Attorney-General is a good kind of a man, who has no wish to press severely upon persons in my situation; and some friends--not my true friends--have urged me to forward a memorial to him on the subject of this prosecution. Now what could I do? There was no way of inducing the Attorney-General to stay this prosecution, but by pleading guilty; and although I am well aware that your verdict, if adverse to me, will be my ruin, yet I would rather terminate my existence on the floor of this court than plead guilty to this lying indictment, or admit that I am a wicked, malicious, and evil-disposed person, when I know that to the best of my judgment and ability I am an upright, honest, well-intentioned man. If I believed myself to be the man described, in the indictment--which I must do before I could consent to plead guilty--I would fly to the uttermost parts of the earth; for a man is totally destroyed when he has lost all feeling of self-respect, and the esteem and regard of his friends and associates. Gentleman of the Jury, I have yet a host of authorities before me, but I will not waste time by quoting them; as I am convinced you must now be quite satisfied, from what I have already adduced, that every Englishman has an undoubted right to investigate all subjects--whether religious or political--and to publish the result of the investigation for the benefit of society at large; but, Gentlemen, in closing what I have to say on this part of the subject, I beg to lay before you two striking and convincing passages from Lord Brougham and Dr. Southwood Smith--two of the most intellectual and eminent individuals of the present day. Gentlemen, the first passage I will quote is from Dr. Southwood Smith, who strikingly and beautifully describes the proper boundary of human investigation; and I beg the particular attention of the learned Attorney-General to this passage. "There is no proper boundary to human investigation," says the doctor, "but the capacity of the human mind. Whatever the faculties enable it to understand, it ought to examine without any restraint on the freedom of its inquiry, and without any other limit to its extent than that which its great Author has fixed, by withholding from it the power to proceed farther. When the means of conducting the human understanding to its highest perfection shall have become generally understood, this freedom of inquiry will not only be universally allowed, but early and anxiously inculcated, as a duty of primary and essential obligation." Gentlemen, I now beg you to listen to the extract I am about to read from Lord Brougham's Inaugural Address to the University of Glasgow. "As men will no longer suffer themselves to be led blindfold in Ignorance, so will they no more yield to the vile principle of judging and treating their fellow-creatures, not according to the intrinsic merit of their actions, but according to the accidental and involuntary coincidence of their opinions. The great truth has finally gone forth to the ends of the earth, that man shall no more render ACCOUNT TO MAN FOR HIS BELIEF, OVER WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF NO CONTROL. "Henceforward nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame any one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin or the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect those who conscientiously differ from ourselves, the only practical effect of the difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance, on one side or the other, from which it springs, by instructing them, if it be theirs, ourselves, if it be our own; to the end that the only kind of unanimity may be produced which is desirable among rational beings,--the agreement proceeding from full conviction after the freest discussion."--Lord Brougham. Gentlemen, after hearing these splendid passages, will it be possible for you to sanction a renewal of persecution to crush freedom of opinion? Gentlemen of the Jury,--I now come to the next point in the argument. Having, I hope, successfully proved the right of free inquiry and the free publication of opinions, I will proceed to show, by a reference to past events, that it is highly important that this right should be preserved, and handed down to our latest posterity unimpaired. Gentlemen, it has been a uniform practice, from the earliest records of time, to stigmatize those who introduce new truths, or who attack the existing institutions of a country, as infidels, and to fix upon them all sorts of opprobious epithets. "In all ages new doctrines have been branded as impious; and Christianity itself has offered no exception to this rule. The Greeks and Romans charged Christianity with 'impiety and novelty.' In Cave's Primitive Christianity we are informed 'that the Christians were everywhere accounted a pack of Atheists, and their religion the Atheism.' They were denominated; 'mountebank impostors,' and 'men of a desperate and unlawful faction.' They were represented as 'destructive and pernicious to human society,' and were accused of 'sacrilege, sedition, and high treason.' The same system of misrepresentation and abuse was practised by the Roman Catholics against the Protestants at the Reformation. Some called their dogs Calvin; and others transformed Calvin into Cain,' In France, 'the old stale calumnies, formerly invented against the first Christians, were again revived by Demochares, a doctor of the Sorbonne, pretending that all the disasters of the state were to be attributed to Protestants alone.'"--*Combe on the Constitution of Man. In our own enlightened country, where the importance of truth--and free inquiry as a means of its attainment--is beginning to be appreciated, a different practice should prevail. We ought not to persist in this unmanly course. Recollect, Gentlemen, the Prophets of the Jews were blasphemers against the established religions of their day. Did that deter them from denouncing the idolatry and false religions of the surrounding nations? Elijah is represented as ridiculing the God of the Moabites in a most offensive manner: "And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking f or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.'" 