Produced by David Widger.
*THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON*
_By_
*Henry Hetherington*
_On an Indictment for Blasphemy_
CONTENTS
A FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON
THE TRIAL
INDICTMENT
Second Count:
Third Count:
Mr. Bult opened the proceedings
DEFENCE
OBSERVATIONS
Extract from The Sun Newspaper
"TO LORD DENMAN, ON THE LATE PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY
A FULL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON
ON AN INDICTMENT FOR BLASPHEMY,
LORD DENMAN AND A SPECIAL JURY,
ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1840;
FOR SELLING HASLAM'S LETTERS TO THE CLERGY TO ALL DENOMINATIONS:
THE WHOLE OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE DEFENCE, AT FULL LENGTH.
LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HENRY HETHERINGTON, 1-26, STRAND;
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
1840
Price Sixpence.
To
JAMES WATSON,
BOOKSELLER,
THE FRIEND OF TRUTH, THE INFIDEL TO ERROR, AND THE LOVER OF LIBERTY,
THIS TRIAL
IS DEDICATED,
IN PROOF OF THE AFFECTIONATE ATTACHMENT THAT SUBSISTS BETWEEN TWO
FRIENDS, WHO FULLY RECOGNISE AND ACT UPON THE PRINCIPLES AVOWED AND
CONTENDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING DEFENCE; AND AS A TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM,
TO GOD'S NOBLEST WORK--AN HONEST MAN!
BY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND,
HENRY HETHERINGTON.
THE TRIAL
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, December 8, 1840.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.
PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY.
THE QUEEN Versus HETHERINGTON.
This was a prosecution instituted by Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Sir
John Campbell, against Henry Hetherington, bookseller, of 126, Strand,
for the publication of a blasphemous libel.
INDICTMENT
Of Easter term, in the Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria.
Middlesex:--
Be it remembered, that on Tuesday, the twenty-eighth day of April, in
the third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace
of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen,
Defender of the Faith, in the court of our said lady the Queen, before
the Queen herself at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, upon the
oath of twelve jurors, good and lawful men, of the said county of
Middlesex, now here sworn and charged to inquire for our said lady the
Queen for the body of the same county; it is presented as followeth,
that is to say, Middlesex to wit. The jurors for our lady the Queen upon
their oath present, that Henry Hetherington, late of Westminster, in the
county of Middlesex, bookseller, _being a wicked, impious, and
ill-disposed person_, and having no regard for the laws and religion of
this realm, but _most wickedly, blasphemously, impiously, and profanely
devising and intending to asperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible
which is called the Old Testament_, on the third day of February, in the
third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace of
God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender
of the Faith, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did
publish, and cause to be published, a certain scandalous, impious, and
blasphemous libel, of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which
is called the Old Testament, containing therein, amongst other things,
divers scandalous, impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning
that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, according
to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, "What wretched stuff
this Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament) is, to be sure! What a random idiot its author must have
been! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got.
Such a book is actually a disgrace to ourang outangs, much less to men.
I would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know
we believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our
intellects? What must they think of our incredible foolery? And we not
only believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word
of God, as a production of infinite wisdom. Was insanity ever more
complete? I for one, however, renounce the book; I renounce it as a vile
compound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense, as a fraud and a cheat, _and
as an insult to God,"_ to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the
great scandal, infamy, and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which
is called the Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and
against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity.
Second Count:
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,
that the said Henry Hetherington, devising and intending as aforesaid,
on the eleventh day of February and year aforesaid, at Westminster
aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be
published, a certain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel,
of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, containing therein, amongst other things, divers scandalous,
impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy
Bible which is called the Old Testament, according to the tenor and
effect following, that is to say, "One great question between you and me
is, 'Is the Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called
the Old Testament) the word of God, or is it not? I assert that it is
not the word of God, and you assert that it is; and I not only assert
that it is not the word of God, but that it is a book containing more
blunders, more ignorance, and more nonsense, than any book to be found
in the universe," to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great
scandal and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the
Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace
of our lady the Queen, lier crown, and dignity.
