a long extract from Mr Locke's Essay on Toleration, in which the right of mankind to discuss subjects of all kinds was powerfully enforced.) It was from the enlightened and manly mind of Locke that these sentiments emanated. With respect to blasphemy, (with which he was charged,) some words had been used by him yesterday, which caused an unpleasant feeling: therefore, it would not be improper to make a few observations on the term here, and to inquire to whom, and with respect to what, it might be applied. Whatever might be the different opinions of different men with respect to the Deity, to speak of blasphemy against God was a vague and undefined assertion. The word "Blasphemy" meant nothing more than evil speaking of him. Now, the object of this defence was to show that Paine's work had been written by the author, and published by him (the defendant) to prove that works had been sent into the world in which much evil was spoken of the Deity. The word "Blasphemy" might be applied to a proceeding between man and man. It was generally known, that if one man injured another by libel, the aggrieved party had his remedy in that Court; but what possible need could there be to apply to a court of justice to protect the character of the Deity? To him it appeared quite strange and inconsistent. The word "Blasphemy" had a harsh sound, but was in itself harmless and of no effect. It was well described as a word made use of by bigot knavery, to light the fire for those whom it was meant to destroy. Mr Carlile then read an essay from the Christian Reformer of July 1817, in which the author observes, "Blasphemy, like heresy, is a big word, which those who make the most noise about it cannot define; and it is a

bused in proportion as it is little understood." The work from which he read these passages was edited by a man of the highest character for erudition and morals, the Rev. Robert Aspland, a popular minister among the Unitarian dissenters. This gentleman had sat near Hone at his trial, and preached three excellent sermons on the subject of blasphemy; in which sermons he argued, from the example of the Saviour and the Apostles, who declined placing the consciences of men under temporal authority, that no set of men had a right to inflict penalties on those who refused to acknowledge a generally received belief. (Here Mr Carlile quoted from a tract written by the Rev. Christopher Wyvill, entitled, Intolerance the Disgrace of Christianity. This tract alluded particularly to Sir Thomas More, who, though otherwise distinguished for virtue, purity and patriotism, was tainted with the guilt of torturing and destroying the reformers; it noticed the religious toleration in America, which it contrasted with the persecutions in other countries; adverted in strong language to the persecutions under Louis XIV. and XV.; and asserted, that the Church of England had nothing to fear from the concessions of religious toleration.) Mr Carlile next proceeded to observe, that having referred to many books since he first rose to address the jury, he now came to one, which as an authority surpassed them all. (Having eulogised, in the highest terms, the pious and excellent Archbishop Tillotson, Mr Carlile now opened a volume of his sermons, and read a few passages, which were to this ef fect: That a man, having the spirit of a man, could not submit to the evil of not being allowed to examine what his religion was; that he would

break with any church in the world which would not allow him that privilege, and be justified in saying, " If your religion is too good to be examined, I doubt it is too bad to be believed.") In the ruined and mouldering cloisters of ecclesiastical power, the bigots of expiring persecution were no longer to be found; or if they were, they were flitting only through their gloomy halls in single obscurity, or else they were to be met with in our courts of law in the shape of Crown Lawyers, squinting askaunce at the parchment rolls of ex-officio informations. He should next call the attention of the jury to a pamphlet written by Dr Squire, Clerk of the Closet to the present King when Prince of Wales, and afterwards Bishop of St David's. (This proved to be a deprecation of intolerance, in tenor similar to the other citations made by the defendant.) A letter written by Dr Furness, and addressed to Sir William Blackstone, the illustrious author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, claimed their especial attention. This little, but important production was occasioned by a passage in Blackstone's work relative to the Toleration Acts, in which the learned Judge had spoken of some restrictive and oppressive statutes of a most intolerant nature, as being not only defensible, but laudable, at the time at which they were enact

In proof of the efficacy and weight of the argument advanced by Dr Furness, it might be proper to observe, that in the next edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, the errors pointed out in the Doctor's letter were rectified, the subject reconsidered, and a more accurate interpretation put on the acts in question. He could not but press upon their minds to consider what a multitude of absurd statutes would still have

disgraced the Statute-book, had it not been that the influence of public opinion had erased them. Attorney-Generals were accustomed, as a matter of course, to do something for a large sum of money.

