author of the 'Fourth Estate') was the gentleman engaged to report my trial. As the judge was informed that I i

court's being ordered to open on Monday, to the annoyance of javelin men kept there unexpectedly, to jury men who had left tills, ploughs, and orange baskets unprotected

as he made a rustic bow to the bench, 'Thank'ee, my Lord!' Such abject humiliation of spirit I had never conceived before. Ignorance never appeared to me so frightful, so slavish, so blind, as on this occasion. Unable to distinguish a sentence passed upon him from a service done him, he had been taught to bow to his pastors and masters, and he bowed alike when cursed as when blessed. The measured contempt with which the words were spoken by the judge which blasted the man's character fo

der as Mr. Hunt gave them, in the third person-addin

es of clergymen, and some of the nobility, were among them, attracted by curiosity, and by the opportunity which might never occur to them

d the dock. Mr. Ogden, the turnkey in charge of prisoners, directed him

t be in a hurry. Fi

ed box lying outside the dock.) You can't have

Nonsense. Ha

olyoake applied to the judge, Mr. Jus

although the situation was not advantageous, it being lower than the bar where the prisoners usually stand. Mr. Holyoake employed twenty minutes in

had waited with great p

ely, and the clerk proceeded to

of May, in the fifth year of the reign of our lady the Queen, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in the presence and hearing of divers liege subjects of our said lady the Queen, maliciously, unlawfully, and wickedly did compose, speak, utter, pronounce, and publish with a loud voice, of and concerning Almighty Gog, the Holy Scriptures, and the Christian religion, these words following, that is to say, 'I (meaning the said George Jacob Holyoake) do not believ

tion that described

gradation in the co

ion was that of a M

applied to have the names of the ju

, said the offence being only a misdemeano

course not, unless reaso

me of John Lo

was before the magistrates at Cheltenham, and approved the p

that was not sufficient

ner,' and after some further conversation, the judge hav

se of Mr. Southwell he

I am not bound by the

ected to one on the ground of his being a farmer, and from his professi

grocer, one poulterer, one miller, one nondescript shopkeeper, and one maltster, were then impaneled to ascertain whether one George Jacob Holyoake had had a fight with Omnipot

alled upon, under

and philosophica

for so many hundred

sovereign judge of

rchbishop of Cant

spatch, August 18.

t very likely his Gr

d judge of

econd letter to Ju

h, Sep

is the list

, grocer, Chelt

e, farmer,

is, farmer,

an, farmer,

ws, poulterer

lson, maltster, Brimpsfield. Edwin Brown, farmer, Withington. Bevan Smith, f

n I have a copy

e for you in consequence of your a

court, an individual as dusty and as forbidding as an old penal statute, and who always spoke to Mr. Holyoake like one. The court laughed, the judge frowned, the clerk looked indignant, but before censure could fall, Mr. Holyoake escaped in

r you, but did not think it necessary that you shou

e allowed to read the

e Erskine.

e, left the bar and placed himself where he could face Mr. Alexander, with a view to take notes. T

ed and blasphemous words. This person is not, as in the case previously brought before your attention,** the vendor, but he is the author o

ctment occupied not

ght shillings and s

of Geor

eard set out in the indictment. But he did obtain an audience, a numerous audience, and then declared that the people were too poor to have a religion-that he himself had no religion-that he did not believe in such a thing as a God; and-though it pains me to repeat the horrible blasphemy-that he would place the Deity upon half-pay. I shall call witnesses to prove all this, and then it will be for you to say if he is guilty. It may be urged to you that these things were said in answer to a question, that the inuendoes must be made out. Inuendoes! I should think it an insult to the understandings of twelve jurymen-of twelve intelligent men-to call witnesses to prove inuendoes: but I shall place the case before you, and leave it in your hands. I am sure I need not speak, I need not dilate upon the consequence of insulting that Deity

any religion; will you state the reasons I gave? Witness. I can give the substan

l thank you to stat

't recollect a

ou have sworn the wo

Erskine. No,

you state if the wo

d only be put through him. He then put the qu

ess.

y do you think t

e calculated to subvert peace, law, and order; and are pun

s instructed you to

been instructed, i

magistrates, you did not appear to have these notions. Will

a question would be put; I di

to attend as a witness? Witnes

w before the day of my commit

lergyman has spoken to me, that I recollect, upon the subject of this prosecution; not sure of it; several persons have spoken to me, cannot say they were clergymen; I do not know the parties who got up the prosecution, or sent the policeman to me;

u mean, I suppose, till

. Yes,

ffice could prove what had occurred at the lecture; the name of reporter of our paper is Edward Wills; I heard your lecture, you said nothing against morality. Mr. Holyoake. Will you state your opin

o stop Mr. Holyoake from ask

sly when using the word thing, but you used the word; there were other words between those used in indictment; they did not, is in that document, follow one another; I do not remember the words; you spoke of the e

edly ten years in the same employment; do not give ev

is the case for the

e. Now is the time

t one word, to prove the charge in the indictment. There has been adduced no evidence to show that I have uttered words

ne. That is for t

e is so manifestly insufficient to prove malice,

is for the jury to say w

attempted to be supported. When I stood in this court a week ago, and saw the grand jury with Mr. Grantley Berkeley at their head as foreman-when I heard his lordsh

he truly sacred into contempt. I thought I never should be called upon to stand in this dock, with all its polluting and disgusting associations, to answer for mere matters of s

use of Commons when the Hon. Member for Bath brought forward my case, and when Sir James Graham, in reference to the correspondence which had taken place with the magistrates, had the frankness to say, 'there had been serious irregularities and unnecessary harshness used in the case of Holyoake.' In this country four thousand applications are annually made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and out of that four thousand my case is spoken of as one in which serious irregularities had occurred, and unnecessary harshness been employed. And that amid the numerous affairs of this great empire it should have received this distinct notice is presumptive evidence that it contained much that should be corrected. On Thursday, July 21, the Hon. Mr. C. Berkeley, addressing the Speaker of the House of Commons, said, 'I wish to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department a questio

Hon. Baronet. It therefore was exceedingly unfair that these imputations should go forth, and I have therefore now to ask, on behalf of the magistrates, whether the Right Hon. Baronet objects to the correspondence being printed and circulated with the votes of the house, and in case he should object I shall offer it for the perusal of the Hon. Member for Bath.' Sir James Graham, in reply, said, 'I had no intention whatever to cast any imputation on the gentlemen, who that day

es equally powerful for desiring that your verdict should be 'guilty,' inasmuch as that verdict will justify all these 'irregularities'-all the 'unnecessary harshness'-will remove from their shoulders all the responsibility which they incurred by the course they have pursued towards me. Bear in mind, gentlemen of the jury, if the rights are to be enjoyed about which we so much glorify

of Wednesday last, August 10th, from which I will read. 'These offences,' he said, referring to the cases of blasphemy, 'lay at the root of all the crime which prevailed, and a consideration of the causes out of which they sprung pointed to the only efficient remedy for their removal. In the case of Holyoake, his lordship observed that a work calle

never said anything of that kind-tha

ivery by a reporter. But whether the report in the Chronicle is correct or incorrect, it has

d said nothing about teaching man his duty to his God. That led to a statement which shows the folly of the person; and he followed it up by making use of such language that, if you believe it was intended to have destroyed the reverence for God, he has subjected himself to punishment. There is another thing-he does not appear to have intended to discuss this; but if you are convinced that, by what he has said, he intended to bring religion into contempt, he is guilty of blasphemy. If such addresses had been directed to the educated classes, it might have been thought they would remedy themselves; but when they are delivered among persons not educated, the greatest danger might be expected. It is not by the punishment of those who attempt to mislead the ignorant that we can hope to cure the evil. If we feel that i

t now be standing here to defend points of a speculative nature. Such errors should be corrected by argument, in the arena of public opinion. Where I uttered these words, they should have been refuted. The witness against me says he is a preacher; had h

y, attacked no man's person, broken no promise, violated no oath, encouraged no evil, taught no immorality-set only an example of free speaking. I was asked a question, and answered it openly. I am not even charged with declaring dogmatically, 'There is no God.' I only expressed an opinion. I should hold myself degraded could I descend to inquire, before uttering my convictions, if they met the approval of every anonymous man in the audience. I never forget that other men's opinions may be correct-tha

te the law, that if it be done seriously and de

e a felon, and thrust into a gaol-if indictments can be brought against him, and he be put to ruinous expenses and harassing anxieties, however honest the expression of opinion may be-then, I say, this 'liberty-law' is a mockery. But by the wo

