KL 2740 C36 T.,v- . \u\,iOLrNw<*. THE DEBATE IX THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1823; MR. HUME'S PRESENTING A PETITION FROM ffiarttfe, A PRISONER IN DORCHESTER GAOL. HotUron : PRINTED BY T. MOSES, 30, WILDERNESS ROW. 1823. THE DEBATE, #C. 4'C. MR. HUME, in presenting a Petition from Mary Ann Carlile, com- plaining of hardship, and praying for redress, felt it necessary to state that he was aware there was a great prejudice against the name of Carlile; but he hoped the House, would in the present case divest itself of all prejudice against her, on account of her brother. He conceived that a very important principle was involved in the case of Mary Ann Carlile. The prosecution against her was instituted, not by the Attorney or Solicitor General, who he (Mr Hume) conceived were the only legal preservers of (he peace and good morals of the community; but by Societies which he had long viewed with great jealousy, namely, the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and the Constitutional Association. These Societies were little belter lhan conspiracies against the liberty of the subject; and the individuals prosecuted by them might be justly considered as their victims. By a joint purse they were enabled to bear down individuals even in point of expence; and thus render it quite useless to make resist- ance. The operation which their influence was calculated to produce on the minds of a jury was no small matter. Such had been the case in many trials: but he was desirous of confining himself strictly to the present case. He had had the Petition in his pos- session exactly one month. He had been unwilling to present it, until he could ascertain who had been the Petitioner's prosecutors. She was tried on the same day at the suit of the .Constitutional Association for a seditious libel, and acquitted, and at the suit of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and found guilty. He had been anxious to discover who the prosecutors in the latter case were; but he had been ten or fourteen days in finding out the Members of the Society for Vicq^fa laugh). \Veli ! he could prove that the So- ciety was one not for Suppression, but for the Promotion of Vice. On enquiry he understood that there had not been a list of the Mem- bers published since 1803, or at latest 1807. The difficulty that he experienced in ascertaining the names of the Members, assisted in leading him to the extraordinary conclusion that those individuals must of necessity be infidels, men who shunned the light, who dis- believed the Christian religion, and who wished to diffuse the prin- - ciples of scepticism as widely as possible (a laugh). At last he wrote to the Secretary of the Society: and it was but justice to say, that he found a perfect readiness to communicate to him all the i..- formation that he required. When he received the list of Members, 250 in number, he found among them several of his most intimate friends, men standing high in public opinion, and distinguished by their private worth; Members of that and the other House of Parlia- ment, as well as of every oilier respectable class of the community. He could mean therefore DO attack upon their individual character, when he declared it to be his opinion, that by the course which they had adopted, they had rendered general throughout the country a knowledge of those principles, which but for that course would have been very little known indeed. In that point of view, there- fore, they had been the promoters, and not the suppressors, of vice. He had read the publication, for the sale of which, on her brother's account, the Petitioner had been tried and convicted. But for the prosecution, he certainly should not have done so; he must nay, that he could not see in it a single intemperate word, or any expression which miyht not, with great propriety, be used by any person holding the sume opinions us the writer. lie considt rtd the punishment attendant on its publicatiou therefore to be an infringe- ment on the privilege of free discussion, which the people of this country had a right to enjoy, and which had been maintained by so many eminent individuals, and among them several of the most or- thodox divines that the country had produced; he had also read with great attention the part of the defence of the Petitioner, which she read in Court, and he really could not conceive how any controversy could be carried on, where one person denied what another asserted, if such a defence could be put down, as in the present instance it was put down by Mr. Justice Best. His (Mr. Hume's) opinion on such a subject might have little weight, but his conviction, on the most deliberate review of all the proceedings in the case, was, that the Petitioner had been treated very harshly, and in a manner contrary to the spirit of the English law, by being prevented on her trial from using what argument she pleased in her own defence. He was aware that of late a practice, but a practice which he contended was unprecedented and unjustified, had obtained on the part of the Bench, of silencing individuals who expressed opinions contrary to the established religion, which was termed " part and parcel of the law." It was maintained that religion ought not to be re- viled or abused, or spoken of in opprobrious language. Now, he had looked with a great deal of attention at books of controversy, published at different periods of our history, some, in support of athe- ism, some in support of deism, &c. &c. ; and he was satisfied that no part of the publication, for her connection wilh which (he Peti- tioner was condemned; he was satisfied, that no part of the Peti- tioner's defence was at all comparable in strength of expression with many passages in works published ages ago, which were now public matter of history, and which were to be found in every library. He contended, therefore, that the Petitioner had been un- duly punished, and that her Judges had treated her with a severity not warranted by the principles of British Jurisprtulence. He was sure that they were principles which would not have been acted upon forty or fifty years ago; and that the only parallel to them was to bo found in times when individuals were brought to the stake, and were otherwise outrageously punished for their religious opinions. It was to Have brrii hoped that more Christian and liberal feelings would have prevailed in the present day. It was to have been hoped that an abstinence from any thing like harshness or severity would have been evinced by a body of individuals, among whom were some of the most distinguished ornaments of the Church and the State ; but who appeared to be actuated by a misguided zeal, fraught with the most pernicious consequences. He really did intreat those who had to make laws, to make such laws on the subject to which the Peti- tion alluded, as the people could understand. He entreated them distinctly to define the crimes against which those laws were directed. He intreated them to put an end to the worse than absurd practice of calling upon a jury, to pronounce upon oath on a matter of fact submitted to them, when no fact, but only the opinion of the Judge, that such or such expressions were hostile to' that which was part and parcel of the law of England, was actually submitted to them. He entreated them to bring in a bill to define what blasphemy was. In former times similar proceedings were instituted, and the same course was adopted against those who denied the Real Presence in the Eu- charist. In the present, as in all former ages, great differences ex- isted on the subject of religion; but surely it was desirable to extend the principles of the Christian religion, the principles of true charity towards those principles; and not make them the pretext for the exhibition of a system of gross oppression and tyranny. He wished the Members of the Prosecuting Society to turn to the New Testa- ment, and shew him one passage in which they were warranted in prosecuting men for the expression of opinions respecting religion. On the contrary when our Saviour was asked why he did not call down fire from Heaven on the heads of his enemies, he said they knew not what they did; which was as much as to say that violence was not what he approved of. The whole of the New Testament, the principles, precepts, and practice of our Saviour, confirmed this opi- nion. As for the