Chapter I: Part 1

*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.