1 Kings xviii. 27. And in Judea, Jesus and his Apostles were charged as blasphemers against Judaism, or the religion established by Moses. We have a remarkable proof of this in the case of Stephen, recorded in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. "Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. "And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, "And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law: "For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us."--Acts vi, 10--14. And Stephen defending himself before the Council, boldly asks them, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have BEEN NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS. "When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. "And they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, "And cast him out of the city, and stoned him." Acts vii; 51, 52, 54,57,58. Now, Gentlemen, is it just or politic that the proclaimers of new truths, and new systems, should be treated in this manner? Would it not be far more rational to hear what a man has to say, and answer him, than to "gnash at him with the teeth," to "stop your ears," to "run at him with one accord," and to "stone him to death?" Can you, Gentlemen, by your verdict give your sanction to a course of proceeding similar to that which deprived Stephen of life? All persecution is the same in spirit--highly unjust and impolitic--whether it be exercised against the Apostle Stephen, or the humble individual who now addresses you. Gentlemen, the supporters of the established religion in the days of the Apostles, pursued the same course that the bigots of the present day are pursuing. They applied to the High Priest, or to the Attorney-General of that day, to prosecute Stephen for blasphemy, and stirred up the people. In the present case the Bishop of Exeter did not stir up the people, but he stirred up the Government. He sent a packet of papers to Lord Normanby, who handed them to the Attorney-General, and he appears to have considered it to be his duty to institute the present prosecution. The learned Attorney-General, as was the case with the priests and rulers of the Jews, would not allow any discussion to take place that was likely to change existing customs. I will do the Government the justice to say, however, that I do not believe they are disposed to put a stop to the full investigation of any subject, if conducted with decency. I readily admit that the passage in the eighth number of Mr. Haslam's Letters is highly objectionable in phraseology--it is in very bad taste--but is that a reason for sending a bookseller to prison, because he has sold a book written in bad taste? It cannot be--all published works must be left to the fiat of public opinion to determine their merit. Gentlemen, the same spirit was evinced by the wicked and corrupt rulers of the Jews against the founder of Christianity. They sought false witnesses against him; but at length, Jesus having spoken out explicitly, the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, "He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, HE is guilty to death." (Matt. 26; 65.) Will you, Gentlemen--a Christian Jury--considering Christianity part and parcel of the law of the land, by your verdict say, that Jesus was rightly treated by the Jews? Ought the constituted authorities of that day to have obstructed the glorious truths of Christianity, and have put to death the Messenger of Man's salvation? Unless you deliver a verdict of acquittal, in my case, you in effect sanction and justify all the cruelties exercised against Jesus and his Apostles by the rulers of the Jews? The learned Counsel for the prosecution will, perhaps, think that there is no analogy between the cases cited and my own case--that Jesus and his Apostles introduced truths of the greatest magnitude and importance, while I am indicted for selling a book that denies the truth of the Jewish Scriptures. Why, Gentlemen, Dr. Adam Clarke says, "There is some reason to fear that they (the Jews) no longer consider the Old Testament as divinely inspired, but believe that Moses had recourse to pious frauds." And, Gentlemen, Jesus and his Apostles denied the truth of the Jewish Scriptures--as understood by the rulers of the Jews,--and for denying the orthodox and received sense of the Jewish Scriptures were accused of blasphemy, and received the fate of martyrs! That cannot be disputed. Was it just, then,--was it politic, I ask, to settle this controversy by force and cruelty? To scourg or imprison, and destroy those glorious men who had important truths to impart to the world? If England has embraced Christianity--and we are not a nation of hypocrites--let us act upon the spirit of his religion. He says plainly and emphatically, that we are not to root up error by force or cruelty. In the parable of the tares of the field, he sets forth our duty. "The Kingdom of Heaven," he says, "is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, there appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares! He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servant said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest." Matt, xiii; 25--30. When his disciples demanded an explanation of this parable, he said, "The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the Kingdom: but the tares are the children of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed them in the devil: the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the Angels. The Son of Man shall send forth his Angels, and They shall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." Matt, xiii; 38, 39. 