f education, said that an honest man, speakin

charge of presumption or dogmatism. I have no wish to offend the prejudices of any man in this court, and have no interest in so doing, when his lordship is armed with the power of the law to punish it. But, while I profess respect for your opinions, I must entertain some for my own. There are those here who think religion proper, and that it alone can lead to general happiness-I do not, and I

o enter into my motives. There is a magic circle out of which they will not step; they will argue only what is orthodox;

uently appeared in

at some of the bar

venged himself by d

, as 'a wretched-

rom boyhood, whose

ious of the razor'

him the ap

e who discoursed 'devilism.' The Gloucester Chronicle laboured to prove that I was a malicious blasphemer, a low German student, is evidently, from

from the same causes; and it would not be an uninstructive task to trace out the progress of those causes which lead the minds of the unguarded to the extreme points when they become dangerous to society. Holyoake, the bold assertor of the non-existence of a God, did not become an infidel at once; and Francis, the would-be regicide, did not level his pistol at oar beloved sovereign without his mind having been acted and prepared by previous circumstances....

aving what is true to me. I have ever been ready to acquire correct notions. I have publicly called upon parties whose duty it was to teach me-and who were well paid for teaching-to assist me in sifting out the truth. But they have chosen the strong arm of the law rather than strong argument. Jean Jacques Rousseau says in his 'Confessions,' 'Enthusiasm for sublime virtue is of little use in society. In aiming too high we are subject to fall; the continuity of little duties, well fulfil

nal Associa

prove to you that these prosecutions were either useful or necessary, but he could only tell you that my sentiments were very horrible, without adducing proof that his assertions were true. He dealt liberally in inuendoes, particularly in reference to the placards exhibited previous to the lecture, and the motive for issuing them. But you have been able to glean from his own witness the

y defence, and I do not know what use was made of them, or that this day the information thus unfairly obtained ma

oner in Gloucester County Gaol, on the charge of Blasphe

itted to this gaol from Cheltenham, on t

he gaol some private papers, hastily selected, for his defence-and that, on arriving here, the said papers were seized, and the vis

n thoughts in his own defence-and as they are no man's property but his own-and, also, as without them your memor

reat bigotry on religious subjects, your memorialist has been unable to obtain bail, and has suffered fourteen days' imprisonment, which time he has spent in fruitless app

holden on the 28th inst., and he is without the means of defence or hope of justice, and has a wif

re mentioned, be immediately restored to him, and also that he be allowed free access to suc

George Jac

Gloucester,

Commons, and in various parts of the country, I should have been deprived of the mat

r Trinity Sessions

iction of the pray

mentioned that my p

were returned to m

home, and every o

row I had given

rue, and I stated s

Press, and my as

ugn

e, then I might be abused; but Socialism as I have learned or explained it, would never lead to the injury of peace or the disturbance of public order. The first paragraph of Godwin's 'Political Justice' is an epitome of Socialism as developed in this country hitherto s it is 'an investigation concerning that form of political society, that system of intercourse and reciprocal action extending beyond the bounds of a single family, which shall be found most conducive to the general benefit-how may the peculiar and independent operation of each individ

tions. The whole question has been expressed by the poet-philos

stithy is

on it, like

'd by a sen

h thumping m

he elements of goodness, which all governments are responsible for moulding. Socialism proposes to substitute other means than punishments for the prevention of crime, and that you may not think these chimeras

dinal) said, "there was no reason to wonder at the matter, since this way of punishing thieves was neither just in itself nor good for the public; for as the severity was too great, so the remedy was not effectual; simple theft not being so great a crime, that it ought to cost a man his life: no punishment, how severe soever, being able to restrain those from robbing who can find no other way of livelihood. In this (said I) not only you in England but a great part of the world, imitate some ill masters, that are read

r passages to show that under no circumstance Socialism merits that character which has been ascribed to it But I do not deem it necessary, as I think I have sa

marks of esteem and friendship? I went to the station-house and remained there all night. When taken before the magistrates, Mr. Capper told me I was not fit to be reasoned with, because I did not believe in a God, and that it was from a love of notoriety that I acted: but from the love of mere notoriety I have never uttered any sentiments, for I hold such conduct in contempt. After I was taken from the magistrates' office, I was treated with contumely at the police-station. Surgeon Pinching, finding me completely in his power, said he was sorry the days were gone by when I could hold up my head, and wished the inquisition could be put in force against such persons as myself. I was thrust into a filthy cell, and my hands were bolted together and the skin pinched off. I w

