Title: The Trial of Henry Hetherington
Author: Hetherington, Henry
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Trial of Henry Hetherington" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

HETHERINGTON ***



                   *THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON*

                                  _By_

                          *Henry Hetherington*

                    _On an Indictment for Blasphemy_



CONTENTS


    A FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON
    THE TRIAL
    INDICTMENT
    Second Count:
    Third Count:
    Mr. Bult opened the proceedings
    DEFENCE
    OBSERVATIONS
    Extract from The Sun Newspaper
    "TO LORD DENMAN, ON THE LATE PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY



A FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON


ON AN INDICTMENT FOR BLASPHEMY,

LORD DENMAN AND A SPECIAL JURY,

ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1840;

FOR SELLING HASLAM’S LETTERS TO THE CLERGY TO ALL DENOMINATIONS:

THE WHOLE OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE DEFENCE, AT FULL LENGTH.

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HENRY HETHERINGTON, 1-26, STRAND;

AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.

1840

Price Sixpence.

To

JAMES WATSON,

BOOKSELLER,

THE FRIEND OF TRUTH, THE INFIDEL TO ERROR, AND THE LOVER OF LIBERTY,

THIS TRIAL

IS DEDICATED,

IN PROOF OF THE AFFECTIONATE ATTACHMENT THAT SUBSISTS BETWEEN TWO
FRIENDS, WHO FULLY RECOGNISE AND ACT UPON THE PRINCIPLES AVOWED AND
CONTENDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING DEFENCE; AND AS A TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM,

TO GOD’S NOBLEST WORK--AN HONEST MAN!

BY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND,

HENRY HETHERINGTON.



THE TRIAL


COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, December 8, 1840.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.

PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY.

THE QUEEN Versus HETHERINGTON.

This was a prosecution instituted by Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, Sir
John Campbell, against Henry Hetherington, bookseller, of 126, Strand,
for the publication of a blasphemous libel.



INDICTMENT


Of Easter term, in the Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria.
Middlesex:--

Be it remembered, that on Tuesday, the twenty-eighth day of April, in
the third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace
of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen,
Defender of the Faith, in the court of our said lady the Queen, before
the Queen herself at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, upon the
oath of twelve jurors, good and lawful men, of the said county of
Middlesex, now here sworn and charged to inquire for our said lady the
Queen for the body of the same county; it is presented as followeth,
that is to say, Middlesex to wit. The jurors for our lady the Queen upon
their oath present, that Henry Hetherington, late of Westminster, in the
county of Middlesex, bookseller, _being a wicked, impious, and
ill-disposed person_, and having no regard for the laws and religion of
this realm, but _most wickedly, blasphemously, impiously, and profanely
devising and intending to asperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible
which is called the Old Testament_, on the third day of February, in the
third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace of
God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender
of the Faith, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did
publish, and cause to be published, a certain scandalous, impious, and
blasphemous libel, of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which
is called the Old Testament, containing therein, amongst other things,
divers scandalous, impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning
that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, according
to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, "What wretched stuff
this Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament) is, to be sure! What a random idiot its author must have
been! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got.
Such a book is actually a disgrace to ourang outangs, much less to men.
I would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know
we believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our
intellects? What must they think of our incredible foolery? And we not
only believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word
of God, as a production of infinite wisdom. Was insanity ever more
complete? I for one, however, renounce the book; I renounce it as a vile
compound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense, as a fraud and a cheat, _and
as an insult to God,"_ to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the
great scandal, infamy, and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which
is called the Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and
against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity.



Second Count:


And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,
that the said Henry Hetherington, devising and intending as aforesaid,
on the eleventh day of February and year aforesaid, at Westminster
aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be
published, a certain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel,
of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, containing therein, amongst other things, divers scandalous,
impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy
Bible which is called the Old Testament, according to the tenor and
effect following, that is to say, "One great question between you and me
is, ’Is the Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called
the Old Testament) the word of God, or is it not? I assert that it is
not the word of God, and you assert that it is; and I not only assert
that it is not the word of God, but that it is a book containing more
blunders, more ignorance, and more nonsense, than any book to be found
in the universe," to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great
scandal and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the
Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace
of our lady the Queen, lier crown, and dignity.



Third Count:


And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,
that the said Henry Hetherington, further devising and intending as
aforesaid, on the day and year last aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid,
in the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be published, a
certain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel of and
concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, containing therein, among other things, divers scandalous,
impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy
Bible which is called the Old Testament, in one part thereof, according
to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, "My object, and I
fearlessly state it, is to expose this book (meaning that part of the
Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament) in such a manner, that the
children of the Stockport Sunday-school will reject it with contempt and
in another part thereof, according to the tenor and effect following,
that is to say,

"Such a book (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the
Old Testament) ought to be rejected by every one. The human race have
been too long gulled with such trash. Moses was the inventor of this
grand cheat; and although it may have done some little towards
frightening people into what is called morality, the purpose for which
Moses invented it is now out of date,

"to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal and
contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of
our lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity."

[Witness] ALEXANDER KERR,

One sworn in court.

A true Bill.

On the names of the gentlemen summoned as Special Jurymen being called
over, only five answered to their names.

The Attorney-General prayed a tales, when the following were sworn:--

The Jury.

Special--

Robert Savage, Esq., 11, Montaguplace, Bloomsbury.

James Arboine, merchant, 3, Brunswick-square.

William Fechney Black, merchant, Wilton-place.

Charles Frederick Barnwell, Esq., 44, Woburn-place.

Robert Eglinton, merchant, 29, Woburn-square.

Common Jurors--

Charles Ricketts, stove-maker, 5, Agar-street, West Strand.

William Polden, licensed victualler, Villiers-street, Strand.

John Osborne, confectioner, 401, Strand.

John Johnson Ruffell, painter, 24, Church-street, Soho.

Thomas Reid, baker, 24, Old Compton-street, Soho.

Charles Phillips, ivory brush-maicer, 20, King-street, Soho. J. Mahew,
baker, 84, Greek-street, Soho.



Mr. Bult opened the proceedings


The Attorney-General said, this was an indictment found by the Grand
Jury of Middlesex, for the publication of certain blasphemous libels. It
appeared to him that all he should have to do, would be to prove the
publication of the libels in question. He had not hesitated for one
moment, when he found there were only five Special Jurymen, to pray a
tales, because it was to him a matter of perfect indifference from what
class of society the Jury was taken. It had frequently been laid down by
the Judges, that to insult and vilify Christianity was against the law.
Publications insulting religion, and addressed to the vulgar and
uneducated, were most dangerous. He would call a witness who purchased
these books in the defendant’s shop, the defendant himself being
present; and he should prove that the defendant was rated to that house.
It gave him pain that it should be necessary for the Jury to hear such
shocking attacks as were contained in this publication. It consisted of
a series of letters, and each number was sold for a penny. It was
"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations" and was, in fact, an attack
upon the Holy Scriptures, particularly on the Old Testament. He should
content himself with reading one extract.--(The learned Gentleman then
read an extract from Letter 8, contained in the first count of the
indictment.) Mr. Hetherington was in person to defend himself: they
would hear what he had to say, and then he (the Attorney-General) would
have an opportunity of again addressing them.

The following witness was then called and examined by Sir F. Pollock.

Alexander Kerr, a policeman, bought the "Letters to the Clergy," 5, 8,
and 13, at the shop of the defendant, 126, Strand, on the 5th of
February last. A young man served him. Knows defendant--he was standing
on the threshold of the door at the time; has known him for the last
three years; has seen him repeatedly at the shop. Paid one penny each
for the letters.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hetherington.--Did not come in his uniform to
purchase them. Came from directions he had received, not from any
reputation the work had acquired. Did not read the fifth number or the
eighth number of the book purchased at the shop. Stated at the Old
Bailey, at the trial of Mr. Cleave, that he had read a copy, but not the
one purchased of defendant. Curiosity induced him to read it. It did not
shake his opinion--it did not make him burn his Bible; quite the
opposite. He is a plainly-educated man. Was instructed to purchase all
he could get at defendant’s shop. Purchased other numbers, but did not
read them. The work produced no effect on him to induce him to follow
the recommendations of the author.

George Sherwill, collector of poor’s-rate for the liberty of the Savoy,
proved that defendant was rated for No. 126.

The libels were then put in and read: first, No. 8 of "Haslam’s Letters
to the Clergy of all Denominations," then 5 of the same work, and then
18.

The Attorney-General said, that was the case for the prosecution.



DEFENCE


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.

    _"’My unsoiled name, the austereness of my life,_
      _Will vouch against it,_
    _And so the accusation overweigh_
      _That it will stifle in its own report,_
    _And smell of calumny.’_

"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)

    1. As my defence had extended to a great length, I was anxious
    to spare the time of the Jury, and did not, therefore, trouble
    them with the whole of this letter. I merely described the
    nature of it, and read the last paragraph, being the only
    portion applicable to my purpose; but as I deem the letter a
    valuable curiosity, and worthy of preservation, I have inserted
    it entire.

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._

      1. _Translation read to the Jury._

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.

      1. 1 John iv.; 20,
      2. Rom. xiii.; 10,
      3. Luke xii.; 57

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.

    1. This comes well from a gentleman who descended from his high
    professional position to attend at the Old Bailry, for a fee of
    £. 100, to plead for a man charged with murder.

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.



OBSERVATIONS


The renewal of a series of Government prosecutions for alleged
blasphemy, will justify me in accompanying the publication of the
foregoing trial with a few words of comment.

The points upon which I deem it my duty to animadvert--are the conduct
of the Government, the Attorney-General, and the Jury.

I consider that the Government have acted towards me, in this
prosecution, in a very unjustifiable manner. They first placed Mr.
Cleave on his trial for selling the fifth, eighth, and thirteenth
numbers of Haslam’s Letters. He pleaded _Not Guilty_, but was convicted
(after an able and convincing speech from his-Counsel, Mr. Chambers), by
as stupid a Jury as ever sat in judgment on an honest man. The Judge
sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, and a fine of £20. Such was
the force of public opinion, however, on the injustice and impolicy of
such prosecutions, that Mr. Cleave was liberated, upon paying the fine,
after five weeks’ imprisonment.

The trial of Mr. Heywood, the original publisher, came next. His known
integrity and respectability had attached to him many influential
friends, who represented to the Government the folly and injustice of
these proceedings, and Lord Normanby at length yielded to their
importunities, by agreeing, on condition that he pleaded guilty, that
Mr. Heywood’s prosecution should proceed no further. Mr. Heywood
complied, and was left at liberty, on entering into his own
recognizances, to appear when called upon.

Public opinion unequivocally declared that such prosecutions were
indefensible, and it was very generally believed that the Government
would abandon them from a conviction of their injustice and impolicy.
Instead of which they proceeded against me for selling the same numbers
of the identical work that Messrs. Cleave and Heywood had been
prosecuted for selling, though the punishment of Mr. Cleave was
remitted, and the Government compounded blasphemy in the case of Mr.
Heywood. To injure and annoy honest and industrious tradesmen, because
the author of a book has in two or three instances expressed his ideas
in vulgar and objectionable phraseology, is unworthy of an enlightened
Government. I feel pity for the Jury who could ignorantly pronounce a
verdict of guilty against a man who never wilfully injured a
fellow-creature, merely because he had sold a book that combated the
established opinions of the day; but I entertain very different
sentiments against the Government that could institute and carry forward
prosecutions of this nature, when, from their superior knowledge, they
must be fully aware of the iniquity of their proceedings. They encourage
"reason and free inquiry," while it favours their objects; and they
persecute and ruin all those, who, by the exercise of reason and free
inquiry, arrive at conclusions adverse to the established opinions of
society. The time has passed, however, for a renewal of persecution for
matters of opinion. No Government can stand that will attempt it; and I
tell Her Majesty’s Government, that when they interfere with the
religious or anti-religious opinions of the people, they step out of
their province,--and to inflict punishment upon either the original
publisher or the general bookseller, who supplies all works to order,
for the opinions contained in the works they respectively publish or
sell, is an odious act of tyranny that good men of every opinion should
denounce and oppose. I, for one, will never sanction or submit to such
tyranny. Whether any and what sentence will be passed upon me I know
not; but I have made up my mind that I will maintain, at all risks, and
under every privation, to the utmost extent of my ability and means, the
right of all men to freely publish their opinions upon every subject of
general interest--whether social, political, or religious; aye, or
anti-religious,--and if the Government would receive a suggestion from
me, I would suggest to them to take their stand on this glorious
principle--perfect freedom is the formation AS PUBLICATION OF OPINIONS
FOR EVERY SECT AND PARTY. That is the most effectual way to elicit truth
upon all subjects; and I would respectfully ask them, whether they ever
knew the truth injure any sect or party that was disposed to act
honestly?

I hope the Government will reflect upon the injustice and impolicy of
this new crusade against the free expression of opinion, adopt my
suggestion, and abandon all prosecutions against those who honestly
controvert the received opinions of society.

Having now expressed my feelings with regard to the conduct of the
Government, I must say a word or two respecting the behaviour of the
learned Attorney-General towards me, on my trial. He made very few
observations in opening the case, but reserved himself for his Reply; a
privilege which I think he was not entitled to, as I called no
witnesses. Had I anticipated he would have claimed the privilege of
reply, and abused it in the shameful manner that he did, I could have
overthrown, by witnesses, the false impression which he so unjustly
laboured to establish on the minds of the Jury--that I was the publisher
of the work, because my name was affixed to the book first of the London
agents. What is the object of a reply? It is to answer the facts and
arguments adduced by the Defendant; to show that he has reasoned
illogically; and to point out to the Jury, succinctly and clearly* the
points in which he has failed to answer the charge laid against him in
the indictment. In addition, however, to this base attempt to hold me up
to the Jury as the original publisher, the Attorney-General obviously
sought to make the Jury believe--(and there is every reason to think
that he triumphed in this his unjust attempt to injure me)--that I
claimed immunity not only for my belief but my actions, When I insisted
upon setting him right, by showing him the utter falsehood of his
assertion, in which I was supported by Lord Chief Justice Denman, he
treacherously aimed at fixing upon me the consequences of doctrines to
which I had not even adverted in my speech, and which had no reference
whatever to the subject then before the Court. He basely insinuated that
I was virtually claiming immunity for all acts of aggression--such as
robbery, murder, seduction, unjustifiable rebellion, and assassination
of the Queen; striving to raise in the minds of the Jury a confusion
between the right of freedom of opinion and the wrong of licentious
action! This, too, was slanderously repeated, after my open appeal to
the Court against such malignity; and this the learned Attorney-General
calls availing himself of his privilege of reply! I was not allowed to
answer these falsehoods of the Attorney-General; though, as the accused
party, I was in justice, if not in law, entitled to every opportunity of
making the truth apparent to the Jury.

As to the Jury--What shall I say of them? I can only pity men who
exhibited such woful ignorance and imbecility as to be led away by
misrepresentations that had not even the appearance of truth. Let me ask
the Jury one simple question. They were bound by their oath to give a
true verdict according to the evidence. Now let me ask them, was there
any evidence of BLASPHEMY?

The evidence adduced merely proved the sale of a certain book. There was
no evidence that the contents of the book were blasphemous. This
question--(that is to say, the very question in dispute--the question
whether or not there was any blasphemy)--this question was decided by
Judge and Jury without an iota of evidence, without even an attempt at
any evidence bearing Upon it. The opinions of the Judge and Jury decided
the question of the indictment---Was there blasphemy or no! There was no
evidence at all upon it. Gentlemen of the Jury--common and special--was
your verdict in accordance with the EVIDENCE brought forward for your
enlightened consideration--was your verdict in accordance with the terms
of your oath? The verdict to which I was entitled from honest and
reasoning men was the following:--either a direct "Not Guilty of
blasphemy"--or this, "Guilty of selling a certain book concerning the
nature of which wc=e have had no evidence"--matters of opinion not
being, in fact susceptible of evidence.

  H. HETHERINGTON.

I cannot close these Observations without tendering my best thanks to
the editor of _The Sun_ for the zeal and ability with which, in a
succession of leading articles, he defended the right of Free Inquiry
and the Free Publication of Opinions. The _Morning Chronicle_ published
an impartial report of the Trial, and gave a good leading article on the
subject. The _Morning Advertiser_ and the _Weekly Chronicle_ also
published a fair report of the Trial. The _Weekly Dispatch_ and The
_Statesman_ are both entitled to thanks for their advocacy of Truth and
Liberty, in reference to the principle contended for in my Defence. The
three Letters of Publicola, in The _Weekly Dispatch_, are invaluable;
and I regret that I cannot find room for the whole of them in this
pamphlet, without considerably enhancing its price and defeating my own
object of extensive circulation for my Trial. They are worthy of a
distinct publication. I can only fill up the space I have left by the
insertion of the following excellent article from _The Sun_ of Friday,
December the 11th, 1840, and Publicola’s Letter to Lord Chief Justice
Denman.--H. H.



Extract from The Sun Newspaper


We brought evidence yesterday to show that the suppression of objections
to the Scriptures by penal enactments is tyrannical, unjust, and absurd,
and that the law is partially administered. If we return to the subject,
it is from a deep sense of its almost immeasurable importance. Our whole
internal A policy, nearly, is framed with a view to support the Church.
The Church is founded, or rather pretends to be founded, on the Bible;
but we are now told by the decision of the Jury on Tuesday, that it is a
crime to object to its statements. The happiness of society, then, is to
be chained and bound by principles and doctrines, which society must not
examine; for if men must not object, what is the use of examination?

"We see disorder pervading every part of society. The poor are set
against the rich, and the rich are zealously engaged in oppressing and
coercing the poor. Crime increases, and though more churches are
building, religion is decaying. The remedies suggested for our
disorders, within the bounds sanctioned by the Church, are more numerous
than the disorders themselves; but though confusion and anarchy threaten
us, the law forbids men to say aught against principles which our rulers
have followed, while society has been brought into its present
condition.

"What the law now decrees against what it calls blasphemy, it decreed,
not two centuries ago, against witchcraft. It now denounces the former
as displeasing to God; it then denounced the latter for the same
offence. Men and women were in those less humane days burned for
displeasing God, while now they are only fined and incarcerated. By the
progress of knowledge, lawyers, both barristers and judges, have been
compelled to give up that portion of the perfection of human reason, and
the law against witchcraft has become obsolete. If our view of the law
for suppressing objections to the Scriptures, under * the name of
blasphemy, be correct, it is not more reasonable than the law against
witchcraft. While no lawyer, however, will now lend himself to revive
the latter or carry it into execution, there are numbers, we say it to
the disgrace of the profession, zealous and eager to apply the former,
at least to the penny tracts which are addressed to the poor.

"It is therefore with deep regret that we saw so eminent a man as the
Attorney-General lending himself to this sorry work. We are ready to
admit, as a Tory contemporary has stated, that he has done his duty, and
he finds his reward in the praise of the Tories. Nor did he show, as far
as we can learn, certainly not in his reply, any reluctance to perform
it; people say he did it as if he had something to atone for, and was
rather eager to gain the approbation of Bishop Philpotts. His labours
were crowned with a success which his own party reprobate. In
Westminster Hall he has triumphed, but an appeal lies from that to the
world; and even the Whigs, who have heretofore denounced prosecutions
for blasphemy as for witchcraft, consider that in the last resort he
will sustain a terrible defeat.

"Mr. Hetherington has already suffered in body and mind, in purse and
health; and probably awaits with apprehension the sentence, which may
consign him to prison and ruin. He is down-stricken by the law; but
those who have read his defence, and prefer reason to legal fictions,
will place him far above the triumphant Attorney-General. He made an
admirable pleading for free inquiry, which plain John Campbell
instituted a prosecution to suppress. In his reply Sir John so far
overstepped the bounds of propriety, that the Defendant would not allow
him to proceed, and was supported by the Court. In a bad cause the
Attorney-General used poisoned weapons. He upheld a prosecution for
blasphemy, which is as ridiculous as a prosecution for witchcraft, and
descended to misrepresent the accused. With our opinion of the law he
was enforcing, we are bound to say that Sir John Campbell should have
left such a duty to be performed by some taker of a half-guinea fee, who
never got beyond the precincts of the Old Bailey. It was wholly unworthy
of an eminent lawyer, who has risen into political power as a professed
friend of free discussion. The slaves to lust have some pleasure for
their punishment, but the servants of the grimgribber of Westminster
Hall, who sacrifice present fame to a sense of duty to it, reap little
more than disgrace for their nauseous drudgery.

"Sir John Campbell prosecuted Mr. Hetherington, in the language of the
indictment, for being ’a wicked, impious, and ill-disposed person,
having no regard to the laws of this realm, but most wickedly,
blasphemously, impiously, and profanely devising and intending to
asperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament.’ Now, having no respect whatever for the fictions of the law,
we have no hesitation in branding such accusations of a publisher as a
monstrous tissue of falsehoods, and to affirm that it is a disgrace to
any man who has the least respect for truth, to defend such a charge. We
care not about its being the customary language of the law, for truth
and men’s liberties are not to be sacrificed by and for such
absurdities.

"Further, this said aspersing and vilifying the Bible is said by Sir J.
Campbell, at least such is the language of the indictment, which he used
arguments to sustain, to be greatly ’to the displeasure of Almighty
God.’ Who knows that? What worm dares to say that the Almighty God is
displeased with another worm for uttering or writing a few words.’ Who
is the vain and arrogant man that claims for himself the task of
interpreting the thoughts of the Most High, and demanding that a man be
punished for having displeased Almighty God? What name does the Court
deserve which, being instituted to do justice and protect the people,
punishes one of them because he displeases the Almighty? Can He not
punish those who displease Him? To doubt it, to undertake to protect or
avenge Him, to describe Him as displeased, while he showers prosperity
and contentment on the man said to displease Him, is far more impious,
more blasphemous, more dangerous to religion than anything Mr.
Hetherington ever published, or Mr. Haslam wrote. Such, however, was the
crime charged against Mr. Hetherington, which Sir John Campbell
endeavoured to substantiate, and of which a Jury, who are as much
deserving of reproach as the prosecutor, found him guilty. Such is the
crime for which the Court will hereafter pass sentence, undertaking,
like the Inquisition, to decide for the Almighty, and punish actions as
displeasing to Him, at which He, by the course of nature, shows no
displeasure.

"At the present time, when a great portion of the Whig press will
support the Attorney-General or be silent, leaving _The Sun_ to defend
the great principle of free inquiry and free printing, as they left it
to defend the same sacred and noble cause when it was assailed in the
person of Mr. Harmer, we think it our duty not to be silent. As we
should assail any Tory Attorney-General who had instituted such a
prosecution, or carried it on, so we cannot allow it to pass
unstigmatized because it has been instituted by a Whig Attorney-General.
We know that the wisest and best politicians of the party deprecate such
proceedings, and not the less because they will call forth in many
independent journals, to the injury of the Whigs, an expression of
honest indignation."



"TO LORD DENMAN, ON THE LATE PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY


Mr Lord Chief Justice.

"Your conduct on the Bench, upon the recent trial, ’The Queen v.
Hetherington,’ for a religious libel, a nominal and an impossible
offence, the fiction of fraudulent bigotry, has much increased the high
esteem in which you have been always held by the public. Your Lordship’s
opinions on this impolitic, irreligious, and thoroughly infamous species
of prosecution have oft-times been expressed with the integrity and high
moral courage that have ever distinguished your public life. I never
shall forget the manliness with which I heard you avow from the Whig
Treasury Benches, in the House of Commons, in your place as Attorney
General, your detestation of indictments for religious opinions; and the
House hailed you when you fairly acknowledged your deep regret that, as
Common Serjeant, you had been obliged, in obedience to your oath and to
the law, to impose even the smallest punishment possible upon three men
convicted by an ignorant Jury of a libel on the Scriptures; and you were
still more cheerfully received when you expressed your joy at the
liberation of the prisoners whom you had so unwillingly punished. There
was one part of your speech that did not certainly satisfy me. I respect
your sense of obligation to an oath; but when you punished men whom you
conscientiously believed to be undeserving of infliction, and this ’in
obedience to the law,’ your Lordship might have reflected, that it was
not Parliamentary, but Judge-made law--’Common-law,’ as it is called;
and you might have acted upon the principle that if a corrupt and
ignorant Judge made a law to suit the prejudices of a brutal age, a pure
and well-informed Judge might reverse that law in favour of an age more
humane and more enlightened. I recollect with great satisfaction that
when, in the case of Lord Langford, the Counsel, Mr. Thesiger, asked a
witness (Mr. Nathan, a Jew) ’what religion he was of?’ your Lordship
expressed your strong displeasure; and, under your Lordship’s sanction,
the witness refused to answer the interrogatory, and treated both the
query and the querist with the utmost contempt; and the whole Court and
audience seemed strongly to approve of the result. In the recent trial
your Lordship’s conduct was a contrast to that of your immediate
predecessors on the Bench, Lords Tenterden and Ellenborough, the last
representatives of a most disgraceful school of political, prejudiced,
corrupt Court Judges. You did all in your power to induce the Jury to
acquit the accused. I am now credibly informed that the Attorney-General
had the same object at heart; and having, intentionally, gone in a most
slovenly and unimpressive manner, through his technical duty, he was
abashed and mortified when he heard the verdict of guilty. Familiar as
he must be with the extreme ignorance, stupidity, and corruption of
Juries, on such occasions, he was still surprised at such a verdict. I
am willing to give him credit for these common reports in his favour;
but should the Government be so infatuated as to bring the defendant up
for judgment, the country expects of you, my Lord Denman, that the
sentence will be nominal, and that it will be accompanied by your
reprobation of all such trials.

"If it be true that hope is the last passion that leaves a man, equally
true is it that the spirit, the accursed spirit of religious
persecution, is the last passion that man deserts, or is willing to
abandon. I sincerely believe that if the alternative were put to a
hundred dying men, at their last, moment of consciousness, at their last
gasp of breath, whether they preferred their own future salvation or
beatitude, or the persecution of man upon earth for conscientious
differences of opinion on religious subjects, full ninety-nine out of
the hundred would choose the latter, on the ground of its being the
turnpike-road to the former, and from the inherent delight in the spirit
of religious intolerance. Fanaticism is the primeval curse of our
nature. From its first victim Abel, to the present hour, it has raged
through the human race. Moral sins and physical or corporeal diseases in
the course of ages wear themselves out, or can be cured by instruction
or medical treatment; but the most foul, leprous, and crime-engendering
of all maladies that flesh is heir to, fanaticism--call it if you
please, bigotry or superstition--admits of no cure, and of little
mitigation. If this hellhound were now let loose from the restraints of
law, we should in one year have every gaol and dungeon full of
prisoners, and in another, the fires and faggots of the olden times
would be raging more fiercely than of yore, and more furiously in this
country than in any other. Whatever Catholics might have been in the
middle ages, there has been more of religious persecution in Great
Britain and Ireland, in the last century, than in all the Catholic
countries of Europe within the same period. On the Continent the spirit
is on the wane; in England it is on the increase.

"My Lord Denman, in the very abstraction of our individual nature, and
of the nature of society, a court of justice cannot take cognizance of
opinions. Its functions are confined exclusively to facts. Can any two
classes of things be more distinct and opposite? The one is fixed, the
other perpetually varying. Law, cultivated reason and common sense have
rescued subjects of opinion from judicial interference, except with
respect to politics and religion, the two which of all others most need
the exemption. The interference of courts of justice with religious
opinions had immensely decreased, and it is now reviving; but it is in
your Lordship’s power to annihilate it by passings nominal sentence on
the defendant. The effects or results of a fact are ascertainable; those
of an opinion are but speculative and uncertain. There is not in
existence, there never has existed, and probably never can exist, a
religious opinion that has not been deemed blasphemous, and of a
destructive tendency to morals and social peace, by its opponents, who,
if they had been strong enough, have relied upon the arguments of
torture and death, or punishments as severe as society would permit.

"My Lord, legism, or jurisprudence, are sufficiently understood to
render it indisputable that punishments cannot be vindicatory or
retrospective, and less than either, vindictive. All religious
prosecutions seek only for revenge. The object of a legal punishment
relates solely to the prevention of the offence. If a sentence against
Mr. Hetherington cannot effect this object, it cannot be justified. Will
a sentence alter his opinions? will it alter conscientiously that of any
class or single member of society? and, above all, will it stop or check
the dissemination of his doctrines? The two first points are nugatory;
the last is defeated in its pretended object. All history and experience
prove that persecution, let its form or degree be what it may, increases
that which it is meant to destroy. Whether the tyrant be called Pope or
Inquisition, Attorney-General or Court of Queen’s Bench, the principle
and the result are the same.

"Every religion, church, and sect, that exists or is defunct, in Europe
and in Asia, from the earliest record, has had at its origin, and
through its infancy, to encounter obloquy and persecution. The Jewish
religion received animation and vigour from the contempt and cruelties
of surrounding polytheists, and the Jews sought in one God a protection
from the horrors which had been inflicted on them by the worshippers of
many; and well did this atrocious people revenue themselves 011 their
former persecutors, and this by assuming their own claim to the right of
punishing men for differing in opinions. The progress of Christianity
was accelerated by the Jews, in their attempts to crush it by inflicting
an ignominious and most cruel death on an innocent individual, under
that absurd fiction of blasphemy, in the foul name of which your
Lordship is now called upon to punish, against your will, another
innocent individual. If blasphemy has any meaning, its definition must
be--’a resistance to a predominant priestcraft.’ Every religion, at its
commencement, is but a confluent mass of blasphemies to the
previously-established religions; and persecution is the reverse of
annihilation, Where would Protestantism have been but for its
persecution by the Catholics, and _vice versa_? From the dawn of
Protestantism in England, under Wycliffe, and the burning of the first
Protestants by the priests, in the reign of the Hero of Agincourt (what
a hero!) down to the death of Mary, English Protestants were tortured,
burnt, hanged, and punished, and yet the religion spread. Throughout
Germany the same effects proceeded from the same cause. Our English
persecutions of the Catholics in Ireland have been long, incessant, and
too dreadfully cruel to reflect upon, and yet Catholicism has increased
under them. We have not one respectable sect in England that has not
arisen in despite of persecution, and increased by means of it, and
these, with hundreds or thousands of other instances (for history
abounds with them), prove that persecution or punishment does not, and
cannot, effect the object in view; and that, consequently, punishment
cannot be justified by its only legitimate principle of
justification--utility. It is madness to punish for an offence which
must be increased by the very nature of the punishment. Formerly, in
punishments for blasphemy, men, women, and children were burnt and put
to every variety of torture, for the good of their souls--now, we
substitute for the word soul, the phrase--’_the security of society_,’
or other jargon equally nonsensical. The Court of Inquisition was, and
is, wherever it exists, more honourable than the Protestant Court of
Queen’s Bench, for the Inquisitors tortured and destroyed for the sake
of the soul, but our Courts punish only for the profit of the priest.
The old plea, the impudent and barbarous plea, of ’Benefit of Clergy,’
is annulled by law, and yet an indictment for blasphemy is nothing more
or less than a process for the ’Benefit of Clergy.’ Thus, my Lord, have
I humbly attempted to prove that your punishment of this individual will
be in strong and violent opposition to the principles, opinion, and
feelings which you have avowed on the Ministerial Benches of the House
of Commons; and if the Whig Administration is so infatuatedly base as to
call the defendant up for punishment your Lordship will be in the
unenviable position of passing a sentence, as Lord Chief Justice of
England, against the nature, principles, and objects of which you have
expressed little less than abhorrence in the character of Her Majesty’s
Attorney-General in the House of Commons. At that period, my Lord, you
were the freely and most honourably chosen representative of one of the
largest and most enlightened constituencies of Great Britain--the town
of Nottingham--and your constituents expressed no dissatisfaction at
your speech. Is there not a sympathy between Nottingham and other large,
and populous, aud enlightened towns and cities, and between them all and
the general population of the empire? I have likewise, my Lord, shown,
to the best of my very humble abilities, as a legist, that any
punishment inflicted on this individual, violates the only principle on
which all punishments can be justified--the prevention of the
offence--if it be one.

"What, in other respects, will be the effects of this brutal
prosecution? Burn Mr. Hetherington alive,--slowly roast him, torture him
by every device, hang him, quarter him, and stick his head on
Temple-bar, and his quarters on the gates of four of our principal
cathedral towns, as in all such cases used to be the practice of our
most pious Christian ancestors in ’the good old times’--or let your
Lordship pass the most lenient sentence on him, and what will be the
result? Will any thing be proved, disproved, strengthened, or
invalidated, by either mode of punishment? If divines or laymen argue
upon the Scriptures _in toto_ or in parts, _en masse_ or in detail,
could any of the disputants establish his point by arguing that Mr.
Hetherington or Mr. Snookes, for the names are indifferent, was or was
not in gaol, or that the sentence was six days’ or six months’
incarceration--how would the case stand syllogistically? A asserts that
the Bible ought to be burnt--A is not prosecuted--ergo, the Bible ought
to be burnt. B asserts that the Bible ought to be burnt--B is
prosecuted--B is acquitted by the Jury--ergo, the Bible ought to be
burnt. C asserts that the Bible ought to be burnt--C is prosecuted--C is
found guilty--ergo, the Bible ought not to be burnt. Again, D, E, F, and
G, are prosecuted for saying that the Bible ought to be burnt. They are
all found guilty under different Judges, and their sentences vary from
three, six, twelve, and eighteen months’ imprisonment. Here the public
mind is in utter confusion between the cases of A, B, and C, and between
the ratios of punishment inflicted on D, E, F, and G, I have gone to the
extent of the musical gamut. Ratios might be calculated by
arithmeticians aud algebraists. Thus--’As burning the Bible is to the
acquittal of B,--so is not burning the Bible to the sentence on D, E, F,
or G." Really, my Lord, as a man of the most cultivated intellect, you
must see the monstrous absurdity, the atrocious cruelty, of subjecting
opinions on Scriptures to ’Trial by Jury.’ If opinions on a book are to
be brought before a Jury, so might its author. I speak in no disrespect
of Scriptures, but I speak in utter disgust and abhorrence of bringing
them before Juries. What, in fact, does a verdict of ’Guilty’ or ’Not
Guilty’ amount to, in case of an opinion on the Scriptures? The ignorant
Jury men unwittingly set themselves above the Scriptures, and tyrannise
over the Deity himself. The impiety lies all in the Jury, and not in the
accused. The trial my Lord, proceeds entirely on the conceded point that
the Scriptures are the word of God; a word is an empty, unintelligible,
worthless sound, except by the interpretation put upon it; and if the
Jury will be the interpreters, they are the authors of the word, and
usurp the powers of the Deity. God may say ’this is my word and
commandment,’ and a Jury replies, ’the substance utility,
intelligibility of a word depend entirely upon the meaning attached to
it, and we Jurymen will put and make all other men put what construction
we please, upon it, under pains and penalties, so that the word is not
yours, but ours.’ A Defendant may argue, ’my construction is a matter
between my conscience and my God.’ The verdict replies, ’God has nothing
to do with it; your construction is entirely a case between your
conscience and us Jurymen, stock-brokers, bill-brokers, pawnbrokers,
gambling-house-keepers, and, peradventure, keepers of houses of a still
worse description.’ My Lord Denman, the manly character of your mind
will make you fearlessly grapple with this important subject, and will
induce your Lordship to feel that I have as fearlessly and as honestly
stated the merits of the case. Pause, my Lord, before you ruin, and
almost torture a man, for whose defence you have expressed respect from
the Judgment-seat, and this by a sentence for the nature and principles
of which you have publicly and officially declared an abhorrence.

"Our laws, Lord Denman, lay down a principle that every man is presumed
to be acquainted with the business, profession, or study to which he
belongs, or to which he has devoted himself. The converse--a most
rational converse, is that he is unacquainted with what he does not
belong to, or has not studied; or, in plain terms, that he is
unacquainted with that of which he knows nothing. Sir Isaac Newton would
have been a most ignorant Juryman upon a case resting upon the details
of business in the butter trade of Cork; and a Mr. Jones, in that trade,
would be an equally ignorant Juryman on a case involving the complex
observations and abstract calculations of Sir Isaac’s Observatory.
Shakspeare, as a Juryman, would have been puzzled to determine a
disputed point of commerce; and a tradesman would be as equally
perplexed in deciding a point upon the machinery of Arkwright, or the
steam-engine of Watts. In the present case, a man named Haslam, (but the
name is immaterial, for I apply myself to abstractions and not to
individuals,) has devoted himself to the study of a subject. He is
evidently a man of strong mind, of great knowledge, and of the most
honest intentions. On many points I differ with him, but individual or
public difference is not the case at issue. His very able work is
submitted, not to the public mind, but to ’Trial by Jury;’ and its
merits or demerits are determined upon by merchants, brokers, tradesmen.

"Our laws, Lord Denman, lay down a principle that every man is presumed
to be acquainted with the business, profession, or study to which he
belongs, or to which he has devoted himself. The converse-a most
rational converse, is that he is unacquainted with what he does not
belong to, or has not studied; or, in plain terms, that he is
unacquainted with that of which he knows nothing. Sir Isaac Newton would
have been a most ignorant Juryman upon a ease resting upon the details
of business in the butter trade of Cork; and a Mr. Jones, in that trade,
would be an equally ignorant Juryman on a case involving the complex
observations and abstract calculations of Sir Isaac’s Observatory.
Shakspeare, as a Juryman, would have been puzzled to determine a
disputed point of commerce; and a tradesman would be as equally
perplexed in deciding a point upon the machinery of Arkwright, or the
steam-engine of Watts. In the present case, a man named Haslam, (but the
name is immaterial, for I apply myself to abstractions and not to
individuals,) has devoted himself to the study of a subject. He is
evidently a man of strong mind, of great knowledge, and of the most
honest intentions. On many points I differ with him, but individual or
public difference is not the case at issue. His very able work is
submitted, not to the public mind, but to ’Trial by Jury;’ and its
merits or demerits are determined upon by merchants, brokers, tradesmen
and jobbing peculating Jurymen called ’Tales.’ as totally ignorant of
Mr! Haslam’s studies and works, as he most probably is of their
different lines of traffic. Is this a test of the merits of the case? Is
this any barometer of the truth of the Gospel, of public feeling, or of
the intelligence of our population?

"My Lord Denman, the Attorney-General, tried, in the usual slang of his
profession, or rather of his office, to attach moral imperfection and
social dangers to speculative points of theology-to points of creed. We
have now on our Bench, including Ireland and Scotland, Catholic Judges,
Judges belonging to the Church of England, to the creeds of the
Baptists, Anabaptists, Unitarians, and to the no-creeds of the Deists,
and yet what barrister, attorney, or client, ever complained of a Judge
on account of his creed or his construction of the Scriptures? In
Ireland we have Catholic Judges, in Scotland Presbyterian, and in
England Judges of the Clutch, and of every dissenting sect, and yet,
when in ’Term time,’ a new Trial is moved for, on account of a
misdirection of a Judge, who ever heard of the misdirection lying
attached to the Judge’s creed? The Solicitor-General of Ireland is a
Catholic, the Attorney-General of England is a Presbyterian (if he has
any religion at all), and the Solicitor-General of England is of the
Church (the refuge of all sceptics), and what does this amount to with
respect to the discharge of their duties? Lord Chancellors Shaftesbury
and Thurlow, and very many others, were avowed Deists, and yet in moving
the House of Lords to set, their judgment aside, their creeds or
opinions were never put upon the briefs.

"Let me suppose, my Lord, that our most pious Monarch, George the Third,
had indicted David Hume, the most perfect, of unofficial characters; or
Adam Smith, a great benefactor of his species; or Edward Gibbon, the
most illustrious of historians, for their Atheism or Deism; and let me
state the fact, that the pious Monarch bestowed upon them all very good,
and, in one instance, very confidential employments, what difference
does this make? in either case the men, their public functions, and
their doctrines, would have been equally at issue with public opinion at
the present day. The merchant, in reading Adam Smith; the philosopher,
in studying the superior works of Hume; and the scholar, in tracing
Gibbon’s magnificent outline and correct details of Roman history, never
condescend to inquire whether the authors were patronised by a pious or
an impious monarch, or whether they were indicted by a Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, or Atheistical Attorney-General--the slave of an order
from the Secretary of State’s office. This species of scrutiny expired
years ago, and why should it be revived?

"My Lord Chief Justice Denman, the eyes of the country, and of foreign
countries, are upon you. The issue of your sentence is the same, except
to the individual; for, liberate him, you respond but to the voice of
all enlightened men throughout Europe; incarcerate him, and by passing
an inhuman sentence upon an innocent man, you enforce a judgment that
you have promulgated in Parliament to be abhorrent in principles and
feelings, and this will produce a powerful redaction.

"PUBLICOLA."

                                  ————



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Trial of Henry Hetherington" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.