41. Gentlemen, how unjust and impolitic, then, are these prosecutions. Do they stop the progress of truth? Persecution for matters of opinion is the same in every case--impolitic--for it never yet succeeded in stopping the circulation of a correct opinion or a prohibited book? Why should Christians prosecute men for disbelieving the Jewish Scriptures, when, according to Dr. Adam Clarke, the Jews disbelieve parts of the Old Testament themselves? Why should professed Christians take up and defend that which the Jews themselves reject? Paul, himself, teaches us that the Jewish law has been superseded by a superior system. He tells us that the Jewish law "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (or Christianity), but after that we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. iii; 24, 25. I can assure the Jury that if Haslam's Letters to the Clergy is an improper book, it cannot be put down by prosecution; it is far better to leave it to coldness and neglect. I could give many proofs of this. I am myself an instance of the inefficacy of prosecution. I have been prosecuted, as I think with great injustice, for the publication of a paper called The Poor Man's Guardian. Five hundred men was imprisoned for selling it; I was twice imprisoned, and the circulation of the paper, thus prosecuted, more than paid my losses; but at last, in the Court of Exchequer, before Lord Lyndhurst, the Jury found a verdict in my favour, for I convinced the Jury that the publication was one which was not against the law. The Attorney-General: The Jury found that it was not a newspaper. Precisely so: and as soon as it was known that the Guardian was a legal paper, it went down at once. I could not sell copies enough to pay the expenses (a laugh). It has been just the same with these Letters; they have remained unsold till this prosecution, but as soon as it was known that they were prosecuted, the man who published them could not print them fast enough. Gentlemen, the enlightened Christians of the present day, by sending out Missionaries to propagate Christianity, are guilty of blasphemy against the established religion of heathen countries. It would be considered in England very unjust and cruel if the natives were to seize our Missionaries, and imprison and ill-treat them. If in this country we are in the habit of sending out Missionaries to proclaim new truths to foreign countries--is it not grossly inconsistent and unjust, while doing this, to punish persons for free investigation at home? In a recent case, cannon have been fired upon the natives of one of the Tonga Islands, because they would not receive these Missionaries. The argument of these Christians is, that truth must be propagated all over the world--but why stop inquiry at home, while suffering a British man-of-war to fire upon these islanders, because they would not receive the new truths of the Missionaries in the way they wished? Is it wise--is it not highly impolitic, then, to attempt to check the progress of intellect and human improvement? Can it be done by persecution and imprisonment? No, Gentlemen, the spirit of inquiry is abroad among the industrious millions--no subject is too sacred for their investigation. The mind has burst the fetters imposed on it, in the days of by-gone ignorance, by the cupidity of interested and hypocritical priests, who are fully aware that their principles and practices cannot stand the test of free inquiry. Even Mr. Wesley, the founder of Methodism, saw that his darling system must ultimately fall before the searching eye of philosophy and truth. From the Life of the Rev. John Wesley, published in 1792. "Dear Sir,--For your obliging letter, which I received this morning, I return you thanks. "Our opinions, for the most part, perfectly coincide respecting the stability of the connexion after my head is laid in the dust. This, however, is a subject about which I am not so anxious as you seem to imagine; on the contrary, it is a matter of the utmost indifference to me, as I have-long foreseen that a division must necessarily ensue, from causes so various, unavoidable, and certain, that I have long since given up all thoughts and hopes of settling it on a permanent foundation. You do not seem to be aware of the most effective cause that will bring about a division. You apprehend the most serious consequences from a struggle between the preachers for power and pre-eminence, and there being none among them of sufficient authority or abilities to support the dignity, or command the respect, and exact the implicit obedience, which is so necessary to uphold our constitution on its present principles. This, most undoubtedly, is one thing that will operate very powerfully against unity in the connexion, and is, perhaps, what I might possibly have prevented, had not a still greater difficulty arisen in my mind. I have often wished for some person of abilities to succeed me as the head of the church I have, with such indefatigable pains and astonishing success, established; but, convinced that none but very superior abilities would be equal to the undertaking, was I to adopt a successor of this description, I fear he might gain so much influence among the people as to usurp a share, if not the whole, of that absolute and uncontrollable power which I have hitherto, and am determined I will maintain so long as I live: never will I bear a rival near my throne. You, no doubt, see the policy of continually changing the preachers from one circuit to another, at short periods: for should any of them become popular with their different congregations, and insinuate themselves into the favour of their hearers, they might possibly obtain such influence as to establish themselves independently of me and the general connexion. Besides, the novelty of the continual change excites curiosity, and is the more necessary, as few of our preachers have abilities to render themselves in any degree tolerable any longer than they are now. "The principal cause which will inevitably effect a diminution and division in the connexion after my death, wilt be the failure of subscriptions and contributions towards the support of the cause; for money is as much the sinews of religious as of military power. If it is with the greatest difficulty that even I can keep them together, for want of this very necessary article, I think no one else can. Another cause, which, with others, will effect the division, is the disputes and contentions that will arise between the preachers and the parties that will espouse their several causes; by which means much truth will be brought to light, which will reflect so much to their disadvantage, that the eyes of the people will be opened to see their motives and principles; nor will they any longer contribute to their support, when they find all their pretensions to sanctity and love are founded on motives of interest and ambition. The consequence of which will be, a few of the most popular will establish themselves in the respective places where they have gained sufficient influence over the minds of the people: the rest must revert to their original humble callings. But this no way concerns me: I have attained the object of my views, by establishing a name that will not soon perish from the face of the earth; I have founded a sect which will boast my name long after my discipline and doctrines are forgotten. "My character and reputation for sanctity is now beyond the reach of calumny; nor will any thing that may hereafter come to light, or be said concerning me, to my prejudice, however true, gain credit.
"Another cause that will operate more powerfully and effectually than any of the preceding is, the rays of Philosophy, which begin now to pervade all ranks, rapidly dispelling the mists of ignorance, which have been long, in a great degree, the mother of devotion, of slavish prejudice, and the enthusiastic bigotry of religious opinions. The decline of the Papal power is owing to the same irresistible cause; nor can it be supposed that Methodism can stand its ground when brought to the test of Truth, Reason, and Philosophy." "City-road, Thursday morning. J. W." (1)
Gentlemen, you see Mr. Wesley anticipated that his system must yield to philosophy, and do you believe the Church of England can stand when brought to the test of "truth, reason* and philosophy?" A church that will keep a man in prison nearly two years for 5s. 6d. church-rates? If you suppress Biblical examination, and the free publication of opinion, the next step will be to stop inquiry into the practices of the Church, and to make us all the fettered slaves of the priesthood. No, Gentlemen; Methodism and Church-of-Englandism are doomed to fall; and such will be the fate of all systems not based upon the rock of truth. But, Gentlemen, that is no reason for suppressing inquiry, because the more the truth is investigated, the more beautiful it will appear. Gentlemen, has not our country raised itself to the highest pinnacle of human greatness as regards civilization and the arts? What rapid strides--what useful discoveries it has made in the arts and sciences! Consider its vast achievements in steam navigation--in railroad travelling--in the improvement of machinery. To such perfection have they brought machinery, that it is now almost capable of superseding human labour altogether. If all these magnificent improvements in the arts and sciences are good to society, and have resulted from free inquiry--why hesitate to apply it to social, religious, and political subjects? Are we ever to remain drivellers in religion? The true crime is that Haslam's Letters are sold at a penny. Why should two-guinea blasphemers be tolerated and penny ones prosecuted? How can the learned Attorney-General, whose shelves are, doubtless, adorned with Drummond's Academical Questions, Voltaire, Gibbon, Volney, and Shelley, uphold this prosecution; and what must that law be which can find the crime, not in the contents of the book, but in the fact of its being sold for a penny? They might for two guineas buy a magnificent book full of blasphemy. The Attorney-General, in his opening speech, had told the Jury that such works were "dangerous to society if addressed to the vulgar, the uneducated, and the unthinking" but I will appeal to his own witness, who had read the book, and on whom, an uneducated man, it had proved inoperative. It had done no mischief: and I hope the Jury will not consign me to a dungeon for having sold a book which it has been proved by his own witness has done no mischief. Paul said the BÆreans were more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so or not. The Attorney-General is about to punish me for doing the same thing. Christ himself said, the truth shall make you free; but the Attorney-General says the truth--or that which you believe to be the truth--shall make you a prisoner. In the parable of the tares, to which I have already referred, Jesus expressly forbade the rooting up of the tares, lest the wheat should be rooted up also. He did not recommend persecution, but said let them both grow together until the harvest. These passages are sufficient to show that persecution is opposed to the whole spirit of Christianity. Gentlemen, I will now call your attention to the law on the subject. In entering upon this topic, of course I shall labour under a great disadvantage, because I am unacquainted with legal technicalities and cases. I will commence, therefore, by reading to you the opinion of Chief Baron Eyre, in his Charge to the Grand Jury, on the commission for the trial of persons on the charge of High Treason, in 1794, in the course of which he made use of these liberal expressions:-- "All men may, nay, all men must, if they possess the faculty of thinking, reason upon every thing which sufficiently interests them to become objects of their attention; and among the objects of attention of freemen, the principles of government, the constitution of particular governments, and, above all, the constitution of the government under which they live, will naturally engage attention, and provoke speculation. The power of communication of thoughts and opinions is the gift of God; and the freedom of it is the source of all science--the first fruits, and the ultimate happiness of all society; and therefore, it seems to follow, that human laws ought not to interpose, nay, cannot interpose, to prevent the communication of sentiment and opinions, in voluntary assemblies of men." Here, Gentlemen, we have an eminent legal authority, in addition to the Bishops I have quoted, who declares that "human laws ought not to inter-pose, nay, cannot interpose, to prevent the communication qf sentiment, and opinion." Under what law then can I be condemned? This prosecution goes a step further than any other has gone; it in effect declares that you shall not dispute the truth of the Jewish Scriptures, which I have already shown are superseded by the introduction of Christianity. Paul declares that the Jewish law was only intended to be our schoolmaster to bring us to Christianity; but if Christianity, as is asserted, be part and parcel of the low of England, even then this prosecution has not a log to stand upon. In the "Life and Correspondence of Major Cartwright," however, there is a letter from Jefferson, himself an eminent lawyer, and President of the United States of America, who had deeply studied the laws of England, in which he has proved the fallacy of the notion that Christianity is part of the common law, by showing that the common law had existed long before Christianity was introduced into this country; and that the axiom had its origin and foundation in a misquotation and mistranslation of a decision of Justice Prisot, recorded in the Year Book, substituting the words Holy Scriptures for Ancient Scriptures. Jefferson denominates it a "judiciary forgery," and I hope your Lordship will to-day confirm Jefferson's view, and put an end to this illegal iniquity. Gentlemen, the passage I am about to quote from Jefferson's letter to Major Cartwright, contains the opinion of Justice Prisot, in old French, but I have procured a literal and a free translation, which I will read to the Jury. Your Lordship can refer to the original in the Year Book. "I was glad to find, in your book, a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary which you have adduced is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans; at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you to show when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit, in the year-book, 34 H. 6, fo. 38, (1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court? And Justice Prisot, c. 5, gives his opinion in these words:-- "'A tiel leis que ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient "'To such laws which they of the holy church have in ancient writing, it is proper À nous À donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners for us to give credence; because that is the common law on which all sorts of leis sont lor dÉs--et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obligÉs de conustre leur ley de saint laws are founded--and thus, Sir, we are obliged to know their law of the holy eglise; et semblablement ils sont obligÉs de conustre nostre lev: et, Sir, si church; and in like manner they are obliged to know our law; and, Sir, if poit apperer or Ù nous que Tevesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel it can be shown thus to us that the bishop has done as a layman would in such cas, adonq nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,' &c.(1) See S. C, a case, then we ought this to judge good, or otherwise not at all.
Fitzherbert's Abr. qu. imp. 89. Brown's Abr. qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his first book, c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and misstates it thus, 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture our law giveth credence,' and cites Prisot, mistranslating 'ancien scripture' into 'holy scripture;' whereas Prisot palpably says, 'to such laws as those of holy church have in ancient writing it is proper for us to give credence to wit, to their ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wingate's Maxims, 3; and Sheppard, tit. 'Religion in 1675. copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Year-book, Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words, 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' "It is proper for us to respect the laws which the members of the holy church have in ancient manuscripts, because they are the general source from which all laws are drawn. Thus, Sir, it is necessary for us to be acquainted with ecclesiastical law, and in like manner the judges of the ecclesiastical courts are obliged to understand our law: in consequence, Sir, if it can be shown to us that the ecclesiastical court has decided as a court of civil law would have done in the same case, then we ought to deem the judgment good; but if a civil law court would have decided otherwise, the judgment of the eclesiastical court must be deemed erroneous." "Ventr. 293. 3 Keble, 607, but quotes no authority. By these echoings and reechoings from one to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, 2 Strange, 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law. Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and says, 'that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law,' and cites 2 Strange. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the law of England,' citing Ventris and Strange: and finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans's case in 1767, says, 'that the essential principles of revealed religion are parts of the common law,' thus engulphing Bible, Testament, and all, into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook; and that a mistranslation of the words 'ancien scripture,' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the Court, in Woolston's case, cites Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best-read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to show how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 10th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this between Church and State! Sing Tantararara, Rogues all, Rogues all; Sing Tantararara, Rogues all!" Gentlemen, after hearing this statement from the pen of an educated and eminent lawyer, can you hesitate to return a verdict of acquittal? You have now a complete history of this "judiciary forgery" as Jefferson terms it, before you; and I am satisfied that that which originated in a fraudulent mistranslation, cannot, now that the fraud is detected, long retain the force of law. On this ground, then, I confidently claim your verdict. Gentlemen, I now come to the trade argument--that it is a great hardship and injustice to hold a bookseller responsible for the contents of the books he sells. I am a general bookseller; and so great is the competition, and so fully is my time occupied, that I have no time to spare for reading the various works in my shop, even if I had the inclination. My excellent and amiable son, before his death, and before I had any idea of this prosecution, drew up a paper for the management of my business, by which it appears that upwards of seventy weekly periodicals pass through my hands every week, besides books and many other periodicals that are merely collected to order. Amongst them will be found every possible variety--"The Church of England Magazine," "The Sacred Album," and many others maintaining contradictory and conflicting opinions; but I do not hold myself responsible--either legally or morally--for any of them. I have no right to set myself up as a censor of the press. I sell them all--and am not responsible for any man's opinions upon an abstract or general subject. When the subject matter of a book relates to the people at large, the public alone should decide upon its merits. If the book be a good one, they will support it; if a bad one, they will condemn and reject it. This is the only proper punishment for a bad author. The line of duty I mark out for myself in that I will never sell obscene publications--works that demoralise and corrupt society--nor any attacks upon private character; and if a person comes to me complaining that his character has been falsely and slanderously attacked, I sell no more of that work. What more can be expected from a general bookseller? If the sale of a controversial book is to be suppressed, because it contains a few passages in bad taste, and of objectionable phraseology, then the sale of the Bible itself must be prohibited, for that book contains many passages far more objectionable in the present day than any to be found in "Haslam's Letters to the Clergy." I have here a list of passages from the Bible, of a highly objectionable character; but as I perceive a number of ladies in the court, I will not pollute their ears, nor shock the feelings of the Jury, by reading them. My only object in alluding to them, is to show that if the principle of selecting two or three objectionable passages from a work is to lead to its condemnation, and the punishment of the bookseller, then I might with equal justice be condemned for selling the Bible itself. On this ground, also, I claim and am entitled to your verdict. Gentlemen, the Attorney-General has not done justice to Mr. Haslam; he has dwelt upon the passages contained in the indictment, but has left the Jury in total ignorance of the general nature of the work. In many parts of the book are to be found passages of great beauty. So far from a charge of blasphemy fairly attaching to Mr. Haslam's Letters, he uniformly declares that he rejects the Jewish Scriptures because they are irrational, and dishonour the God "that governs the universe." I will read a passage from his Second Letter, which shows the veneration he entertains for the Deity. "But is it not monstrous, that that power which gives life and motion to millions of worlds; which guides them in their eternal revolutions in the boundless ocean of space, and which preserves them in everlasting order and harmony; is it not monstrous that that power should be represented in this ridiculous point of view? Vain, violent, and boisterous, without the least indication of any thing rational, good, or merciful in any of his proceedings. Such a God may be the God of the Christians, but he is not the God who governs the universe. That God is no more to be compared to the Bible God, than the dazzling sun is to be compared to the glimmering light of a candle." Mr. Haslam's work has many other passages of the same description; and the Attorney-General will see that the passage in the Eighth Letter--almost the only objectionable passage in the work--was not deliberately designed to give offence, when I tell him that the author, in deference to the opinion of his friends, has cancelled the objectionable passage, and re-written it. Now what would the learned Attorney-General have more? The object of prosecution has been always held to be preventive, or corrective, not vindictive. The object sought, then, is already attained. Mr. Haslam has anticipated your wishes by correcting the objectionable passage. Gentlemen, I have urged sufficient, I hope, to induce you to give me your verdict; but before I conclude, I will read a passage from the works of Dean Swift, which is worthy of your profound attention. "Whoever," he says, "could restore, in any degree, brotherly love among men, would be an instrument of more good to society than ever was or will be done by all the statesmen in the world." Gentlemen, let us commence the glorious work to-day. I will tell you how you can do more towards spreading brotherly love among men, than all the statesmen in the world will be able to accomplish. Say to the Government, by your verdict, the publication of opinions shall be free. This will spread brotherly love among men; for what is it that prevents brotherly love from dwelling among men? The odious principle of coercion. I do not believe the Government wish to follow up these prosecutions if they can avoid it. They have a precedent, then, in the case of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Carlile was in prison nearly seven years, and many of his shopmen were imprisoned for various terras. Did such vindictive persecutions change their opinions, or stop the sale of the works prosecuted? Quite the contrary. The individuals became confirmed and strengthened in their opinions, and all the prosecuted works are now on sale in every bookseller's shop in London. The public began to consider them martyrs, and Sir Robert Peel and the Government of that day saw the injustice and cruelty of such proceedings, abandoned all prosecutions, and liberated those whose terms of imprisonment were unexpired. Surely those now in authority are not the men to recommence these prosecutions for matters of opinion; and my quarrel with them is, that they have not the moral courage to reply to the taunts of the Bishop of Exeter, by alluding to this case of Sir Robert Peel's Government; and boldly declaring that henceforth public opinion shall be the only censor. Abolish that hateful principle of coercion for matters of opinion, and mutual toleration, respect, and brotherly kindness, will henceforth prevail. Gentlemen, Christianity gives no sanction to persecution. The religion of Jesus, rightly understood, is a practical and benevolent system. It is founded on two great commandments, love of God and love of Man. The first commandment, in fact, resolves itself into a practical observance of the second; for it is expressly declared that, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"(1) Recollect, Gentlemen, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour."(2) Jesus encourages all men to think for themselves. This is his exhortation--"Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is right?*(3)" But while he has encouraged the exercise of mind, he has not made eternal happiness to depend upon *belief but upon their actions; and the great evil of society is attempting to coerce people into the belief of that which they cannot believe--a system to which, I hope, your verdict to-day will put a stop.
Gentlemen, the Founder of Christianity, in his parable of the Last Judgment, tells us distinctly that men are to be judged by their actions and not by their opinions; for he describes himself as inviting the righteous to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world: "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." He then represents the righteous as saying, "Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee I or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer, Inasmuch AS YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, ye have done it unto me." He then represents himself as denouncing the unrighteous for giving him no meat, nor drink; for not clothing him when naked, nor visiting him when sick; and when they desire to know when he required these things, and they did not minister unto him, he replies, "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me." Here, you perceive, there is no particular belief enjoined, none condemned. All men are to be judged by their actions--not by their belief. Gentlemen, I have now urged all that I deem necessary to ensure an acquittal. I hope you will consider well the consequences of your verdict, and reflect upon the wickedness and impolicy of tearing a man from his family, for selling a book in the ordinary course of his business. If I have said anything in the course of my address to raise a prejudice in your minds, I hope you will discard it, and do justice by pronouncing an acquittal. The Attorney-General claimed his right of reply. He commenced by observing that the Defendant, in his very long address to the Jury, had not advanced anything that would call for many remarks from him, so that he should occupy bu ta very small portion of their time. The Defendant had contended that the blasphemous attack on our holy religion, which they had heard read, was only free inquiry; and had taunted the Government, and himself, who desired the extension of useful knowledge, with having prosecuted this book. But was this book of Haslam's useful knowledge? The Defendant said, Why not answer it? But he, the Attorney-General, contended that it could not be answered. The only way to do with it was to prosecute it. This publication--for the sale of which the Defendant was indicted--was not fair argument and inquiry, but blasphemous invective. The Defendant accused him of not objecting so much to the matter of the publication, as to the price at which it was sold. Not withstanding what the Defendant had said on this point, he, the Attorney-General, contended that the low price at which it was sold made the publication doubly mischievous, as it caused it to circulate among the working classes of society, who were from their habits, incapable of thought or discrimination; their time was so entirely occupied that it was impossible they could devote sufficient time to reading to guard themselves against the evil tendency of such works; while the Jury, and men in their class of life, were, from their education, furnished with an antidote to the poison. If attacks on the Scriptures were to be permitted, what was to prevent the pious feelings of the community from being outraged? Suppose a man were to carry a board through the streets on which was inscribed in large characters, that "Christ was an impostor." Could it be tolerated? Yet this, according to the Defendant, was only free inquiry! Again, suppose any one preferred a republican to a monarchical form of government, and was to excite and recommend the substitution of the one for the other by force of arms, inciting, by inflammatory appeals, the people to murder the Government and the Queen--yet this would be, according to Mr. Hetherington, only free inquiry! The Defendant had said that Mr. Haslam was a Socialist; now the Socialists held an opinion that marriage was an institution that ought to be abolished. If a man, under that plea, were to recommend the seduction of his neighbour's wife or daughter--would any one contend that such opinions should be published with