Petitioner, she had published nothing new, and un- heard of. She was prosecuted only for publishing a transcript of what was sold with perfect freedom in America. He saw some Gentlemen smile when he alluded to America,* but he would say that they would do well in some things to copy the practice of that country. He held * Some gentlemen on the ministerial benches smiled when America was alluded to; this is quite in character. Ignorance is very apt to smile at its own fatuity. In 1813 when ministers thought it necessary to have ships on Lake Ontario, in North America, so great was their ignorance that they sent out iron tanks to hold fresh water, wisely concluding that the lakes in America were salt. By the census taken in 1820 there appears to have been 9,638,900 people in the United States, a larger number than England, Scotland, and Ireland contained two centuries ago. Virginia alone contained 1,065,366. G in his hand an Act of the Assembly of Virginia, " In titled an act for establishing religious freedom, passed in the Assembly of Virgi- nia in 1786." It recites that, " Well aware that Almighty God has created the mind free, that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being lord of both body and uiiud, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either: that the im- pious presumption of legislators, and rulers, civil and ecclesiastical, (who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have as- sumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinion and modes of thinking, as alone true and infallible, and as such en- deavouring to impose on others) hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time," that truth is great and will prevail, if left to herself, is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and can have nothing to fear from the conflict, unless (by human interposition) disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; error ceasing to be dangerous, when it is permitted freely to contradict them ; UK it there- fore enactedj by the general assembly, that no man shall be com- pelled to support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever; nor shall be forced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opi- nions or belief, but all men be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion: and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." The Petitioner had only published a work, maintaining opinions by argument. In prosecuting her for this we were departing from the principles on which Christians should act; we had claimed and vindicated the right of asserting our religious opinions in opposition to the See of Home, and surely then we should extend the same right to others. If he had been one of the Jury on Mary Ann Carlile's case he should certainly have paused before he con- sented to condemn a fellow subject for such an expression of opinion ; he could never, on the ipse dixit of a Judge, think himself warrant- ed in visiting an expression of opinion as a crime. The ipse dixit, that Christianity being a part of the law of the land, any attempt to impugn it was punishable, was utterly unworthy to be considered as a part of our Legislation. The whole of the prosecutions against religious opinions were however founded on this ipse dixit, which originated with Sir Matthew Hale, an authority of much weight in such questions, as he was the Judge who had sentenced several per- tOtU to the stake for witchcraft. (Hear, hear.) If he believed in such a crime, and it would be uncharitable to suppose that he did not, it was necessary to receive with caution what he said on matters of opinion. As to the sentence on the Petitioner, she had been sen- tenced to a year's imprisonment, to a fine of 500. and to be impri- soned till that fine was paid. One of the charges against James II. was the imposition of excessive fines, und the demanding of excessive bail, and the Petitioner herself stated, what he believed was correct, that the Chief Justice of the King's Bench had recently declared, thut it was never the intention of that Court to impose fines beyond the ability of defendants to pay. Now by an affidavit of the Peti- tioner, taken before VV. Morton Pitt, Esq. she declared that she had no property beyond her wearing apparel, furniture enough to furnish a small room, and a few books of small value not worth mentioning, and that she never had any other property. Now when a fine of 500. was imposed upon a person in the condition of the Petitioner, did not the sentence come within the description of fines the imposing of which was one of the offences of James the Second's Government? They knew the difficulty in deciding what was an excessive fine and what was excessive bail, but the construction was generally on the milder side. By the 1st William and Mary, sess. 2, c. 2. This is particularly noticed and condemned. The statute says " and exces- sive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm." He would ask then if the sentence on Mary Ann Carlile, was not just such a one as James had been con- demned forsanctioning, and which thelaw-inthe Istof William had de- clared illegal. When the Bishop of Clogher, who was possessed of a revenue by some estimated as high as 100,000. was charged on the clearest evidence of an indictable offence, the Magistrate did not think himself justified in demanding more than 1,000. bail which, however justifiable, seemed, a very different measure of law from that by which 500 fine was inflicted on an individual having no property. The Petitioner stated that she was a comparatively young woman, 29 years of age, and if the House did not interfe/e, she might never be released from the walls which now surrounded her. On the 15th November last, the year of her imprisonment expired, and she had since that time been confined from her inability to pay her fine, besides her fine she would be required previously to her enlargement to enter into recognizances, herself in 1000., and two sureties in 100 each. Soon after the expiration of her year's imprisonment, she had written to the Lords of the Treasury, pray- ing for the remission of the fine, which she was utterly unable to pay. This application was refused, and she now lay in gaol, the victim of persecution, for publishing matters of opinion which many of our most eminent divines, and some of our most enlightened Judges, have declared might be promulgated with impunity. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would grant the Petitioner what she prayed for. The Petition was then brought up and read : s To the Honourable the Commons' of Great Britain and. Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of Mary Ann Carlile, a Prisoner in His Majesty's Gaol of Dorchester, respectfully shewetli: That your Petitioner was shopwoman to her brother, a bookseller, in Fleet Street, in the City of London, and re- ceived wages of him for acting in that capacity. That your Petitioner was prosecuted for selling a pam- phlet, the title of which was " An Appendix to the Theo- logical Works of Thomas Paine." That this pamphlet which questioned the divine origin of the Christian religion, was nevertheless mild in its tone and temperate in its manner, in comparison with other works, for publishing of which persons had been prosecuted to conviction. That in none of the cases in which persons bad been con- victed for the publication of the works alluded to, has a sentence ever been passed on any one, which, in point of severity, admits of any comparison with that which has been, and still is, inflicted upon your Petitioner. That your Petitioner appeared in the Court of King's Bench, at Guildhall, in the City of London, on the 24th of July, 1821, and there attempted to defend herself against a charge of having published a blasphemous libel; but before she had read more than ten or twelve out of more than a hundred pages of her defence, she was interrupted by the Judge, Mr. Justice Best, who refused to hear the remainder, although the defence was altogether strictly relevant to the charge made against her. That in consequence of the Judge having refused to hear her in her own defence she was convicted unheard, convicted simply on the case which had been made against her. That your Petitioner is convinced that hers is a case of unparallelled hardship, and, as she also believes, of singular njustice. That the great injustice done to your Petitioner at her Trial was still further increased, when, on the ground of her being convicted without having been beard in her de- fence, she moved for a new trial, that request was peremp- torily rejected. That on the 16th of November, 1821, your Petitioner was sentenced to a year's imprisonment in Dorchester Gaol, and also, to pay a fine of five hundred pounds, and to remain in prison until the fine of five hundred pounds was paid. That your Petitioner's year's imprisonment expired on the 15th of November now last past, but she is still detained for the fine of five hundred pounds. That your Petitioner is twenty-nine years of age, of irre- proachable character, and had for the last twelve years, previous to her confinement in Dorchester Gaol, maintained herself by her industry, she having no property whatever, nor any other reputable means of obtaining a livelihood. That your Petitioner is utterly unable to pay the fine of five hundred pounds imposed upon her, or any other sum whatever. That in consequence of this inability, which is no fault in your Petitioner, she is sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, in a distant gaol. That your Petitioner has heard and believes, that in the month of December last, the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench declared from the bench, that that Court in imposing fines upon persons convicted in that Court, always paid attention to the ability, or supposed ability, of the person fined to pay the fine, and never in- tended to impose a fine beyond the ability of the person fined to pay. Your Petitioner cannot but conclude, that hers is, in all respects, a very extraordinary case, and one of singular hardship, and she therefore prays, that your Honourable House will interfere in her behalf, so that she may be re- leased from her present imprisonment, and that all further proceedings against her for the same alleged offence may be stayed. MARY ANN CARLILE. Dorchester Gaol, February 6, 1823. On the motion that it do lie on the Table, Sir T. D. ACLAND said, There was no occasion on which it was more painful for him to speak, than in endeavouring to enforce se- verity of punishment against any individual, however unfortunate, or however guilty ; and if he had any such wish, the present was the last occasion on which he should attempt it, as he was a member of that Society which had been visited by the reprehension of the Honourable Mover. He was the last person to hold an opinion on the propriety of enforcing a penalty on an individual brought to pu- nishment indirectly through his agency. If indeed he gave an opi- nion, it would be, that he was most anxious that the first symptoms of returning penitence should be embraced in favour of a person who 2 10 had already suffered much, and who was likely to suffer more unless her fine was remitted. la the present debate, he should not go into a general discussion of the law of blasphemy, because it would be entirely one of anticipation. The Honourable Member (Mr. Hume) had himself moved for a general return of prosecutions, with a view to bring under discussion the law of blasphemy. He should say a few words as to the conduct of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. The business of that Society was merely to denounce to Courts of Justice offences which they thought could not with safety be allowed to go unpunished. Further than that the Society was not responsible, and if they did not proceed in an oppressive manner as prosecutors, which in the piesent case was not imputed to them, and which he believed they would not be found to have done in any case, they could not be justly visited with any reprehension. They should not confine themselves to the consideration of Mary Ann Carlile's single case in the way the Honourable Member wished to confine them (hear!) It was to be considered in connection of the rases of others, and the severity with which the Judges visited her offence (he did not mean to say undue seventy) shewed that they so considered it. What was the system of blasphemy of which this individual formed a branch? They might call to mind what was their feeling at the deluge of blasphemy which was some time ago poured over the land, (hear, hear!) wheu blasphemous tracts were pub- lished in every street and every lane of this great town the name of Richard Carlile was tixed to the worst and most blasphemous of the libels which had issued from the press. He could have wished to have been spared the necessity of stating the topics with which this man had the audacity to trouble the country. He should, however, select a few passages, though not the worst, for this plain reason, that some were so bad, that he knew no man who would read them aloud in any assembly. After his own prosecution, and while in confine- ment, he had prompted his wife to pursue the same detestable traffic. When Mrs. C'arlile was also convicted, Mr. Carlile published from Dorchester Gaol, the place of his confinement, a notice to the fol- lowing effect: " In consequence of the verdict of a Jury, finding Mrs. Carlile guilty of selling ' Sherwiu's Life of Paine,' and No. 0, Vol. 1. of ' The Republican,' she is liable to banishment for serving in the shop; Mary Ann C'arlile, the sister of Kichard Car- lile, will consequently conduct the business, in the same place, iu behalf of the family ; and if legal robbers should break into the shop in Fleet Street, she will be prepared in half an hour to begin busi- ness in another place. In vain one web is destroyed by the agents of persecution iu halt an hour we shall spin another, stronger and better than before (hair). After this notice it was that Mary Ann Carlile opened* tlic shop in which she sold the publication for which * In general men enquire and endeavour to avrrtnin the truth before they make atarrtion*. but in the Hmiic of Commons we frequently sec a man get up and state circumstance of which he i* utterly ignorant, and the reason he states it is that he u ignorant. The fact it that Mary Ann Carlile was in the service of her 11 she was convicted; and she could certainly be looked upon in no other way than as the successor of Richard Carlile in his abomina- ble traffic (hear). Now, what was this No. 9 of " The Republican?" By the way, this Republican was published from the very Gaol where he was confined for perpetrating this very crime; and as the law stood, his only security in publishing such things was in conti- nuing in gaol (hear!) ; for if he was out of gaol, he might, for a second offence, be banished from the country, of which he was un- worthy. The following was a passage of it: " Before the people can be blest with, and cordially receive, a perfect government and a pure and equitable code of laws, they must reject the Bible as being the word of the true God; and also totally disbelieve the divinity of Christ. For while they are inflexible in the Christian faith, Ihere is no possibility of establishing equitable laws; or even acting in a private way justly towards each other; for by the doctrines of the Bible and New Testament nature is subverted, and when nature is destroyed no perfection can possibly remain. 1 was in my youthful days taught to read the Bible, and 1 continued to read and reverence it more than twenty years; and was as tenacious of it and the Chris- tian religion as any one could be, except at some short intervals, when the reason "that nature had given me was allowed to act; but priestcraft had carefully provided a sufficiently powerful enemy to defeat the efforts of the divine light of nature, until 1 had the cou- rage to read * The Deist' and Paine's * Age of Reason;' and I do most affectionately intreat all my countrymen to throw far from them that book which scarcely contains any thing but blasphemy T profaneness, lies, and unequalled absurdities; and instead of the Bible, I would, above all things, have them read attentively ' The Age of Reason' and ' The Deist,' which are books replete with per- spicuous truth." It was dreadful to think of this man, who thus artfully referred back to the time when he worshipped his God as a child in simplicity of heart. Sir T. A. read another extract, which he conceived would justify those who proceeded against the Pe- titioner, from " The Republican" of the 18th of December, 1822, which declared all the books of the New Testament were forgeries, andante-dated; that the writer would not believe a single fact as- serted in the Four Gospels or Acts of the Apostles; and that he did not credit one of the Epistles as a matter of history. After this the House would judge whether the Petitioner, who had made herself the instrument of this organized system of blasphemy, had been dealt with with undue severity, or whether the prosecutors had shewn a morbid sensibility when they attempted to prevent the diffusion of such sentiments (hear, hear!). As this was an anticipated debate, he should not enter further into the subject; he had only intended to say a few words in vindication of the Society of which he was a brother previous to the time alluded to, she continued in that service, opened no shop, but merely served in the shop as usual. The reader cannot fail to ob- serve the impression intended to be made by the words " Afttr this notice it wai- Mary Ann Carlile OPENED THE SHOI>," fyc. 12 member, and he might conclude by observing, that its proceedings had been five years before the House without having called for any reprehension (hear, hear!). The ATTORNEY GENERAL, said it was not his intention to enter into any defence of the societies of which the Honourable Gentleman complained in presenting the Petition, but he .should be deceived if after the observations made t and the extracts read ; by the Hon. Member for Devonshire, indeed it was impossible, he thought, that there could be a single person in that House who could concur in the charges against the prosecution of those persons. The Honourable Gentleman who presented the petition had gone out of his way in order to attack the Judge who tried the Petitioner, and the other in- dividuals who were officially engaged on that trial. Against a charge of that nature, without notice to those individuals and in their absence, he most earnestly protested. He did not believe that there was any thing illegal or unconstitutional in those prosecutions. He knew that such prosecutions were not confined to the Law Officers of the Crown. It was competent for any society or body of men to institute such prosecutions. Hard indeed would be the case of any Attorney General who should take on himself the prosecution of all persons who had spread blasphemy, indecency, and immorality, through the different parts of the country. In his opinion the thanks of the country were rather due to those gentlemen who stepped for- ward and conducted those prosecutions. That Society had been in- stituted about thirty years, and he believed that instead of being in- jurious, it produced very good effects. He requested of the House not to confine themselves to the solitary case of Mary Ann Carlile. Was it to be said that too much severity was used against those per- sons, who in defiance of the laws, persevered in the course that was adopted by them. The offence of which the Petitioner was found guilty, was not the first offence of that individual. The brother, Richard Carlile, and his wife were before prosecuted by the same Society for blasphemy, and not with the view of putting down fair discussion, as the Honourable Member said, but to pt event the spreading of such noxious opinions. The propagation and diffusion of those opinions in such publications, were any thing but fair dis- cussion. After the conviction of this man and his wife, one after another, this woman, whose petition was before the house, was then set up to carry on the same odious business. That system called for unusual severity of punishment, inasmuch as that woman warned as she was by the conviction and consequent punishment of her brother and his wife, pursued the same course. In her petition she complained that she was not heard in her defence. Certainly she was not heard, because her object was not to defend herself, but to reiterate the same blasphemy for which she was under prosecution. She did Dot plead ignorant of the contents of the publication, nor of it* dangerous tendency, she did not attempt a justification: but in- stead of a defence, proceeded to read over a more odious blasphemy, if possible, than that which was under prosecution. He was not at 13 the trial himself, but he was informed that was the course she en- deavoured to pursue, until she was stopped by the Learned Judge who presided. The same conduct was pursued by the other Judges. It was the uniform rule on which all Judges acted, when indecency or blasphemy was attempted to be introduced under the pretext of a defence. She complained that she moved for a new trial and that her motion was refused. It was refused or. the same grounds as those set forth in the petition. The imprisonment to which she was sentenced was not so much a punishment on her as to deter others from committing the same offence. The Honourable Gentleman had complained that excessive bail was required of the Petitioner after the expiration of her term of imprisonment. The bail required was two sureties in 100. each for her good conduct in future. That certainly ought not to be considered too much, viewing the greatness of her offence. Besides that, she was required herself to sign a bond for 1,000. This latter could not be any impediment to her discharge.- As to the charge of the Hon. Member on the laying down of the law by the Judge, Mr. Fox often lauded and praised the practice which left the Jury the whole of the law and the fact, but at the same time he acknowledged that it was the right of the Judge to explain the law of the case to the Jury, a_nd it was for them to apply the law to the fact. The law in this, as in all other cases, was in the breast of the Judge*, who would state it to the Jury, leaving them to apply it to the facts as they appeared in evidence. There was no criminal case in which the Judges did not lay down the law. The Honourable Gentleman advanced another proposition more dangerous than any to which he had yet adverted. It was in effect that the Jury, before they pronounced on the guilt or innocence of a prisoner, were to consider what would be the punishment which would be inflicted. (No, no.) He appealed to the recollection of the House, whether the Honourable Member did not say that if the Jury were to know the punishment, they would pause before they would pronounce the sentence of guilty. No proposition could be more dangerous to the pure administration of justice. (Hear, hear.) It was no matter what the punishment was to be. He would contend, that it was the duty of the Jury to pronounce on the guilt or inno- cence of the parties on the facts in evidence before them, without the exercise of any discretion as to the punishment to be inflicted. He therefore protested against the dangerous proposition of the Honourable Member. If the Petition had set forth the reformation and contrition of that woman, he should know on what grounds he would receive it, but it contained no expression to that effect. He deprecated the interference of the House with sentences pronounc- ed by the Judges. If the Honourable Member had any charge against the Judge, let that charge be brought forward in a specific form. He would maintain that no man, considering the crime of the Petitioner, could lay his hand on his heart and say that the * How then can it be law at all. Law cannot reside in the breast of any Judge. 