Third Count:
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present,
that the said Henry Hetherington, further devising and intending as
aforesaid, on the day and year last aforesaid, at Westminster aforesaid,
in the county aforesaid, did publish, and cause to be published, a
certain other scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel of and
concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, containing therein, among other things, divers scandalous,
impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy
Bible which is called the Old Testament, in one part thereof, according
to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, "My object, and I
fearlessly state it, is to expose this book (meaning that part of the
Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament) in such a manner, that the
children of the Stockport Sunday-school will reject it with contempt and
in another part thereof, according to the tenor and effect following,
that is to say,
"Such a book (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the
Old Testament) ought to be rejected by every one. The human race have
been too long gulled with such trash. Moses was the inventor of this
grand cheat; and although it may have done some little towards
frightening people into what is called morality, the purpose for which
Moses invented it is now out of date,
"to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal and
contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old
Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of
our lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity."
[Witness] ALEXANDER KERR,
One sworn in court.
A true Bill.
On the names of the gentlemen summoned as Special Jurymen being called
over, only five answered to their names.
The Attorney-General prayed a tales, when the following were sworn:--
The Jury.
Special--
Robert Savage, Esq., 11, Montaguplace, Bloomsbury.
James Arboine, merchant, 3, Brunswick-square.
William Fechney Black, merchant, Wilton-place.
Charles Frederick Barnwell, Esq., 44, Woburn-place.
Robert Eglinton, merchant, 29, Woburn-square.
Common Jurors--
Charles Ricketts, stove-maker, 5, Agar-street, West Strand.
William Polden, licensed victualler, Villiers-street, Strand.
John Osborne, confectioner, 401, Strand.
John Johnson Ruffell, painter, 24, Church-street, Soho.
Thomas Reid, baker, 24, Old Compton-street, Soho.
Charles Phillips, ivory brush-maicer, 20, King-street, Soho. J. Mahew,
baker, 84, Greek-street, Soho.
Mr. Bult opened the proceedings
The Attorney-General said, this was an indictment found by the Grand
Jury of Middlesex, for the publication of certain blasphemous libels. It
appeared to him that all he should have to do, would be to prove the
publication of the libels in question. He had not hesitated for one
moment, when he found there were only five Special Jurymen, to pray a
tales, because it was to him a matter of perfect indifference from what
class of society the Jury was taken. It had frequently been laid down by
the Judges, that to insult and vilify Christianity was against the law.
Publications insulting religion, and addressed to the vulgar and
uneducated, were most dangerous. He would call a witness who purchased
these books in the defendant's shop, the defendant himself being
present; and he should prove that the defendant was rated to that house.
It gave him pain that it should be necessary for the Jury to hear such
shocking attacks as were contained in this publication. It consisted of
a series of letters, and each number was sold for a penny. It was
"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations" and was, in fact, an attack
upon the Holy Scriptures, particularly on the Old Testament. He should
content himself with reading one extract.--(The learned Gentleman then
read an extract from Letter 8, contained in the first count of the
indictment.) Mr. Hetherington was in person to defend himself: they
would hear what he had to say, and then he (the Attorney-General) would
have an opportunity of again addressing them.
The following witness was then called and examined by Sir F. Pollock.
Alexander Kerr, a policeman, bought the "Letters to the Clergy," 5, 8,
and 13, at the shop of the defendant, 126, Strand, on the 5th of
February last. A young man served him. Knows defendant--he was standing
on the threshold of the door at the time; has known him for the last
three years; has seen him repeatedly at the shop. Paid one penny each
for the letters.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hetherington.--Did not come in his uniform to
purchase them. Came from directions he had received, not from any
reputation the work had acquired. Did not read the fifth number or the
eighth number of the book purchased at the shop. Stated at the Old
Bailey, at the trial of Mr. Cleave, that he had read a copy, but not the
one purchased of defendant. Curiosity induced him to read it. It did not
shake his opinion--it did not make him burn his Bible; quite the
opposite. He is a plainly-educated man. Was instructed to purchase all
he could get at defendant's shop. Purchased other numbers, but did not
read them. The work produced no effect on him to induce him to follow
the recommendations of the author.
George Sherwill, collector of poor's-rate for the liberty of the Savoy,
proved that defendant was rated for No. 126.
The libels were then put in and read: first, No. 8 of "Haslam's Letters
to the Clergy of all Denominations," then 5 of the same work, and then
18.