impunity? yet the Defendant considers this the free investigation of opinions; and to prosecute a blasphemous publication, he says, is to prevent freedom of opinion. No one wished to interfere with Mr. Hetherington's private opinion. The policeman, when he went to Mr. Hetherington's shop to purchase the numbers, did not inquire as to his particular belief. If there were persons so unfortunate as to disbelieve the Scriptures--which were the foundation of our holy religion--the law did not interfere with them so long as they kept their opinions to themselves, and did not publicly attack the authenticity of the Bible. Mr. Hetherington had spoken of the effect of prosecution in extending the sale of such publications, alluding particularly to the Poor Man's Guardian; but he, the Attorney-General, called upon the Jury to do their duty by bringing? to punishment those who outraged the law, that others might be deterred from offending. If the Jury looked at the immoral tendency of such writings, and the doctrines of non-responsibility laid down by Mr. Hetherington, who declared that he was neither responsible for his belief, nor his actions-- Mr. Hetherington here interrupted, declaring that the Attorney-General was acting most unfairly towards him. He never used such language, but quite the contrary; what he maintained was, that he was not responsible for his belief but that he was responsible for his actions. If he injured a friend, a neighbour, or a fellow-citizen, he was amenable to society for the injury done. The Attorney-General, he contended, was not replying to him, but perverting his arguments and misrepresenting facts. Lord Denman said that he agreed with the Defendant in the first instance, and therefore he thought he was justified in putting the Attorney-General right; but the Attorney-General, he thought, was entitled to make any remarks upon facts which came out in evidence. Mr. Hetherington (with great vehemence).--But he is mis-stating facts, and making statements calculated to mislead the Jury. Lord Denman.--You must not interrupt. The Defendant.--But my liberty is at stake, and I will speak. (Applause at the back of the court, which was instantly suppressed by the officers.) Lord Denman.--You shall be heard in correction of anything you may think a misrepresentation, afterwards; not in reply, but merely in correction. The Defendant.--Thank you, my Lord. The Attorney-General observed, that the Defendant denied being the publisher, but he would convince the Jury that he was, by reading the title to them. He then read the title of the book--omitting the publisher's name, and reading the name of the Defendant only, till Mr. Hetherington insisted upon his rending the whole title as follows:--"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations, showing the Errors, Absurdities, and Irrationalities of their Doctrines. By C. J. Haslani. Fourth Edition. Manchester: A. Heywood. 56 and 60, Oldham Street. London*; Hetherington, 126, Strand; Cleave, Shoe Lane, Fleet Street; Watson, City Road, Finsbury; and J. Guest, Birmingham; and all Booksellers in Town and Country." The Attorney-General then proceeded.--Conceive, gentlemen, a servant or an apprentice reading this work where the institution of private property was said to be the great evil of society--would he feel any compunction at appropriating the goods or money of his employer to his own use? Would he not find arguments in this work to justify him in his iniquity? Mr. Hetherington had taken credit to himself for disinterested motives, but he feared that he was actuated by mercenary motives--looking only to emolument--careless of the effect it might have on the morals of the unthinking working-classes.(1) He called upon the Jury, by the oaths they had taken on the Holy Gospel--which this book blasphemously attacked--to consider the effect of a verdict of acquittal, and to do their duty to the public. By such a verdict they would license the most infamous attacks on the Holy Scriptures, and would loosen the bonds which held society together.
Mr. Hetherington explained that it was the custom of the trade to place the name of any bookseller, with whom the real publisher did business, on the title-page of the book, and that his name had been so placed by Mr. Hey-wood, of Manchester, the real publisher, without his knowledge. Mr. Heywood was the original publisher; he received no punishment, and was now at liberty. Lord Denman, in summing up, observed, that the law considered the vendor of a work the publisher of it, and that consequently he must be held responsible. It had also been constantly laid down that blasphemy was an offence at common law. In the Defendant's defence, TO WHICH HE HAD LISTENED WITH FEELINGS OF GREAT INTEREST, AYE, WITH SENTIMENTS OF RESPECT TOO, he had complained of the hardship of a general publisher being held responsible for the contents of all the works he might sell, but he had himself answered that argument by the conduct which he stated he pursued with regard to obscene and personally libellous publication, and from the title-page of this work it was scarcely possible not to be, in some measure, aware of its contents. Discussions on a subject, even the most sacred, might be tolerated when they were conducted in a fair spirit; but when appeals were made not to reason but to the bad feelings of human nature, or where ridicule or invective were had recourse to, it could not be considered discussion. As to the impolicy of these sort of prosecutions that was a question with which they had nothing to do; the only question for them to determine was, whether the publication in question was a blasphemous libel, and whether it had been published by the Defendant. The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty. The Attorney-General prayed the immediate judgment of the Court. Lord Denman.--I think the passing sentence had better be deferred, until we have had the opportunity of considering the subject. The Defendant then retired, and the Court adjourned. |
|