14 punishment inflicted on her was too severe. Nothing else could pre- vent those persons from continuing those scandalous publications. He hoped the House joined him in the opinion that there was nothing in the conduct of the Learned Judge who presided at the trial of the Petitioner, to merit the epithets that were so liberally bestowed on him. MR. RICARDO trusted that the House would excuse him if he ven- tured to say a few words upon this Petition. The noble and learned gentleman who had just sat down appeared to conceive, that Alary Ann Carlile would have been entitled to some lenity, had she expressed contrition for her past offences, or had she stated any change to have taken place in her religious sentiments. Now, they were bound in common justice, to consider that the Petitioner was express- ing her own sentiments in the libel of which she had been found guilty. The demand therefore, of the Attorney General, was, that she must acknowledge that to be right which she conscientiously believed to be wrong, before she could entitle herself to any le- nity; or, in other words, that she must commit an art of the most shameless duplicity, in order to become a proper object for the mercy of the Crowu. (Hear, hear.) \\ hile upon that subject, he must be permitted to find fault with a rule that prevailed in the courts of justice. A witness, before he was examined, was asked whether he believed in a future state : if be replied that he did not, his oath could not be tuken. Supposing that an individual did not believe in a future state, and by replying that he did not, showed that he was an honest man, he was put aside as an incompetent witness; whereas, if he be.lied his belief, and did not act the part of an honest man, he was considered as a witness worthy of credit. (Hear.) He contended that the Honourable Member for Devon- shire had by no means answered the case which his Honourable Friend the member for Aberdeen had made out. His Honourable Friend had stated that these prosecutions had aggravated the very evil which they were instituted to check. The Honourable Baronet asserted that the fact was not so and how did he prove it ? Why, he read a passage which proved that the sale continued in spite of his prosecutions, and thus confirmed the very argument which he had intended to refute. Besides, it appeared to him that the Honourable Baronet, in reading the opiuions of which he complained so loudly, had not taken a wise course to keep them from the knowledge of the public. (Hear.) He fully agreed with his Honourable Friend that the prosecutions of the Society for the Suppression of Vice had done much mischief. Blasphemy was an offence which it was quite im- possible to define. Nobody, in committing it, was aware of what he was offending against. It was one thing in this country, and another thing in France; indeed, that which was blasphemy here was not blasphemy there, and vice versa. Indeed, as the law was now laid down, the mere disputing the truths of Christianity was an offence, and, therefore, the moment it was shown that the individual had sold a work reflecting upon them, that moment he stood convicted. If 15 he said that he believed in what he wrote or sold, and attempted to state the grounds on which he rested his belief, he was told im- mediately he was aggravating his original offence by repeating it; and being thus precluded from making a defence, and bound as it were hand and foot, was delivered over to the vengeance of the pro- secutor. (Hear.) The Attorney General found great fault with his Honourable Friend for saying that the Jury would never have return- ed a verdict of guilty against Mary Ann Carlile if they could have anticipated the punishment that awaited her; and had argued that the doctrines which such a sentence inculcated was most dangerous to the interests of public morality and justice. Now he (Mr. Rirardo) fully agreed in all that his Honourable Friend had said upon that subject; and, so far from the doctrine of his Honourable Friend being new or unheard of, it was a doctrine that was perpetu- ally influencing the conduct of juries. Juries were constantly taking into their consideration the consequences that were likely to follow from their verdicts*. If not, why were they so often finding indi- viduals guilty of stealing propeity under the value of 40s. when every man was convinced that the property was worth much more? Why, but because they knew that if they did not return such a verdict, a punishment would be inflicted incompatible with the spirit of the times? In forgeries, too, would any man deny that the punishment which followed on conviction did not often * It was quite impossible for the Attorney General to be as ignorant as he pretended he was of the conduct of juries. But we will come to facts. In the month of January, 1819, a petition was presented to the House of Com- mons from the Lord Mayor, Alderman, and Common Council of the City of Lon- don, in which, after alluding to the accurate knowledge their peculiar circum- stances enabled them to possess, and the deep interest they took in the adminis- tration of justice, they said : ' That some jury-men submit to be fined rather than act as arbiters of life and death, in cases where they think the punishment of death ought not to be in- flicted. " That some jury-men are deterred from a strict discharge of their duty, and ac- quit, or mitigate the offence, so as not to subject the offender to the punishment of death, and thus assume a discretion never intended to be vested in juries, and re- lax the sanctity of a judicial oath, upon the integrity of which the trial by jury much depends. " That this determination by juries to oppose the severe enactments of the law is of daily occurrence. " That among other instances, a jury rather than be instrumental in inflicting the punishment of death for larceny to the amount of forty shillings from a dwelling- house found a ten pound note to be worth only thirty-nine shillings. " That another jury, influenced by the same motives,/ound two bills of exchange, value ten pounds each, and eight bank notes, value ten pounds each, to be worth alto- gether only thirty-nine shillings. *" " That the Judges are influenced by the same feelings, and exert their ingenuity in discovering means by which the real value of property shall not be found by the jury. " That these" (and other enumerated) " evasions of the law arc extremely dan- gerous to the community ; but as they are produced by the certain and general principles of our nature, they must continue to increase until the law be altered." Let Mr. Attorney again plead ignorance after this, and let those who can, place confidence in his words. 16 come within the contemplation of the jury? (Hear, hear.') He should therefore dismiss the observations of the Attorney General without any further remark. He must now inform the house, that after a long and attentive consideration of the question, he had made up his mind that prosecutions oug ht never to be instituted for religious opinions. (Hear, Hear.) All religious opinions, however absurd and extravagant, might be conscientiously believed by some indivi- duals. Why, then, was one man to set up his ideas on the subject as the criterion from which no other was to be allowed to differ with impunity? Why was one man to be considered infallible, and all his fellow men as frail and erring creatures? Such a doctrine ought not to be tolerated : it savoured too much of the Inquisition to be re- ceived as genuine in a free country like England. A fair and free discussion ought to be allowed on all religious topics. If the argu- ments advanced upon them were incorrect and blasphemous, surely they might be put down by sound argument and good reasoning, without the intervention of force and punishment. He was con- vinced that if it had not been for the indiscreet conduct of certain societies in prosecuting Mr. Carlile and his connexions, that family would never hkve acquired the notoriety by which it was at present distinguished. (Hear, hear.) MR. Secretary PEEL did not rise to reply to all the arguments which had been brought forward on the opposite side, but rather to state the grounds on which he could not recommend the individual in question to the mercy of the Crown. The law of the country made it a crime to make any attempt to deprive the lower classes of their belief in the consolations of religion, and while this law re- mained unrepealed, he should think himself wanting in his duty, if he shrunk from applying and enforcing it. If there was any blame for continuing the imprisonment complained of, HE was willing to take all the blame on himself. His Learned Friend had properly said, that there was no contrition expressed in the Petition, not as an evidence of her present belief, but to show, that after a year's impri- sonment she gave no reason to suppose she would not commit the same offence. She was unable to give the sureties required by the law, and contrition might have been accepted in their stead. But without either sureties or contrition, refusing both, his Learned Friend was justified in the remark he had made. The Honourable Member, afl remarked by the Member for Devonshire, had very adroitly ap- pealed to the House not to mix up other matters with the prayer of the Petition, but to confine themselves to the particular case; and if there was only the individual case, the Crown would be justified in extending mercy (hear hear!). But this was one part of a system for propagating sophistry and delusion it was an attempt on the part of the family of the Carliles to triumph over the laws and reli- gion, established for the general benefit. The Right Honourable Secretary then referred to the repeated convictions of Mr. Carlile and bit Wife, and Sister, to shew that they carried on a regular system for the benefit of the whole family. It proved, he said, that there 17 was a concerted altempl to triumph over the laws, and establish a supremacy which they should not reach. It was not possible to con- sider this as a single crime, but one of a connected serii s. The Honourable Member stated, that in fact the sentence was one which involved perpetual imprisonment. Now the sentence was that Mary Ann Carlile be imprisoned one year, and pay a fine of 500. When the Crown thought she had passed a term of years in confinement, equal to that fine she was unable to pay, it might extend its mere?/ to her; and if he then filled his present situation, he would recom- mend and advise the Crown to do so. The alternative was not therefore, as stated by the Honourable Member, either paying the fine, or perpetual imprisonment. He avowed that he had advised the Crown to reject the prayer of her Petition for her release at the present period, (hear hear). Sir F. BURDETT complimented the Honourable Member who had brought forward the question for having carefully avoided every foreign matter calculated to excite angry feelings, and having limited the question entirely to its own merits. He (Sir F.) however, pro - tested against its being thought that the prayer of the petition was for mercy; it did not ask forgiveness, but justice; that an act of justice might be done which was consistent with the English Consti- tution, and which, under that Constitution, every man had a right to demand. The sufferings of the poor woman could be of no further avail, even to answer the end for which they were inflicted, for they excited universal sympathy far more sympathy indeed for the sufferer than detestation of the act for which she was pun- ished. His Honourable Friend who had brought the petition before the House had given his Majesty's Ministers a fair opportunity of withdrawing from the unseemly contest in which they had engaged against the Carlile family, and of preventing the mischief from spread- ing further. He had left every extraneous matter out of view, and only brought forward the plain statement of a case of most gross and monstrous oppression. He (Sir Francis) agreed with every thing which had been said by the member for Portarlingtqn, (Mr. Ricardo) considering it the very greatest absurdity in a Government, and extremely futile to attempt to subdue opinions by acts of violence (hear hear!). Leaving out of view every religious feeling, and look- ing at it as it was, he considered the case of the Petitioner to be a case of gross and monstrous oppression (hear hear!). He believed that no honest man, certainly nosincere believerin Christianity, would sanction criminal prosecutions for matters of opinion (hear hear). Does not the Right Honourable Gentleman who now protects one religion, by that, oppose and blaspheme some other? That which was religion now, was blasphemy once (hear hear). The Author of Christianity was put to death on the same ground, and his punishment justified by the same argument on which the Attorney-General had attempted to maintain the justice of the persecution of the Carliles (hear, hear.) If men had the honesty to declare themselves openly against any cherished prejudice, however absurd, they were sure to suffer some 3 18 degree of persecution. The most scandalous outrages of old, under the pretence of upholding the cause of religion, had been perpetrated ou the most paltry pretexts (hear.) The lust idea expressed by the Attorney-General, that ofcontrition by the object of this persecution, was never before heard of, except in the court of ihe Spanish Inqui- sition (hear.) The arguments of the Attorney-General might appear well in the mouth of a Grand Inquisitor, but they were little becoming a minister of this country (cheers.) But it was the motto of the profession to which the learned gentlemen belonged. ' An dolus an virlus." It was Ihe custom of those gentlemen, when they had a weak case to support, to divert the attention of the auditory to mailers of an irrelevant nature. So the learned gentleman, by sound and fury, by loudness of tone, and violence of action, had endeavoured to make up for the weakness of his arguments. That learned gentleman had never heard of juries being influenced in their verdict by the punishment likely to follow it. He who had practised all his life in the mm is of law, was not aware that human nature sometimes revolted from a verdict which would consign the sufl'erer to a punishment out of all proportion with the offence charged against him ! though it wus the argument of Blackstone in his Commentaries, of Sir Samuel Komilly in that house, and of the enlightened persons who had deprecated the severity of the law, that the perpetual perjury of juries defeated it when the punishment wus'out of proportion to the guilt (cheers.) Yet Ihe Learned Gentle- man was ignorant of the fact (cheers). That I.eanud Gentleman, however, with the astuteness which characterized his profession, had avoided altogether one part of the Petitioner's case. She claimed redress on the ground of justice, not of mercy (hear.) She prayed to be relieved from an enormous and scandalous tine (hear, hear.) She, who was not worth 500 pence in the world, has been sentenced to pay a fine of 500. The law and the constitution of England did not require that a relaxation from such an infamous tine should be beg- ged on her knees by the injured party, liven if she considered that she had committed an offence, if she felt as mankind in general do, her natural feelings would rouse her against the oppression she was suffering, and prevent her from sinking in abjectedness the victim of her persecutors (hear, hear.) The Hight Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had given the strongest reasons against these proceedings. He had stated a variety of monstrous and severe punishments which had produced no effect (hear, hear.) The proper object of punish- ment was to repress crime, not to produce contrition. The sort of offence for which the Carlilcs were suffering was not a Jit object of punishment at all. There could be no crime alledged, no corpus delicti staled. It was wholly matter of opinion. A legislature had only to do with the actions of men. It was impossible to prevent opinions from rising in men's minds, and it was a detestable slavery to endeavour to suppress them (cheers.) There was thisdifficulty attach- ing to prosecutions for blasphemy; he defied the Attorney-General to define it. It was the same in all cases of libel. No man could 19 tell what was a libel till it had been found so by (he verdict of a jury. No man knew when he was committing an offence; yet, by a recent law, he was liable to be transported for a second offence. He (Sir F. Burdett) stood in that situation. If he should again write any thing displeasing to the Attorney-General for the time being, and that learned person could contrive to get a jury to convict him again, he was liable to be transported for life(Aear.) In this state of doubt, it was an imprudent act on his part ever to put pen to paper, for no man could tell what might not be construed into a libel (hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had said, the Peti- tioner was not suffering imprisonment for life, not because she had any hope of pacing the fine, and finding bail for her good behaviour (which, by the way, was a term as indefinite as that of libel), but because she would ultimately obtain her release through the mercy of the Crown. What could be more unconstitutional than the te- nure of this imprisonment; When the Right Honourable Gentleman thought the Petitioner had made a sufficient expiation for her offence when 500 worth of imprisonment had been taken out of the per- son of Mary Ann Carlile, her release \vas to be granted (hear, hear.) Imprisonment for any length of time was, under any circumstances, not only a cruel waste of body, but torture of mind. Besides, did the Right Honourable Gentleman think that he had got a lease of his office? (hear). It appeared, that if Mary Ann Cat Hie had any chance of working out her salvation by prolonged imprisonment, it also depended on the continuance of the Right Honourable Gentle- man in office. A practice more utterly unconstitutional never was justified in that house. He would not enter upon other topics, but he could not sit down without a remark upon the Society for the Sup- pression of Vice, of whom he knew nothing except what he had gathered from the ordinary sources of information. He was asto- nished that the House should be told that they had heard of no acts of vexation on the part of that Society, when the whole of its pro- ceedings were vexatious (hear). The Society might say, that they took their defendants before a grand jury. In that respect a pro- secution by them was preferable to an information ex offizio; but it could not be forgotten, that when a ntrmber of individuals conspired and made a purse, they might, by such a kind of joint-stock prose- cution ruin any person, though every time he was brought before a jury, he might be acquitted (hear.) He knew not how far the law could take cognizance of such Societies, but he was satisfied they ought to be discountenanced and put an end to. They not only failed in their objects, but augmented all the evils which they pre- tended to undertake to suppress (cheers.) Mr. PEEL explained. He had never stated, as the Honourable Baronet seemed to think, that contrition was a sine qua mm, that it was impossible Mary Ann Carlile should ever be released without con- fessing contrition, he disclaimed this. Some one, he said, must ad- vise the Crown as to the exercise of its discretion, with regard to such cases as the present. Suppose any person should refuse to pay 20 his fine, what would the Honourable Baronet do in that case? Would he then recommend such a person to be discharged ? It was a just consequence of this, that he who refused to pay his fine, should pay by a certain quantum of punishment. Sir F. BUUDETT explained. He did not suppose that contrition was a sine qua non. If there were a man who could pay, and would not, he should be imprisoned; but what he complained of in the present case, was the infliction of a monstrous fine, which it was im- possible for the individual to pay. Mr. WILBEKFORCE defended the Society for the Suppression of Vice. The Honourable Member for Portarlington seemed to carry into more weighty matters those principles of free trade which he had so successfully expounded. Ours was the only free country which had ever existed in which there was no special tribunal for the protection of religion and morals. In all the republics of anti- quity, in Athens, Sparta, in Home, there were such tribunals, and in these States morals and religion were considered as the founda- tions, not only of private happiness, but of- public virtue. Laws in general only published violations of right, and individuals who called ou these laws for protection, who prosecuted other individuals, did it to defend themselves and enforce the laws in cases of offences against individuals. But in cases of offences against public morals, the greatest of all offences, the degree of injury done to any individual was so small in the first instance, so imperceptible in individual cases, though so immense in the aggregate, that no individual was sufficiently interested to prosecute such offences. For this reason it was that a small elect body of men employed in suppressing an act of this nature, by carrying the laws into action, was a great benefit to the nation. There was a sort of popular clamour about persecu- tion, but no false opinion could be supported by this means. He would rely on the Christian religion triumphing over all its oppo- nents, without any thing like persecution. He would let them re- publish Voltaire, Hume, Mirabaud, and all the other sceptics, and still Christianity would triumph would come off' without injury or defeat. Christianity supported itself by arguments, bij appeals to common sense, to reason, to aH that was immortal in man, and hav- ing such a powerful hold of human nature, must come out purified from all the contests and trials to which it might be subjected. His opinions on this subject were even more favourable than those of Paley, who said, " he deemed it no infringement of religious liberty to restrain the circulation of ridicule, invective, and mockery on religious subjects, because this species of writing applies only to the passions, and contaminates the imagination of the readers. 1 ' He (Mr. Wilberforce) had not opposed the motion last Session relative to the Trinity, because he was an advocate for free discussion- Christianity always had and always would triumph. As to blas- phemy not being definable, he wished that those persons who were always trying how far they might go without actually trespassing on the law, might at least fiud themselves within its reach, and meet 21 the punishment they in a manner tempted. The Society for the Suppression of Vice, which had been so much censured, had, in fact, instituted thirty-two prosecutions, all for most detestable of- fences, and not one of these had ever failed. Lord Kenyon, Lord Chief Baron Skinner, Lord Ellenborough, and Mr. Justice Bay ley, had all spoke in terms of the highest commendation of the pro- ceedings of this Society. Whatever some Honourable Gentlemen might think, who, he was sorry to say, seemed no less opposed to the law of the land than to our holy religion, he (Mr. \V.) could not help thinking it no small circumstance in favour of this Society, that it was vindicated and eulogised by the judges of the land. What- ever blemishes might have arisen, either from the lapse of time or other causes, in some parts of our Constitution, our criminal law had justly excited the admiration of all nations, and required few if any amendments. The Learned Gentleman opposite (the A ttorney General) had done well to stand forward in defence of those sacred institutions, on which depended every thing that was valuable in this world and inesti- mable in the world to come. He had heard with astonishment an Ho- nourable Member behind him (Mr. Ricardo) blame the practice of ask- ing a witness, before his testimony was admitted, whether he believed in the Holy Scriptures. Had that Honourable Gentleman so little regard for the awful declaration " So help me God!" or could it be maintained that we had any thing else to depend upon for the credibi- lity of human testimony, than the attestation of the sacred volume? (Hear!) With regard to the unhappy woman whose case had this night been brought into discussion, he trusted she might experience the mercy and long suffering of that Being, against whose revealed word she had set herself in presumptuous array. The punishment, however, which she had justly incurred in this world could not be remitted without holding out a prospect of impunity to similar offenders. If such offences as hers were not to be visited by the arm of the law, the Learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) might as well be absolved at once from all care of the public moral- ity and religion, and every thing be suffered to go to wreck and ruin. (Hear!) As to the language used by those offenders, and their pretended resolution of perishing at the stake or on the gibbet, they knew enough that it was not now as in former times, and they presumed upon the mercy and lenity of the English law. He trusted the House would forgive him, if he was warm, for he felt warmly on this most important subject. He had long sat in that House, and if the experience of a long public life might give weight to his opinions, he declared his conscientious conviction that every thing which was most valuable depended upon the preservation of the sacred institutions of the country. For their own sakes, therefore, as well as for the sake of their constituents, he implored them to preserve the religion and law of the land safe and inviolate. (Hear!) The Petition was ordered to lie on the Table. Mr. HUME said, that as no objection had been made to the re- ceiving of this Petition, he took it for granted that the printing of it 22 would not be opposed. He could not make this motion, however, without expressing his astonishment at the conduct of the Honoura- ble Gentleman who had just sat down, who, after professing himself the enemy of all persecution, had concluded by entreating the House to encourage and continue a system of persecution. As to the So- ciety of which the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. VVilberforce) stood forward as the champion, it had increased the mischief which it pre- tended to remove. No fewer than thirty-two victims had been drag- ged by this Society before Courts of Law, every one of whom it was their boast that they had convicted ; and what was the result? Why, as fast as the prisons were filled with victims, individuals pressed forward eager to become, marly is, and oppose a system of persecution by a participation in the sufferings inflicted by their oppressors. He entreated the Kight Honourable Secretary for ihe Home Department to consider the policy of supporting these pretended friends, but real enemies of the cause of public morality ; for, by upholding such a system, he would consult neither ihe morals nor the feelings of the country (hear, hear.) The honourable Member for Bramher (Mr. Wilberforce) had made, an appeal rather to the passions than to the judgment of the 1 louse, and he (Mr. Hume) enlreated him, if he had all the regard he professed for the religion of the country, and for the peace and happiness of families, to pause before he again as- sisted in propagating what he himself designated as poison by advo- caling a system of persecution. Let him atlend rather to the excel- lent advice of a Divine, whose writings were no doubt familiar to him, but whose sound and judicious doctrine, with reference to this subject, differed widely from those which he (Mr. Wilberforce) had advanced to-nigKt. " The proper punishment (said Dr. Lardner) for a low, mean, indecent, scurrilous way of writing, seems to be neglect, contempt, scorn, and general indignation. This punishment he (Woolston) has already had in part, and will probably have more and more if he should go on in his rude and brutal way of writing, and if we leave all further punishment to him to whom vengeance belongs, I have thought it might be much for the honour of ourselves and of our religion. But if he should be fur- ther punished the stream of resentment and indignation will turn; especially if the punishment should be severe, and it is likely that a small punishment will not suffice to engage to silence nor to an al- teration of the manner of writing." Letter to the Bishop of Chester respecting the prosecution of Woolston. Mr. Justice Blackstone (vol. i. book 4, chap. 4) says, " It seems necessary for the support of the national religion, that the officers of the church have power to censure heretics. Yet not to harass them with temporal penalties, much less to exterminate or destroy them." " All persecutions for diversity of opinion, however ridiculous and absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sacred policy and civil freedom." Such was the doctrine of Dr. Lardner, and such the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone. But was this the doctrine of the Society for the Promotion of Vice? (a laugh from the Ministc- 23 rial Benches.) The word had fallen from him accidentally, but he would give Honourable Gentlemen opposite all the benefit of the ac- cident; for in point of fact, with the single exception of their exer- tions in putting down obscene exhibitions, the Society had rather promoted than checked the mischiefs which they pretended to sup- press. The Honourable Member for Devonshire (Sir T. Acland), af- ter reading what he thought was one of the worst passages in " The Republican," had asked whether Honourable Gentlemen would per- mit such publications to go unpunished? He (Mr. Hume) said he would; and if the. Honourable Member was not likely to be influ- enced by his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, he would refer him to an opinion for which he would, perhaps, have a greater reverence that of the pre- sent Bishop of London, in his Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese in July, 1822. That Right Reverend Divine said, "I am indeed ful- ly persuaded, that the extravagancies of frantic infidelity are means in the hands of Providence for the promotion of virtue and truth, by provoking discussions which lead to the dispersion of error, by disposing the careless to reflection, by determining the irresolute to enquiry, by awakening energies which might otherwise have slum- bered in inaction, and rousing the horror and indignation which vice and impiety when they throw off the mask will never fail to inspire in generous and honest minds. Such on all former occasions has been the uniform result of the violence directed by infidels against our holy religion in this country, and when I consider the general expression of disgust at the blasphemous libels which were lately put in circulation ; when I recollect the number and excellence of the po- pular tracts in defence of the religion so basely traduced, and the re- ception which they experienced from the public. 1 cannot but think that the evidences of the Christian revelation and the nature and grounds of the Christian faith are in consequence more generally understood, and the people on the whole more firmly attached to the creed of their fathers than if it had never been called in question." He should conclude by requesting the Right Honourable Secietary (Mr. Peel), who seemed to be in possession of a scale by which he could compute how many hours of imprisonment were equivalent to a given number of pounds sterling, coldly to calculate the quantum of blood and con- finement that would atone for the crime of which these poor creatures were convicted, and having made out his scale, let him fairly state it, in order that all men may know what was the consequence of the course they were pursuing (cheers}. MR. C. WYNN denied the doctrine that no publication of mere matters of opinion could be libellous. The defence set up by the Honourable Member who had just sat down for these blasphemous publications might be equally applied to the obscene publications, which he himself wished to put down. He would put the case of a person who believed in no religion, and who held that the promiscu- ous intercourse of the sexes was neither dangerous nor indecorous; and he would further suppose him to publish a book in conformity with these opinions, and in which he should endeavour by argument and exhortation to promote their propagation. CouUI it be pretended that such a publication would not be libellous ? The same impunity which the Honourable Gentleman would extend to blasphemous pub- lications, would in his view af the argument apply also to political libels. Acts of regicide might be defended, and it might be con- tended with impunm that ih-- Kindly power was opposed to the li- berties of mankind, and that every individual who killed a King did mankind a service. by lidding them of a tyrant, and was consequently ratitiide of his country. "He would ask whether the publication >f Mich shocking dnrtrii,; s as these were to be tolerated ? . a^'u a man of the nainr of Spt nee, actually published a in whieh he attempted to prove that the supposed right to pro- perty w.i^ founded in usurpation. Could it be maintained that the publication of Mich a doctrine as this, and the justification of those iinuld. endeavour to regain their rights, and put an end to \]\\^ urpation, would not be libellous? The doctrine that . maa was tit liberty to avow and publish whatever opinions he mi^ht entertain, would lead to the dissolution of the whole frame of civil society. Was the Honourable Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume) prepan-d to admit that every man was at liberty to publish whatever ks he might think lit upon his own character? MH. HI MI At peilert liberty. Mrt. "JVvNN If the Honourable Member was of this opinion. oil), r iiH-n might not deem themselves equally invulnerable. What ftrould be the effect of this doctrine, as applied to women ? Was there male, \\hose reputation could stand against a series of attacks. if allowed to pass, unpunished, or if obliged constantly to come for- ward and vindicate IKT character in the Newspapers, by proving the hood and malignity of her calumniators? An Honourable iMem- itting near tin lor Aberdeen (we presume Mr. f ;i |I nutation, in ciiiiscijin-iici \lr. \\vun itli mere matters of opinion, ami i jin-vcnt li;id |ioi)|)U- from injuring III nr> l> illy proper In |)icvi-nl ;iny < frvm |Mll>lisilili !'(!(!, Wllidl III. i.'VN ) i\ at :in\ lime (li-likc fi-i uiv H-:IIIIP." Mi diffVrenci 1 in the t" < a nil. I:\D. . :o. \\il.l. -rne*- H..W.