paid to this question through its progress, he could not but regret that there should be any necessity for him to take up more of their time in the way of reply. Certainly, as far as the defence referred to the charge upon the record, such reply might well be spared; for if any doubt had existed in their minds when the case for the prosecution was closed, as to the intention with which this work had been published, it had been already removed by the open declaration of the defendant, who upon such a question must be deemed the best witness. Were it not, therefore, for some observations that had been made upon the law in this case, he should have felt that he would best discharge his duty by remaining silent. If he had not been previously acquainted with the defendant's object, it was impossible to be ignorantof it any longer. A correspondence had been read between Mr W. Smith and Mr Bentham, which he had not before had an opportunity of seeing, but which of itself proved what the intention of the Legislature was in passing the statute of the 53d of the King, as well as of those who introduced it. Its authors, and those for whose benefit it was enacted, were grateful, and never entertained the most distant idea that it would be converted into a shelter for blasphemy and impiety. They never imagined that it would lead to an endeavour to strike out of our constitution every Christian doctrine, and introduce atheism, polytheism, or any other notions which it might please any individual to circulate. The time had fortunately not yet arrived, when the defendant, or any of those who fed him with the materials of his defence, would see religion utterly swept from the law. Not that the law interfered with any man's opinions, not even the. Deist's, if he

kept them within his own breast: but to publish these opinions in a mode calculated to undermine all religious belief, and thus introduce the chaos of infidelity, was an offence incompatible with all civil government: The defendant had said there was no such thing as common law in this country; that the written law alone could be depended on; and that unless he (the Attorney-General) could prove this to be an offence by some statute, there was an end of the question and of the prosecution. Was the defendant, then, or were his advisers so ignorant as not to know, that many of the highest crimes which could be committed were punishable by the common law alone? This was the case with theft and murder: so it was with all the rights of property. But the object was to get rid of all law, and to throw all things into confusion. He trusted, however, that none of them would live to see those times, or lose the benefits of that constitution as it was established, and under which this nation had enjoyed happiness and freedom. But then it was urged, that a statute had recently passed, which authorised, or at least no longer forbade, publications of this nature. Certainly the 53d of the King had extended toleration; but the defendant was wrong in thinking that it had thereby opened a floodgate to every species of infidelity, which, under the influence of some insane delusion, many persons were desirous of letting in upon mankind. The act had extended toleration, but how? A brief retrospect of the law would make the subject plain to demonstration. The act of the 9th and 10th of William created no new offence: it was in strict affirmance of the common law, but it imposed new penalties on offences particularly specified. It enacted, that if any should

deny the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Old and New Testaments were of divine authority, they should be liable to certain penalties; but, long before that, as the defendant must know, many persons had been prosecuted at common law for attacking the established religion. Even Williams and Eaton, who had been convicted for publishing the same work with the present defendant, had been prosecuted at common law; and no lawyer, or any o ther man, had ever dreamt that their convictions were illegal. In 1813, a bill was introduced into Parliament, which afterwards passed into a law, and to which so much allusion had been made. It was then properly observed in the House of Lords, that there had been no trial for a long time for mere differences of opinion, a truth which was admitted by the Dissenters, who nevertheless wish ed for this farther security. On the other side it was remarked, that if they repealed that part of the statute of William which applied to the Trinity, it behoved them to preserve the other parts of it, or otherwise there was an end to the religion of the country, and not only to the established religion of the country, but to that of the Dissenters also. The law inquired, not into the religious sentiments of any man whilst he kept them secret; but it could not permit individuals contumeliously to revile, either the Church, or Christianity in general. He would add, under his Lordship's correction, that any contumelious attack on the Trinity would even now be liable to prosecution. Mr Justice Blackstone, the liberality of whose sentiments on the subject of religious toleration were admitted on either side, had observed, in his celebrated work, that contumely and contempt were what no establishment could tolerate whilst

:

every man was entitled to worship God in his own way, he was not at liberty to assert openly that the Bible was a fable, the Christian revelation an imposture, and the whole religion of the country a system of lies and deceit. This was a question, indeed, in which all denominations of Christians were equally interested; and if his view of the law were incorrect, he would be set right by the learned Judge. He had stated it to the same effect when he first addressed them, and had not, as the defendant asserted, called upon the Court to state it for him. Dismissing, therefore, this branch of the subject, he would refer to some other observations of the defendant, who, after experiencing the greatest forbearance that ever was exhibited in a court of justice, who, after calling on the Judge repeatedly for his opinion, no sooner heard it than he controverted it, and thought proper to make some personal allusions to himself (the Attorney-General.) These it was unbecoming in him to notice; but the public ought to be satisfied with regard to the motives of this prosecution. The defendant, indeed, was not very consistent in his imputations; at one time representing him as a Deist, acting merely as the instrument of others; and at another, as inflamed by a spirit of persecution, and as desirous even of bring ing him to the stake. That the defendant was in some degree an instrument in other hands, there was great reason to believe: but he could assure him that he knew little of his (the Attorney-General's) character, if he imagined him capable of this subservience. So long, however, as he had the honour to bold his present situation, he would employ his best exertions in support of the laws and constitution of his country: So long he should deem it his duty to

bring to justice those who, like the present defendant, assailed them. Then as to the insinuation that he was an unwilling agent in this prosecution, and that it emanated from the Clergy, it was wholly unfounded. This publication had attracted the notice of his esteemed and worthy predecessor, who consulted him respecting it. Neither of them entertained the slightest doubt, nor could any reasonable man, that it was a fit subject for prosecution; for so long as Government itself was estimable, it ought to be guarded a gainst such dangerous attacks as the present. How was it possible, that in 1818, they could suffer the same thing to be done with impunity which had been prosecuted and punished as a blasphemous and impious libel in 1797 and in 1813? It was his duty to prevent the dissemination of such poison at all times, because at all times it might produce irreparable mischief; not indeed to the learned, nor to those who had leisure to inquire fully into so grave a subject, but to the unwary, the ignorant, and the easily deluded. Let no man, however, be arrogant enough to suppose, that Christianity was to be overturn ed by such a publication as the present, after the weapons of Tindal, Bolingbroke and Gibbon had fallen harmless to the ground. But though Christianity could not be injured, individuals might. The defendant had triumphantly told them that he had already sold thousands of copies of this work. Who could deny that such an extensive sale might produce injurious consequences in many quarters, even although Christianity were placed upon a rock not to be shaken even by Thomas Paine? The defendant complained that here was a prosecution, and yet the Court declined to enter the field of controversy with him. The Court could

not so enter. The law of the land forbade it. To do so would be to do a thing to which it was in every way incompetent. Was Christianity reduced to such a state, that it was to be submitted to twelve gentlemen in that box to confirm or reject its authority? When an individual was charged with insulting religion, and with endeavouring to bring it into contempt, could it be expected that a court of justice would inquire whether religion deserved to be so treated? As well might a man charged with theft or murder at the Old Bailey tell the gentlemen of the jury, that he considered the Bible fabulous, and that as his offence was forbidden only by the common law, the authority of which he equally denied, they were incompetent to try him. He was indeed wasting his breath and their time in maintaining a proposition obvious to common sense itself. What was the question which they had to try? The charge against the defendant was, that he had published a scandalous, blasphemous, and impious libel on the Old and New Testament. Had he done so, or had he not? The work spoke for itself, and the intention of publishing it was avowed. He had read the whole book, and there were some passages in it much worse than those selected in the information : with some of these he felt it his painful duty once more to disgust them. (The Learned Gentleman here read some offensive passages, which we need not repeat.) Could these passages, he would ask, be defended as free and candid disquisition upon controverted points, such as that of the Trinity? No: the object was to strike away the Bible altogether. Discussion was easily to be distinguished from reviling and defamation. If this were tolerated, it were better that religion should have no

influence at all; and if religion were discarded, they might be assured that the Constitution would soon fall likewise. The defendant had been allowed to read the whole work, in order to show, if he could, that the passages quoted differed from the sense imputed to them; but it turned out that the publication was full of the most disgusting and offensive abuse that ever was produced. Could this, then, be called a persecution of opinions, and not a prosecution of a gross and infamous libel? With regard to the alleged hardship of so many prosecutions, the defendant must know, that one only had been instituted at the instance of Government. But every day on which the defendant had sold the work he had repeated his offence; and if he continued to sell it after notice of the information, he sinned with his eyes open, and had little ground of complaint. He had accused him (the Attorney-General) of exciting prejudices against him, and complained that the jury had been called upon to convict. With regard to prejudices, if any had been excited, it must have been by the defendant's own conduct. The jury had been called upon to convict only if they be lieved the charge to be true; though, undoubtedly, he had reminded them, that they were pledged to the truth of Christianity by the oaths which they had taken. The defendant asserted his belief in God and a future state; but how was it that our know ledge of a future state had been ac quired? Not by the light of nature, but from a divine revelation alone. Look at the sages of antiquity who speculated on this subject; at Socrates, at Cicero; and see what were the wild and visionary notions which they formed of an after existence. Mankind were lost in uncertainty, and found no footing, no assurance,