Recurring, again, to his definition of the word " Blasphemy," the assertion which had been hazarded, that the Christian religion could not subsist without the infliction of some punishment for what had been declared to be blasphemy in that Court, was best answered by the fact, that the Christian religion did not itself denounce that conduct which had been represented as blasphemous on his part. If, in its early infancy, that faith had been calumniated, and reviled, and blasphemed, while yet weak and feebly supported, was it fair to suppose that, after being handed down to our times, and now maintained by the powerful and the great, blasphemy was likely to harm or prejudice its existence? Here he would observe, that if the AttorneyGeneral meant to assert there was no Christianity out of England, he was very certain he knew better. The Sovereign of England was also the Sovereign of the Protestant Church throughout his dominions here, and of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada; he was Sovereign, moreover, of Indians and Mohammedans; of the followers of Mo. hammed, and of the multitudes, who, throughout the vast extent of the Hindoo territory, adhered to the worship of their native gods. Were these differing sects to be treated as blasphemers of Christianity? If the open profession of doctrines adverse to the Christian faith, which, he contended, reposed on the belief of the Trinity, amounted to blasphemy, the Attorney-General had broken the laws before the passing of Mr Smith's Act. Could the Attorney-General

say, that he now believed the doctrines of Christianity? He held in his hand a sheet of paper, purporting to be a copy of a letter said to have been written by "Our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" himself. He supposed that he might with safety assert, that more copies of that letter were struck in this country than of any other paper whatever. He could assure the gentlemen of the jury, that it was impossible to enter the meanest and most wretched hovel in the country, without seeing at least one copy of it pasted on the wall. If they needed any example to show how much an ignorant superstition was still encouraged and kept up, this letter would suffice, and it was for that purpose he had produced it. It was said to have been found at the distance of 18 miles from Jerusalem, about 53 years after the crucifixion. He declared he was no blasphemer, and entreated them not to forget what were the talents, what the virtues, of Limborch, of Locke, and of Tillotson. He should now draw his observations to a close; but it was necessary to take a short view of what had happened in that Court, and of the conduct pursued by the Attorney-General. That gentleman, he complained, had acted towards him in a manner extremely unfair. At his outset he had professed that it was not his wish to excite any prejudice against him (Mr Carlile); whereas he had said and done every thing to do so. He then begged that the jury would calmly and deliberately consider, whether he appeared to have had any bad view in publishing sentiments which he had done every thing in his power to prove that he cherished and a dopted from principle. He had heard that an impression to his prejudice had been already received by

the jury, and that there was little doubt of a conviction; in which case it was his intention to move for a new trial. But before any determination was come to, he trusted those before whom he stood would reflect, that if a verdict of guilty were found against him, the severest punishment which his persecutors could inflict would await him. They were to consider, that a mass of prosecutions still awaited him from the same vindictive source, and that ruin would be the inevitable consequence of conviction; for pecuniary penalties, as well as long imprisonment, would most certainly be visited on him. They were to consider that the liberty of the press, with which nothing should be allowed to interfere, was at stake; and that the verdict must either support it against the enemies of all freedom of thought, or deliver it into the custody of those who would keep it safe, and never let it wander again. The freedom of the press was indeed a farce, if it was to be regulated by the pleasure of the Attorney-General. Though he had scarcely any hope that he had made such an impression of his case on all their minds as he wished to produce, yet he trusted he had made such an impression as would, in the event, entitle him to their verdict of acquittal. He had heard, and he was most sorry to say it, that one individual of their number had said publicly, on the preceding night, that he would like to give that Carlile five years' imprisonment, and bread and water for all that time. (There now arose a tumultuous cry of" Name, name," from all parts of the Court, and " Shame" was reiterated among the spectators. The gentlemen of the jury appeared to join in the cry of " Name, name," and to feel the utmost astonishment at the accusation.)

The Lord Chief Justice (interposing).-Oh, no, I hope you will not allow any thing so indecorous, gentlemen.