s so moved by this remark, that he rose and ejaculated somethin

of Cheltenham, before quoted, referring to the conduct, at the examination, o

ead any statement not authenticated by

is a petition of

rskine. It is

re, if I had not been publicly questioned. I have held various situations, and in all secular ones I have strictly kept religious opinions out of view. It is known that I have taught that and that only which I have been employed to teach. In proof of this I may cite testimonials

the Mechanics' Institute, some years ago, for proficiency in mathematics, a proficiency attained, too, under most discouraging circumstances.' Another of

ts for my sick sister. Humanity decided; and we all agreed that it should be devoted to this latter purpose. It was; but, I think, the very next week, a summons came for the Easter due, and two shillings and sixpence were added, because of the non-payment of "the fourpence". The payment of this could now no longer be evaded, for in a few days a warrant of distraint would have rudely torn the bed from under her, as had been the case with a near neighbour. Dreading this, and trembling at the apprehension, we gathered together all the money we had, and which was being saved to purchase a little wine to moisten the parched lips of my dying sister, for at this time her end seemed approaching. My mother, with a heavy heart, left home to go

ned that Mr. W. J.

g lecture on the e

-place in the Sept

is opportunity of ac

upant of a pulpit fr

during my enti

t is well for those who enjoy the smiles of fortune to say so. For them all shines brightly-for them all is fair. But I can see cause of complaint, and

raging s

he wild lawless w

torm, and reaso

isery's son th

rge, Thou may'st extol life's calm, untroubled sea-The storms of misery ne'er burst on thee. Go to the mat where squalid want reclines; Go to the shade obscure where merit pines; A

eath with gradual steps steal on; And the pale mother, pi

; Behold the heart-wrung parent lay her head On the cold turf, and ask to share his bed.

rned the accents of piety from my mother's lips. She was and still is a religious woman. Whatever may be the dissent I entertain, I have never spoken of her opinions in the language of contempt. I have always left her (as she to her honour has left me), to enjoy her own opinions. In early youth I was religious. I question whether there is any here who have spent more time tha

IGN OF

earthly bui

all thing

nd beauty's

d's intell

e spoiler

sink benea

and our head

r all this

andard is

loud to

this time

s wreck of e

soul exult

the archan

o'er ear

stopped at

ill nouris

all et

ovely, fai

th this i

glories o

als yet

orm that ne'

that alw

t's awful

men improve

t Magazine.' Vo

e Cheltenham Chronicle that my expressing my opinions was no crime, and I was at some loss to know what my crime was. The charge stated I was guilty of blasphemy. In the depositions made against me, it i

eriousness-reporting these 'horrid sentiments' at night, and the next morning 'chaffing' about them. If it was an aggravation of my crime to have chosen an innocent subject, what would the learned counsel have said if I had chosen a guilty one? It has been sworn by the witnesses

shine of the wo

nsparent like

thing' in some such sense a

here is a great difference between denial and disbelief. If I had said distinctly 'there is no God,' it would have been stating that I was quite sure of it. I could not have said that, because I am not sure o

that the onus probandi, that is the burthen or weight of proving, rests on those who affirm a proposition. Prie

a conviction of the existence

said by some divines to possess, and which intu

sole media by which al

e a God from their inability otherwise to account for the existence

asis of this argument. Analogy is

ntry the Bible is said to con

it may be

isbelieving that we have any. And human experience confirms this conclusion. Some nations, as the people of the

ufficient reply to this-for the same may be affirmed

lties. For when we suppose a God, we cannot suppose how he came, nor how he created

Reason, No

Mr. Francis William

ly in these words;

ity, is to the full

and existing from

Second

ls. The Rev. Hugh M'Neile, M.A., minister of St. Jade's Church, Liverpool, in a lecture delivered to above four hundred of the Irish clergy, at the Rotunda in Dublin, said in reference to this part of the question, 'I am convinced, I say, that, from external creation, no right conclusion can be drawn concerning the moral character of God. Creation is too deeply and disastrously blotted in consequence of man's sin, to admit of any satisfactory result from an adequate contemplation of nature. The authors of a multitude of books on this subject, have given an inadequate and partial induction of particulars. Already aware (though perhaps scarcely recognising how or whence) that "God is love," they have looked on nature for proofs of this conclusion, and taken what suited their purpose. But

ess it, for reason has to determine what is, and what is not revelation, and therefore is superior to it. Also, it is contended by divines that, but for the Bible we should know nothing of a God, which shows the unsatisfactory nature of the fo

into sacred things. These difficulties are to me insuperable, and hence I find myself incap

his passage was t

lties belonging to t

an episode among

mine asking an emi

eances, and who a

e thought of my de

onundrum the existe

the reader will see

ivolity that employ

use of that figure of speech because I thought they would understand it better, and they did understand it. I was saying we had many heavy burdens to pay to capitalists and others, and that I thought it hung like a millstone round us. Sir R. Peel said, when he introduced the income-tax, that the poor man could bear no more. I said there were twenty-four millions taken from us for the support of religion, and that they would do well to reduce that one-half. Suppose, gentlemen, that I did refer to the Deity, was my notion a dishonou

hort time. Some ladies who represented themselves as wives of clergymen, came round the dock offering Mr. Holyoake confecti

d-According to a calculation t

their

ring... 124,672,

... 54,046,000

" ... 41,000,

tians 219,718,

re than one-half.'* Thus the English pay five times more acco

tion.' By Henr

ry disposed of the mismanaged funds of the clergy, they w

s of the clergy ought to be reduced, and that you did not intend to insult God, I should te

t Cheltenham that I said Christians are worshippers o

ine. There is no

trates.' Perhaps this is as correct a definition as can be given. It has been said to be 'an injury to God,' Men who could not string six sentences together grammatically, have told me they would defend God-men whom

appy being, in the most absol

hat is contrary to happiness: and so that in strict propriety of

he is less pleased, or has the less pleasure, his pleasure and happiness are diminished, and he suffers what is disa

coming to pass of every individual act of sin is truly, all things considered, contrary to his will, and that his will is really crossed in it, and that in proportion as he hates it. And as God's hatred of sin is infinite, by reason of the infinite contrariety of his holy nature to sin; so his will is infinitely crossed in every act

day, who shock themselves with the barouches, the cigars, the newspapers, and the elephants of a London Sunday, and occasionally digress to Paris, for the keener excitation of seeing Punch upon the Boulevards, and wondering where heaven reserves its thunder. And put the parallel case; that a good Austrian or Navarrese Catholic came here, and grieved his heart with our weekly doings on a Friday, to say nothing of our more wholesale offences for forty days together in Lent. "Such frying; such barbecuing; in no place did I see anybody having the smallest notion of a red herring! All ar

mmentary on the Pub

ty and Responsibili

te of the Un

of Sabbath Observ

&c. By Col. Peyron

College,

ntleman well known in this court and county, who says all science should be destroyed; but I trust you entertain no such feelings, and that if I can show that my sentiments cannot be productive of harm, you will feel called upon to acquit me. I claim no inherent right of express

at a person twenty-one years of age has to elect a member of parliament than he has to be a juryman. I conceive that you may just as well say that every adult male has a right to sit upon a jury to decide the most complicated and difficult questions of property, or that every man has a right to exercise the judicial functions, as the people did in some of the republics of antiquity. These things, as it appears to me, are not matters of right; but if it be for the good of the people at large, if it be conducive to the right government of the state, i

r people's-one is simple, the other complex. But with the measure of right laid down by his lordship in the sentiments I have quoted, I perfectly accord, and if it could be shown that f

emorial. If reason 'contents' the Secretary of State, and 'fountain of justice,' surely it ought to 'content' the channels through which such justice is diffused over society. Reason would always be preferred by us were we not differently instructed. 'Bewildered,' says Diderot, 'in

ered a short time since at the Church of England Tradesmen and Working Men's Association of Cheltenham, he said, 'that the more a man is advanced in human knowledge, the more is he opposed to religion, and the more deadly enemy he is to the truth of God.' If this Christian minister is to be believed, then may you burn yo

see the discourse of Mr. Clo

handed to h

t be doubted, I may state that the sentiments

he power of persecution to spread that which persecution only can spread.' When I walk through any of those ancient places, as I did yesterday through your beautiful cathedral, I feel the majesty they ever present, and think of the manner in which our Catholic ancestors acted on the minds of men. There were sublimity and pageantry and pomp to create awe. We have none now of that beauty of architecture in our meagre churches an

hristian Knowledge.' In the 'Discourse concerning Prayer,' it is laid down that the 'second qualification for prayer is charity or love. There is nothing so contrary to the nature of God, nothing so wide of the true spirit of a Christian, as bitterness and wrath, malice and envy; and therefore it is vain to

, let him ask of God, but let him ask in faith.' My prosecutors have asked M

mission to the will of God. A good Christian will be sure to leave the issue in God's hands.' In my c

t pray as the revengeful man when he prays for authority, that he may have the more power to effect his evil desig

ated Bishop Neander was commissioned by the ecclesiastical body of Berlin, to peruse the book and to return an answer. Neander did so, and declared in reply, that the work submitted to his examination threatened, it was true, the demolition of all cree

e. That work was t

rs. Would that have been done had he been prosecuted? Dr. Strauss's work on the scriptures got him a professor's chair in

stitutions a smaller evil is allowed to procure a greater good; as in politics, a province may be given away, to secure a kingdom; in medicine, a limb may be lopt off, to preserve the body. But in religion,

orks, pp. 933-4, 8

tch

ome, because I had spoken too freely of religion; for it was a rule which I laid down to myself in those places, never to be the first to

ich I myself have f

proved that I was far from having any of those 'malicious' feelings the indictment presupposes. Many figures of speech have been used in this court from which my feelings revolted as much as those of any person could from what I said. No allowance is made for this, and too much importance is attached to what is assumed to be ridicule. A short time ago it was argued, that if the political squibs which are seen in shop windows were permitted to be published, they would bring government into contempt, and you would

did not state whether the indict

e Erskine.

ll draw your attention to that, and I hope I sha

ry must take the law from m

nsulted the works bearing upon the law of this case.* I have here the results o

Mr. J. Homffrey Pa

of the argume

against the Christian religion was an indictable offence. Another judge followed him and said the same; and at last

unishment for it is in their discretion. Had it been an offence under a statute, it would have been impossible for me to have denied the authority of the statute; but, as it is an offence at common law, it is quite competent for me to show that the authorities which have been supposed to constitute the offence do not warrant such a construction. Should your lordship even declare that you had no doubt upon the subject, it would still be competent for me to bring before you the decisions of former judges, to argue upon those decisions, and to show, if I could, that there was some mistake or error running throughout the whole of them. Your lordship, I am sure, will admit that judges are fallible, and that a blind, unreasoning submission to them no man should give. As some excuse for presuming to doubt the decision of some of your lordship's predecessors, I shall quote the following passage from the preface to Mr. Watkin's treatise on Conveyancing, allowed to be a master-piece of legal sagacity and method. 'I

is indictment is worth nothing. You can take it before the fifteen judges on a

by a legal friend o

might have taken th

e case before the j

ted with the forms

er distruste

idence, or by contumelious reproaches of our saviour, Christ. Whither also may be referred all profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule. These are offences punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment; for Christianity is par

age would be a good foundation to build up Mr. Judge Blackstone's law. But it is no such thing. The case in the year book is a case of quare impedit, and, in the course of the argument the question arose whether, in a matter of induction to a benefice by the ordinary (i.e., the bishop) the common law would take notice of, or be bound by, the law or practices of the church. Where-. upon, Chief Justice Prisot says-'To such laws, wh

nly record of them was in writing. Printing had not been introduced into England, and was only just discovered on the continent, the laws therefore of the spiritual and temporal courts were only to be seen in writing. And as though there should be no doubt as to his meaning, he goes on to say, 'And as we are obliged to recognise their laws (that is the ecclesiastical laws, or laws of the spiritual courts), so they are obliged to recognise our laws (that is, the laws of the temporal courts).' It must therefore be evident that this quotation of Mr.

case, and Chief Justice Hale certainly declares explicitly in this case, 'that C

it for the first time; and this case in Ventris' cannot be said to lay down the law. The case in the second volume of Strange is the King v. Woolston. The defendant had been convicted of writing four blasphemous discourses against the divinity and character of Christ; and upon attempting to move in arrest of judgment, the court declared they would not suffer it to be debated whether to write against Christiani

who afterwards quotes this case. He misstates it thus: "To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence," and cites Prisot, mistranslating "ancien scripture" into holy scripture. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Shephard, title "Religion," in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the year book, finch, and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words, "Christianit

tianity is according to c

se of Hetherington v. Moxon, it permits the respectable blasphemer to go free. Blasphemy

ty, of his having confessed his errors in an affidavit, and of his being 74 years old, and some symptoms of wildness that appeared on his inspection in court, the court declared they had mitigated his punishment to the following: To be imprisoned in Newgate for one month; t

God before Henry the Eighth was born, did not insult him afterwards. Henry the Eighth's opinion made the difference. Lord Commissioner White-locke (5 Howell's State Trials, p. 826), in Debate whether James Nayler the quaker sho

d sailors with Bibles and tracts, which, if they read and believe, will make them apostates from the faith of Mahomet, and blasphemers of the Koran. While on

ne's Repor

ker's Informatio

n; religious in their efforts after self-perfection; though unable to personify their conception of the infinite. In a somewhat narrower sense, religion is the relation which the highest human sentiments bear towards an infinitely perfect being. There can be no further narrowing than this. Any account of religion

mmon law, speaks Christianity. Will you, by a verdict of guilty this day,

ropriety of the established mode of worship.' 4 Bla. Com. 51; 1 Pmp. 219. And Mr. Starkie, on the subject, says 'that it may not be going too far from the principles and decisions, that no author or preacher who fairly and conscientiously promulgates the opinions with whose truth he is impressed for the benefit of others, is for so doing amenable as a criminal, that a malicious and mischievous intention is in s

on Libel,

it, he also ought to be. 'No one,' says his lordship, 'is more inclined than myself to speak reverently of the decision of juries. But, gentlemen, you cannot, under the sanction of an oath, take the verdict of those juries either directly or indirectly as your guide in the verdict you are called upon to give in this case. Those juries, n

charged with, it will be no justification of your doing so too. Here Mr. Holyoake, perceiving that he would b

ave occupied you long you will find my apology in the circumstance that your verdict against me will occupy me longer. I could wish that just

ng been young. Meaning, any man may err in youth. So I erred in being religious in my early days. If I am not religious now, deem me not c

y avowals, it has not proceeded from a disregard of your feelings, but from

upon the question of Deity, I offer no apology. I have made no contract to think as you do, and I owe you no obligation to do it. If I commanded you to abjure your

Christian country, and ask, is this Christianity? you would reply, 'No; what you refer to results from men who live without G

dictates of humanity at this season of national suffering. Surely it is not blasphem

not offend your pride by asking to be admitted your equals here. I desire not such privileges. I claim me

is no Deity. The more correct I am the severer would be my punishment, because the law regards the belief in a God to be the foundation of obedience among men. But I trust

d that the objections of the sceptic merely strengthen the fabric of piety they pretend to assail. Gentlemen, which is to be believed, divines and philos

ou publish your consciousness of error in the cause you are placed there to defend as t

ch I am placed? If you find me guilty upon the indictment before you, my case stands in this manner-if I do not lie you imprison me, and if I do you punish me. Turning back to the

ice may descend among men, and: the supplication is a noble one. Gentlem

will accord with my constitution, I seek not these things, I assure you, but when th

rave to entertain youth, and too devoid of consolation for the trembling wants of age-too abstract for the comprehension of the ignorant, and too unreasonable to gain the admiration of the intelligent. That it is alarming to the timid, and disquieting to the brave-that it negatives everything, and sets up nothing, and is so purely speculative that it can never have a practical bearing on the business of life. Gentlemen, will you disturb the harmon

e you, that if men can expect to die in peace who can send their fellow men

ever do it. I must see my fellow-men in error, but never put them right. Must live every day below the standard of rig

il design,' against the peace of the Queen, uttered certain words. What s

, on the poor plea of precedent-that others have done so before? For, gentlemen, there is nothing else that even the subtlest sophistry can conjure up to justify you. But I best prefer appealing to you as honest men, in the spirit of my own reasoning, and thinking; as men with an eye to the improvement of mankind, who would break the unjust shackles that bind them, who would discard prejudice in order to be just, who will not condemn me because I am not rich, and who will l