The Attorney-General said, that was the case for the prosecution.
DEFENCE
My Lord--Gentlemen of the Jury,
"In rising to vindicate myself from the charge preferred against me in
this indictment, I shall not attempt to justify the language alluded to
by the Attorney-General; but I cannot refrain from expressing my
surprise that the Government, after having encouraged the circulation of
cheap knowledge upon all subjects,--in Penny Magazines and Penny
Cyclopaedias,--should have placed me on my trial upon such a flimsy
charge as this--for flimsy it undoubtedly is, when, out of a work
comprising nearly 500 pages, the Attorney-General can only find one
passage,--that in the eighth Letter, which is, I admit, expressed in
very improper language,--whereon to found an indictment. I contend that
it is impossible to say where a person is to stop in his inquiries. If a
person is permitted to reject one tenet, another may reject another; and
there is no reason why another should not go on, and reject the whole.
In the whole work there is not one disrespectful word about
Christianity; it is a rejection of the miracles ascribed to Moses in the
Old Testament, which have been indignantly rejected by many learned men.
The work was not intended as a scurrilous attack, but as an inquiry into
the effects of the usages of society, founded upon the Old Testament.
The object of Mr. Haslam was benevolent; and however much he might err,
he was not criminal. He undertook to prove to the clergy that they were
all in error that the doctrines they are teaching to the people are
false, absurd, and irrational; that they are directly contrary to
reason; and that, so long as they are preached to the people, so long
will the people be vicious, wretched, and unhappy.
"The Attorney-General has only read the objectionable passages: I will
read a few passages from Mr. Haslam's first Letter, which will enable
the Jury to understand the nature of his work, and appreciate his
motives. Having frankly stated his object, he proceeds:--
"You, no doubt, will feel concerned at this; you will very likely be
angry with me for this daring attempt; you will call me Deist, Atheist,
Infidel, and many other charitable epithets; you will feel unutterable
things towards me; and I shall, no doubt, be subject to the _extreme
charity_ of your _pious_ congregations, who profess to 'love their
neighbours as themselves,' and into whose minds you have crammed
absurdity after absurdity, until they have scarcely room for another. I
shall, no doubt, expose myself to all manner of ill-feeling and
uncharitableness, and to calumnies and lies of every description; but
shall these deter me from making known the convictions of iny mind?
Shall these hinder me from exposing the errors and absurdities which I
see interested men instilling into the minds of the people? Shall these
prevent me from telling the people that they are deceived and imposed
upon, and that their beggary, and want, and wretchedness, are the
consequences of it? Shall these, in short, stop me from exposing the
irrationalities which I see everywhere around me, and which occasion so
much misery and unhappiness to my fellow-men? No, I tell you they shall
not. That power which sent you into the world, sent me into the world
also; and if you have a right to think and speak, I have a right to
think and speak also. I have received an organization for the purpose as
well as any of you; and as long as that organization remains unimpaired,
so long will I tell the world what I think and feel.
"Why should any of you be angry with me? If I can prove your doctrines
to be false and erroneous, what occasion is there for anger? What can
you want with doctrines that are false? As honest men you ought
immediately to abandon them. Instead, therefore, of being angry with me,
you ought to have the very opposite feeling; for of what service can
error and nonsense be to any man, or any set of men?
"But if I prove that your doctrines are not only false and erroneous,
but that they occasion a vast amount of mischief to the people; that
they occasion want and vice, and all manner of wickedness, and that, by
removing them from the minds of the people, and substituting truths, all
this want, and vice, and wickedness might be put an end to; if, I say, I
prove this, why should you be angry with me for doing it? Surely you
cannot wish the people to remain in a state of want, and vice, and
wickedness; and yet, if you do not, why should you be angry at me for
showing you the causes of them, and pointing out the means for their
removal?
"You talk a great deal about morality and religion; you manifest in your
pulpits a great anxiety to spread them amongst the people; but who can
believe you to be sincere, when you resist every attempt to remove the
causes of immorality and irreligion? You must know that effects cannot
be removed without removing the causes of them, and by resisting the
removal of these causes, you evidently show a disposition to keep the
people in wickedness. This wickedness proceeds from certain causes. We
have pointed these causes out to you, and if you will not remove them,
does not that evidently show that you would rather that the people were
wicked? