Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

tory of the Christian Church knew that some illustrious members of the Church of England, and some high ornaments of the Bench, had expressed their wish that the Creed of St. Athanasius had been couched in a form less peculiar.

Mr. Justice Bayley, in passing sentence, observed, that the libels in question well merited the epithets bestowed upon them in the information: they were calculated to undermine the foundation of all moral and religious duties, and to bring into ridicule and contempt the sacred ordinances of the Church; to fill the minds, more especially of the lower orders, with light and trivial matters, at a time when they ought to be devoted to the service and adoration of God. The case before the Court was certainly not one of the most aggravated description; but if the defendant had unpremeditatedly been the means of circulating these blasphemous productions, the evil with respect to others was the same a slight perusal of them was sufficient to convince any man who reverenced the sacred institutions of his country, that they were profane and scandalous. It was said, that the Creed of St. Athanasius had been objected to by some of the holiest and ablest men it might be so; but their calm and learned discussion could be no warrant for an intemperate and impious attack like the present. With regard to others who had first been guilty of this offence, they might or might not be more deserving of punishment, the Court always measured its sentences by the circumstances before it, not aggravating the

punishment in the case earliest brought before it, because it is the first, nor diminishing it in the latest, because it is the last. The sentence was that the defendant, for the first libel, should be imprisoned in Winchester gaol for eight calendar months, pay a fine of 100l. and give security for five years, himself in 300l. and two For the sureties in 150l. each. second libel it was ordered, that he should be imprisoned four calendar months.

Sittings after Term, before Mr. Justice Abbot and a Special Jury.

December 18.

The King v. William Hone.— After Mr. Shepherd had stated, that this was an information filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant for printing and publishing a seditious and profane libel on those parts of our church service called the Catechism, the Apostles' Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, to which the defendant had pleaded Not Guilty; the AttorneyGeneral rose, and spoke to the following effect.

After having remarked, from Sir Matthew Hale, that "Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England," he said, that if it were not an offence to revile the solemn service of our church, and to bring it into ridicule, Christianity was no longer parcel of the common law of the land. He then entered more particularly into the object of the prosecution standing for the present day, which was that of a pretection to the Church Catechism, with its appendages, the Apostles' Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. He dwelt with becoming gravity upon these articles; and pointed out the

manner

manner in which, by the effect of parody, ridicule was attempted to be thrown upon each of them. A burst of laughter now issued from the crowd below the bar; upon which Mr. Justice Abbot, addressing the Under-Sheriff, desired that he would place persons who would bring before the Court those who should insult the feelings of the more grave and sober part of the auditors.

The Attorney-General proceeded to say, that if there were any thing in what he had read, which could raise a smile in any man's face, it was evidence enough that the publication was a libel. After some further remarks, witnesses were called in to prove the purchase of a copy of the work in question from Hone's shop, and to identify his place of residence. This was the whole of the prosecution.

Mr. Hone, who acted as his own counsel, then rose to speak; and though unpractsied in the art of addressing a public audience, the impression which he made was very considerable. He began with some observations on an arrest which had been made upon him in the month of May, and in which he found cause of complaint against Lord Ellenborough for excess of rigour. He then proceeded to remark upon the manner in which special juries were struck by the crown officers and in fine he came to the particular object of his trial, which was the charge made against him by the Attorney-General for publishing parodies. There were, he said, two kinds of parodies; one in which a man might convey ludicrous or ridiculous ideas relative

:

to some other subject; the other, where it was meant to ridicule the thing parodied. The latter was not the case in that which he employed, and therefore he had not brought religion into contempt.

He then introduced a number of quotations from different works, which exemplified the different kinds of parodies; but in this sketch it would be superfluous to enter into particulars, especially where it cannot be doubted that all modern examples of prosecutions on this ground have been entirely founded on political reasons.

The Attorney-General in his reply thought it necessary to mention, that Mr. Hone having been formerly arrested and imprisoned, he (the Attorney-General) knowing that the trial could not come on till the present time, had caused him to be discharged on his own recognizance, to appear on a future day. He then made some severe remarks upon Hone, and addressing the jury, entreated them to consider the libel coolly and dispassionately, and compar ing it with what it was designed to ridicule, determine whether it were not a wicked, impious, and profane publication.

Mr. Justice Abbot, in his charge, said, that the question here was not what had been done in former times, but what the defendant had done in the present. He was fully convinced that the production was highly scandalous and irreligious, and therefore libellous; but if the jury were of a different opinion, their verdict would of course be an acquittal.

The jury then withdrew, and returned

returned to the box in less than a quarter of an hour; when it being asked by the Clerk of the Court whether they found the defendant guilty or not guilty, their foreman replied in a firm voice, Not Guilty.

Loud acclamations were instantly heard in all parts of the Court, which continued for several minutes.

The next cause between the King and William Hone was tried at the Court of King's-bench, before Lord Elenborough and a special jury, on December 19. Of the special jury only six making their appearance, the rest consisted of talesmen made up in Court.

The Attorney-General, addressing the jury, said that they were assembled to try a cause of the utmost importance to the constitution of society. It was that of a libel which was a parody of that part of the divine service called the Litany, or General Supplication.

The information charged the defendant with having, for the purpose of exciting impiety and irreligion, and to bring into contempt in the minds of his Majesty's subjects that part of the public service called the Litany, and to apply the style and form of expression there used, to scandalous purposes, had published the libel in question. He then gave the jury a taste of the mode in which this conversion of the true sense of the Litany was effected; but while he was with due gravity applying to the Prince Regent, and the Houses of Lords and Commons, the expressions of a solemn form of devotion, he was disconcerted by the in-lecorous laughter

of a part of the auditory. Recovering from this unexpected attack, he spoke with much seve rity of such interruptions of the courts of justice; and he concluded with saying, that if the defendant's pamphlet were determined not to be a profane libel, there was no insult of the kind that might not be offered to the established religion, and to the sacred writings, with impunity.

The libel was next read by the Clerk of nisi prius. It was entitled "The Political Litany;" and its direct purpose was to convert to a political meaning, the several articles of religious faith, in the order laid down in the original composition.

The case on the part of the Crown being closed, Mr. Hone rose with the intention of commencing his defence. Before he had proceeded to any length, Lord Ellenborough thought it proper to apprize him, that if he wished to show that similar applications or misapplications of texts of Scripture, or what is usually revered by the subjects of the realm, have been made by others as well as himself, he should not receive it.

I have stated (said his lordship) my decided purpose; and you may now use your own discretion whether you will dilate further upon a point which I declare is not judicially admissible!

Mr. Hone. I ask your lordship whether you mean to send me from this place to a prison? If you do not hear me, you do that. If you will not allow me to make my defence to the jury, how can I avoid it?

After some further discussion, his lordship said, Go on, exercise

your

your own discretion. I have stated the rule in intelligent and intelligible terms.

From this time to the termination of the trial almost the only speakers were Lord Ellenborough and Mr. Hone; and although it cannot be supposed that much civility passed between them, yet it does not appear that his lordship's decision respecting what was or what was not judicially admissible, prevented the defendant from bringing into Court the greater part of the parodies which was selected for their hearing.

Lord Ellenborough, in his charge to the jury, declared, that of all the parodies which the defendant had read, he could not find any that bore any proportion to the enormity of the present; and in conclusion he said, that he would deliver there his solemn opinion, as he was required by Act of Parliament to do; and under the authority of that Act, and still more in obedience to his conscience and his God, he pronounced this to be a most impious and profane libel.

The jury retired at a quarter past six, and returned at eight; when the foreman, in a steady voice, pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty.

The third day of Mr. Hone's trial followed on December 20th. Lord Ellenborough sat a second time; and the Attorney-General, observing that the defendant was obviously much wearied by the exertions of the two preceding days, offered, as a matter of favour, to postpone the day. Mr. Hone, however, declined the indulgence, and wished the trial to proceed. The jury consisted of

seven special jurymen, and five talesmen.

The Attorney-General, in addressing them, said that it was his duty to charge the defendant with the publication of a profane libel on that part of the service of the Church of England, which was called the Creed of St. Athanasius. The work in which it was contained was entitled the Sinecurist's Creed; and he read several passages of the work to prove that it was a parody of that of St. Athanasius. The whole was afterwards read by Mr. Law; and whatever be thought of the adoption of the latter creed by the English church, it will scarcely be disputed that the ridicule attempted to be thrown upon it by the Sinecurist's Creed was of the lowest class of productions of that

nature.

Mr. Hone then commenced his defence, which he continued during seven hours and a half with extraordinary spirit, passing in review the whole tribe of parodists, ancient and modern. In the reply of the Attorney-General, and the charge by Lord Ellenborough to the jury, there was evidently a falling off, compared to the decision with which the defendant had been pronounced upon in the former days of the trial; as there was on his part a confident appeal to the sentiments of the jury. At 20 minutes after eight the jury retired to consider their verdict, and returning into Court at 12 minutes before nine, their foreman pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty.

The moment the words were pronounced, a spontaneous burst of applause issued from the crowd

in the Court, which soon extended to the crowd on the outside; and for some minutes the hall and adjoining avenues rang with shouts and acclamations.

Some days afterwards a liberal subscription was entered into for Mr. Hone and his family.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AT THE BAR.

Lancaster, Sept. 10.

Hodgson v. Scarlett.-Mr. Richardson stated the action to be brought by Peter Hodgson, gentleman, for damages on account of words spoken by James Scarlett, Esq. at the last spring assizes in this court.

Mr. Raine.-May it please your lordship, gentlemen of the jury, It often happens to all of us, owing to professional accident, to be engaged in actions painful to our feelings. Painful, I can with truth assure you, the present action is to my feelings. Having travelled in our professional walk, with a gentleman of Mr. Scarlett's character, for more than 26 years, having known him in private life for a still longer period, I cannot be supposed capable, by any who know me, of harbouring an unkind sentiment towards him, and still less of giving utterance to such a sentiment, if I could entertain it but what I owe to my client; what I owe to the profession to which I belong; what I owe, I may say it without arrogance, to myself, oblige me to lay before you the ground of the present action. Peter Hodgson is, and has long been, an eminent attorney in Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland, and applies now to you in consequence

of the wound given to his professional reputation by Mr. Scarlett's language at this bar. The freedom of speech at the bar is of the utmost importance. During the present assize I heard, with much pleasure, Mr. Scarlett descant upon this topic. I could not help believing that he spoke then in anticipation of this action. This freedom of speech is of the greatest importance, not only to the dignity of the bar, but to the interests of the public, whose high and delicate interests are intrusted to the bar. Of this freedom none can be a more strenuous and tenacious friend than I. In importance and utility, I hold it to be of the same rank as freedom of discussion in the Commons' House of Parliament. I have thus made the highest admission in favour of Mr. Scarlett; but bounds must be set to this freedom of speechotherwise, from the greatest blessing, it becomes the bitterest curse that can infest and annoy society. These bounds were overleaped in this case. Mr. Scarlett, while addressing the jury for the defendant in an action in this court, went out of his way to traduce and vilify the character of the attorney for the plaintiff, and to wound his reputation. I shall not go into the particulars of that action: they are not upon the record, and his Lordship will tell you that it was not necessary they should. The words charged, and which we shall prove to have been spoken, are these "Some actions are founded in folly, some in knavery," (Mr. Baron Wood. That is surely true. Mr. Raine. Yes, my Lord, these are certainly truisms, but they are thus connected), "some

« AnteriorContinuar »