The defendant entered the Court attended by two officers. He look ed extremely ill.

The Lord Chief-Justice took his seat on the Bench exactly at half past nine, and the cause of "The King against Carlile" was immediately called.

The jury being sworn, Mr Marryat stated the case to them, after which Mr Gurney rose, and said, that this, prosecution had been instituted by the Society for the Suppression of Vice, which conceived that the religion of the country, on which all morality was founded, was not less entitled to the protection of the laws than any other part of their invaluable institutions. And when they saw, in one of the most public streets of the metropolis, works exhibited for sale which attacked and reviled the Holy Scriptures; when they saw such works daringly and ostenta tiously sold at the shop of this defendant, which he had been pleased, in the effrontery of his impiety, to style "The Temple of Reason,' ""The Office of the Republican and Deist;" when they saw all this, they thought themselves called upon to do their

VOL. XII. PART II.

part to put down a class of publications, which, were they to succeed in their objects, would dissolve all the bonds by which civil society is held together. The indictment imputed to the defendant, that, with the design of bringing the Holy Scriptures into disbelief, he had published a certain scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel, of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion. The book which was imputed as a libel to the defendant, was entitled, "Principles of Nature; or a Developement of the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery among the Human Species." It professed to be by Elihu Palmer; and the imprint stated that it was originally a production of the American press, but reprinted and published in London by R. Carlile, 55. Fleet Street. Whether all these statements were true or false, he knew not; whether there existed any such person as this Elihu Palmer, or whether the book had ever been before printed, he neither knew nor cared. It was enough that he found the defendant openly publishing it with his own hand; and, as it would be his business to show them, publishing it with no other purpose than that charged in the indictment-the profane and wicked purpose of reviling the Christian religion and the Holy Scriptures. It was painful to give utterance to such passages as he would be obliged to read to them in support of his case; passages so abominable, that except certain parts of that infamous work with the consideration of which the Court had for these three days past been occupied, he remembered not to have read or heard of any thing so remarkable for wickedness and atrocity. (Here the Learned Gentleman read the introduction to the chapter entitled, "The Bible, or the Sacred

D

Writings of the Jews and Christians.") For what purpose but that of reviling the Christian religion could any man think of coupling together two such names as these, (Moses and Mohammed,) one the most exalted and beneficent character God ever sent upon earth; the other, the most impious impostor that ever lived? Atrocious as it was, they could little expect what followed. (Here Mr Gurney read passages from the work, in which the immaculate conception is spoken of in the most horrible and disgusting terms.) This, they were told, was the freedom with which the principles of the Christian religion ought to be discussed. The learned counsel declared that he could not abstain from repeating the expressive language of one of the greatest scholars that had ever lived, who, possessing all those acquisitions which could be made in this world, added to that which was commonly called learning, the most intimate knowledge of the languages and manners of the nations of the East. That distinguished individual, whose life was the best comment on his writings, and who had possessed himself of such stores of learning as perhaps no other man could ever boast of, Sir William Jones, upon a blank leaf of his Bible, and a short time before his death, had written a few lines in his own handwriting, which, however often they had been quoted, he was sure the jury would excuse him for repeating in that place: "I have read with the deepest attention the Holy Scriptures throughout, and am of opinion that they contain, independently of their divine origin, more genuine sublimity and beauty, more interesting historical information, and higher strains of eloquence and morality, than could be collected from all the books that ever were written." Such was the character attached to

the Holy Scriptures by that fervid and powerful thinker; and such testimony, he should contend, was not to be shaken by all the profanity, and bold and impious assertions of all the ignorant infidels in existence. On this subject he would forbear to enlarge, remembering that he was in a court of law, in a country which had founded all its institutions on the Christian religion. If one man was to be called in question for reviling and holding up another to contempt, was he justified in attacking and reviling religion? And could he who was not allowed to scoff at an individual, be permitted to revile that most sacred institution which was the foundation of all the laws that bind society together? It had pleased God to permit the Christian world to be divided into different sects, for reasons which it was not given to man to comprehend. But there were obvious advantages arising from this divine regulation. The Scriptures were prevented from being interpolated, and a vigour was excited in the exercise of charity, which was greater than faith and hope. It would be absurd to doubt, that the God of mercy had so ordained for the good of his creatures. But the defendant might say, that we were not justified in bringing the offence charged into court, for it amounted only to a difference of opinion, and there was no law by which such a supposed offence could be tried. A man charged with robbing another, and put upon his trial at the Old Bailey, might say, By what law am I brought here?" Upon being told, by the common law; "No," he might say, "there is no law to justify this: it is unjust to put me here: I am at liberty to do as I please, and he who attempts to prevent me places an unwarrantable restriction upon me. I may pick a man's pocket:

You may think that wrong, but that is only a difference of opinion." (Here there was a laugh in Court.) A man might argue in this manner upon murder, and the indulgence of odious passions; and this was the reasoning of the defendant. Good God! and was a man to reckon himself persecuted who was called in question for such a crime as he had been describing? He was not to be deter red from declaring these to be his sentiments by the apprehension that they would be called the cant of one who was an enemy to a free press. Irreligion and sedition had, indeed, a cant, and pretended to support what they were calculated and intended to destroy. Did the defendant think that the press sanctified what was polluted? The gentlemen of the jury were the conservators of the liberty of the press: "And if,” said the learned counsel," I have invaded it, you will stand up as its protectors. I call upon you to protect the press against the attempts of those who render it odious by abuse, by reviling religion, until every good man begins to think, that the benefits issuing from the liberty of the press are more than counterbalanced by the vice and immorality with which the nation is deluged."

He called upon the jury to give a patient hearing to all that the law would allow the defendant to state in his defence; and having done so, he was confident, that they, by their verdict of condemnation, would contribute to stem that torrent of infidelity which had threatened to carry away all our institutions, all our laws, and with them all our happiness.

The sale of the publication in question being proved, the indictment was read by the desire of the Lord Chief-Justice, and some passages were read at the special request of the defendant.

Mr Carlile, in his defence, pursued a course similar to that which he had adopted on his former trial, for the publication of Paine's Age of Reason; attempting to justify, till interrupted by the foreman of the jury, who declared, that "they were unanimously of opinion that Mr Carlile was pursuing a very improper line of defence;" and resting his claim to an acquittal on his construction of the act of the 53d of the King, entitled, "An Act to relieve from certain penalties persons who conscientiously disbelieved the doctrine of the Trinity." After this the Lord Chief Justice summed up, and the Jury having consulted about two minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty.

On the 16th day of November, Mr Carlile, who had been convicted of a blasphemous libel at the last Nisi Prius sittings in the city of London, was brought up to receive judgment. Mr Denman made a motion in arrest of judgment, which was unsuccessful, and Mr Carlile spoke in mitigation of punishment. Mr Justice Bailey, after an impressive address to the defendant, awarded the sentence of the Court as follows: "The sentence of the Court upon you, Richard Carlile, is, that for the first offence of which you have been found guilty, the publication of Paine's Age of Reason, you pay a fine to the King of L.1000, and be imprisoned for two years in the county jail of Dorset, in the town of Dorchester; and that for the second, the publication of Palmer's Princi ples of Nature, you pay a further fine to the King of L.500, and be further imprisoned for one year in the said jail of Dorchester: And that you be further imprisoned until those fines are paid, and also un

til you give security, yourself in the sum of L.1000, and two others in the sum of L.100 each, that you be

of the peace and good behaviour for the term of your natural life."

CHARGE OF MURDER ON BOARD A CONVICT SHIP.

Admiralty Sessions, Monday,
January 11.