on of the grand jury to these cases. Certainly the printed report was highly incorrect. I said nothing to prejudice them. Inasmuch as this offence directly tended to take away that foundation on which real morality can alone be safely based, I told them what I feel, that without religion there is no morality. I recommended that that foundation may be made by early education and habits of thought, but in so doing I did not mean to prejudge, nor do I seem to have been considered as doing so, I am not going to lay down as law that no man has a right to entertain opinions opposed to the religion of the state, nor to express them. Man is only responsible for his opinions to God, because God only can judge of his motives, and we arrogate his duties if we judge of men's sentiments. If men will entertain sentiments opposed to the religion of the state we require that they shall express them reverently, and philosophers who have discussed this subject all agree that this i

should be punished, but whether he uttered these words with the intent charged in the indictment. These words were proved by a witness who admits that others were used, that they did not follow consecutively, and that other words were interspersed. It is right that you should have the whole set before you, for a man is not to be judged for what is partly set before you, and therefore it was necessary you should have the whole of what was said. The way in which the witness related the statements made by defendant was this: He said he had been lecturing on 'Home Colonisation, Emigration, and Poor-Laws superseded.' After the lecture had been closed, some man whose name he did not then know, said the lecturer had been speaking of our duty to our fellow-men, but he had not spoken of our duty to our God, and i

h Mr. Justice Erski

ered into my imagi

en the jury any su

ished to hear th

f there is no such authority as that which I have laid down. Any man who treats with contempt the Christian religion, is guilty of an indictable misdemeanour. You have to consider the language and a passage read to you from a charge of a learned judge. 'It may not be going too far to state, that no author or preacher is forbidden stating his opinions sincerely. By maliciously is not meant malice against any particular individual, but a mischievous intent. This is the criterion, and it is a fair criterion, if it can be collected from the offensive levity in which the subject is treated, if the matter placed in the indictment contains any such tendency.' If the words had appeared in the course of a written paper you would have entertained no doubt that the person who had uttered these words had uttered them with levity. The only thing in his favour is, that it was not a written answer. The solution given by the defendant is, that although his opi

my original speech

court from

rief deliberation, retur

against me. For myself, I never for a moment expected an acquittal. During the few moments of the jury's consultation, I took my watch from my neck and gave it, with my keys, to my

of these prosecutions, you are convicted of having uttered these words with improper levity. The arm of the law is not stretched out to protect the character of the Almighty; we do not assume to be the protectors of our God, but to protect the people from such indecent language. And if these words had been written for deliberate circulation, I should have passed

those unwarranted s

t to have indulged

Mr. Chilton, Editor

with his initials.

Gloucester Gaol wh

d have stopped the

y seeming to separa

le of saving myself

him to ne

am I to be classed wi

nd felons are sentenced to the Pen

djourned at

rs, my voice, usually shrill and weak, became full and somewhat sonorous. I could have spoken all night, and I should have done it had the judge attempted to put me down. But I willingly acknowledge that, on the whole, the conduct of the judge was fair to me, and patient to a degree that inspired me with great respect for the dignity of the bench, and I dedicated my 'Short and Easy Method with the Saints' to Mr. Justice Erskine, as an actual expression of my respect. The governor of the gaol one day said to me, that I ought not to regre

ht it a crime against freedom to distinguish between weak comment and the report of essential facts, or the expression of vital principle. The report of the proceedings rendered in these pages is given in some measure upon the rule of discrimination which I have described. But, in this, I have been impartial to others, and have omitted many things on the part of my opponents which I believe they would not repeat, and which I, therefore, have no wish to perpetuate. The remaining variations between this report and t

ecorous manner, testifying their interest in the proceedings by a uniform silence, manifesting neither approbation nor disapprobation.' Several newspapers gave nine or ten columns of the proceedings, which was valuable propagandism. And it is due to the Cheltenham Examiner (whose parallel between me and

cience, or my character. It risked much in defending, alone among its local contemporaries, the freedom of speech violated in my person. It opened its columns

inform him of my position with respect to the pending trial; and his able Letters to Justice Erg-kine, after my conviction, produced great uneasine

enter, lest in my own newness to the study of so large a subject I should compromise it by unskilfulness of statement; I therefore confined myself to pleading that the right of public expression was the sequence of the right