till the Gospel promised, not only a future state, but a future state of rewards and punishments. Deisu was in fact as bad, as dangerous a Atheism; and as to what had been said with regard to Paine remaining firm in his conviction, he had reason to doubt its accuracy. He believed that doubts would one day enter the mind of the defendant also; and if they should occur when about to quit this sublunary scene, and be should reflect that he had but poi soned one mind, or deprived but one individual of the glorious hope held out by the Gospel, he would feel that he had done what ages of penitence would not atone for; that he had made himself answerable, not only for his own, but for the crimes of an other. The jury had a momentou question to try. Those who had hi therto lived in the confident hope of a future state, trusted that, on this occasion, that hope would not be pronounced delusive. They (the jury) had, he doubted not, inculca ted on the minds of their children the precepts of our sacred religion, and taught them, as morning and evening alternated, to repeat the beau tiful prayer composed by our Saviour himself. Were they prepared now to address these children, and say, that although they had, up to this moment, led them to reverence the faith which they themselves enter tained, the Age of Reason had now dawned? If such was the view taken, their oaths as jurors were a mere nullity; the obligation under which they acted had no sanction; and the justice which they aimed at adminis tering was at an end. With regard to what had been said of his having a stake in the issue of this question, he had none, except what they all had in common, in the maintenance of religion, and the Constitution. The jury would not swerve from the

clear path which their consciences pointed out, in bringing to a conclusion a trial which had no other origin or object than what had been distinctly stated. The duty which they had now to perform was solemn and important; but it was at the same time easy; one from which they would not be misled by the taunts, or scoffings of infidels. If the facts justified the conclusion to which he himself had arrived, they would adopt it, and in guarding society from pollution, satisfy the anxious hopes and expectations of the public.

The Attorney-General having concluded, the Lord Chief-Justice immediately addressed the jury, and having stated, with precision, the substance of each count of the information, referred to the several points on which the defence had been rested. Much had been urged in the course of the defence, of which all who heard it must disapprove; but the jury were not on that account to suffer any prejudice to withdraw their consideration from the simple question on which they were to decide. It had been insisted, in the progress of this inquiry, that all that had been written of the Scriptures, and published by the defendant, was just and true, fit and proper to be published. The defendant had wished to read other writers who maintained similar opinions, though not expressed in so strong, or perhaps so coarse a man

ner.

He had also desired to call witnesses to speak to the differences prevailing among different religious sects. His Lordship had felt it his duty, on mature consideration, and it would hardly be supposed that he came to a trial like this without previously turning his thoughts to the subject, to inform his mind as to what course he ought to pursue in the different circumstances which might be expected to arise. He had

God

then determined, and he did not regret the determination, that it was not competent in a Christian court, in a court of law, to rise up and say that the Christian religion was not a religion of truth. It would be strange, indeed, if such a question were to be put in issue in order to be tried befose this tribunal. He had therefore resisted every attempt to introduce such a discussion, and should have felt that he was disgracing his situation had he acted otherwise. Another topic of defence strenuously, and in some degree properly urged, was the danger of restraining free discussion and free inquiry. forbid that any such restraint should take place. But they had to distinguish, whether the present publication was an instance of that free inquiry and discussion, or a work of mere calumny and ridicule. There was no individual, and no subject, to whose character or to whose merits revilings and calumnies could be lawfully applied. The exercise of reason was allowed in the fullest manner by the law of England, because it was a law of public liberty and freedom. That law had adopted into itself, and was in a great degree founded on, the Christian religion; and from this source it was that its principles of liberality and humanity were derived. But though as a law of liberty it allowed perfect freedom of opinion, and interfered with no man's private belief, it did not allow to every man to do what seemed good in his own eyes, if it were injurious to society. They had then to consider the character and tendency of this work; for with regard to intention they had no means of judging, and could not decide on the motive of any act, unless by some extraneous proof it could be shown that the agent had a different intention. The Christian religion forming part of the