Mr Carlile was afraid that the recent allusion he had made might be considered very imprudent. He was sorry indeed he had made it, but it arose from information which he had only received since he had been in Court. It might not be necessary to do so; but should their verdict unfortunately go against him, he should perhaps find an opportunity of supporting the charge on a mo. tion for a new trial. It was a maxim of English law, that when twelve men were formed into one body as a jury, and it should happen that while a portion of that body were willing to return a verdict of guilty, there yet remained a doubt of the guilt charged on the accused in the mind of one individual only of that jury, that doubt should entitle such party accused to a verdict of acquittal: And it was, he believed, also admitted, that it was better that ten guilty men should escape, than that one innocent man should be condemned. Applying these observations to his own case, he argued, that if only one of them should entertain a doubt, whether or no he (Mr Carlile) was to be brought in guilty, then that doubt, it was to be remembered, was the doubt of the whole jury, and was to be construed to his benefit. He should now conclude with a short appeal to the jury, which he had for the sake of correctness written, and which he would read from the paper which he held in his hand. He addressed himself to their feelings as moral men, as husbands, as fathers, as members of the community, whose condition they doubtless wished to ameliorate. It was his firm belief that by a verdict of acquittal the present state of the community would be

much improved. By a verdict of acquittal, they would annihilate the vague and infamous law of libel, as respected the discussion of questions affecting government and religion. By a verdict of acquittal, they would put a stop to religious persecution; they would give to reason its free exercise and influence, and dignity to the mind of man. They would encourage the honest avowal of sentiment and opinion, which, from minds well stored, must, instead of disturbing society, prove the source of inestimable blessings. By a verdict of acquittal, they would entitle themselves to the thanks of all unprejudiced persons; and by exciting the conflict of opinions, soon lessen the differences prevailing among men. He wished, too, to guard them against giving way to the unfair advantages, which his prosecutors would take, when he should no longer have any power of explanation or reply. He heartily thanked them for the kind and deliberate attention with which they had heard his defence, and trusted that the necessity of tolerating free discussion on this subject had been made evident to the twelve enlightened minds to which his reasoning had been addressed. The sum and substance of his argu. ment was, that the argument had no foundation in common law, and that the only statute which made it an offence had been superseded by a subsequent and recent one: And under this last statute he trusted that through their means he should find protection.

(It was about three o'clock when the defence closed.)

The Lord Chief-Justice.-Tell me for what purpose, and to what points you wish witnesses to be examined.

Mr Carlile said, that he intended to call several of the leading persons of different Christian sects, in order

It is for the jury to decide. The defendant might call half the city of London, if such a course were allowed.

The Lord Chief-Justice. Have you any further object?

Mr Carlile. That was the chief object, as he conceived that he could show by these means that each sectary would give a different account of the various parts submitted to him.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-I ask you once more if you have any other object, as I wish to know whether you have any that is legitimate?

Mr Carlile. It had also been his intention to inquire whether they thought the Christian faith could be promoted by any aid from the secular arm.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-As you have now stated the purposes for which you were desirous of examining these witnesses, I have to declare my clear opinion that their evidence is inadmissible. The truth of the Holy Scriptures is not the question to be tried here. It is well known that various denominations of Christians differ in their tenets and articles of faith; and it would be most indecorous and improper in me to call upon persons in this Court to give an account of their religious principles. Mr Carlile here interrupted his Lordship.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-If the defendant will not hear me, I must proceed in the cause without the trouble of explaining myself further. I certainly cannot receive opinions.

Mr Carlile said he wished only to call a few of the most eminent indi

The Lord Chief-Justice. It is not for me to distinguish who are, and who are not eminent.

Mr Carlile said, that he had all along considered the subject under trial as matter of opinion.

The Lord Chief-Justice.- Well, that may be your apology for having brought so many matters before the Court.

Carlile then signified, that he should only call witnesses to his moral character.

The Lord Chief-Justice.-Mr Attorney-General, you have no objection to this?

The Attorney-General answered in the negative.

William Cumming was then called, and examined by the Court.-He stated that he had known the defendant eighteen years. His general character was extremely good.

James Yann, a person retired from business, was next called.—He had known the defendant six years, during which time he had always borne an excellent character.

Thomas Walker, a messenger of the Navy Office, had known the defendant four or five years. He had lodged with witness, and was always considered an honest, industrious, sober man, and one who paid his way.

Mr Carlile wished it to be understood, that with these persons he had resided since his first apprenticeship till he became a housekeeper.

The Attorney-General then rose to reply. He began by remarking, that after the long, painful, and laborious attention which the jury had