James Clements and John Drake were put to the bar, and arraigned for the wilful murder of John M. Ardle, on the 28th of April 1817, off St Jago, on board a convict ship call. ed the Chapman, on the High Seas. The prisoners both pleaded Not guilty. Sir Christopher Robinson, the the King's Advocate, opened the case to the Jury. He observed, that no subject of greater difficulty than the present case could be presented before any Court; the question now to be decided being, whether the prisoners at the bar had not gone much beyond the power entrusted to them. The prisoner John Drake was Captain of the convict-ship Chapman, on board which the murder was committed; and it was but fair to state, with regard to him, that this case had undergone some kind of investigation at Botany Bay. In consequence of an application to a Supreme Tribunal, the Captain had been allowed to go on bail; and he had this day surrendered himself to the laws of his country. The ship Chapman sailed from Cork on the 14th of March 1817, with about two hundred convicts, a crew nearly as

numerous, and forty soldiers. For the first three weeks after the departure of the vessel nothing particular occurred; but on the 17th of April, a melancholy conflict occurred between the commander of the vessel and the convicts, under the supposition of an insurrection on the part of the convicts, and the consequence was the loss of many lives. This occurrence was not yet made the subject of a separate indictment. The principal transaction was that of the 28th of April, and to this the evidence would be chiefly directed. The leading testimony against the prisoner was that of the convicts, (who for this purpose had received the King's pardon), confirmed, however, as they probably would be, in the most material circumstances, by the soldiers, against whose evidence the same suspicion would not exist.

The Attorney-General, Mr Gaselee, and Mr Reynolds, were also counsel for the prosecution. The first witness called was

Terence Kiernan.-He stated, that in March 1817, he was shipped on board a vessel called the Chapman, in the Cove of Cork. Several other convicts besides himself were shipped for Botany Bay, on board the Chapman. There were about two hundred convicts in all. The prisoner at the bar, John Drake, was Captain of the Chapman, and Clements

was a marine on board the ship. Af ter having sailed from St Jago, on the night of the 17th of April, a contest took place. He was not certain of the day, as he was not allow ed to keep a log-book. Any convict with writing in his possession, he said, was immediately brought upon deck and put to death. On the 17th of April, several of the irons of the convicts were broken, and witness's among the rest. On this day there was a great contest; and on the 27th or 28th of April following, another firing took place. The greater part of the convicts were confined between decks. Before the firing commenced on the 27th of April, he was in his birth, close to the deck on the starboard side, when he heard Baxter (one of the officers of the ship) say to Clements," Are you there?" Clements said, "I am." Baxter then said, "Raise a false alarm, and we will kill every bl-dy one of them." Clements said, "We will; but it is too soon yet. Wait till the gentlemen go to bed, and then we will have more time." Baxter replied, "It is a very good time now; the gentlemen are all in their cabins ; and when you begin, don't be commanded by Captain, Doctor, or Officers, and I'll be accountable." He then heard a sound, which he supposed to be the drawing of a ramrod. Witness lay in his birth, under the starboard forescuttle. He heard Clements use some expression about the Irish, and said, "I will let go." He then put the muzzle of his gun down the scuttle, and fired his piece. The firing then became general, and it lasted nearly an hour and a half. Witness continued in his birth all the time, and never left it. Some time after the firing had ceased, Baxter, accompanied with soldiers, came among the convicts, and he there saw

his messmate, John M'Ardle, dead in his birth. He appeared to have been killed by a bullet fired from some piece. The ball entered at the bottom of his stomach, and remained in his body. He believed the shot which killed this man had come from the soldiers' apartment.

Cross-examined by Mr CommonSergeant.-He never was in any gaol before the larceny for which he had been transported. He knew a man of the name of Crawley, a sailor on board the Chapman, who was put in irons for giving instruments to the convicts to break their irons. Witness himself broke his middle iron with a broom stick, and he saw seven or eight other convicts with their irons broken. Witness broke his irons before he arrived at St Jago, and before the 17th of April he had a new iron put on. He swore that before the 27th of April there were not one hundred and twenty convicts with their irons broken. He recollected a lever, and a piece of tin in the shape of a knife, being found in the birth of himself and his messmate. He was flogged for this offence, and received double punishment for speaking Latin to the Doctor. The Doctor said, "You are a good scholar, but a d-d rascal, and shall receive double punishment for it." The convicts made pieces of tin into knives to cut their meat, not being allowed knives. There was a Bible in the convict prison, but he never heard any oath administered. Dr Dewar and Michael Collins had said, that oaths had been taken by the convicts to be true to themselves, and to take the ship. Collins was a convict himself. There was a convict also of the name of Francis Murphy. Witness never heard Murphy say that it was his intention to murder all the crew. Baxter, the officer,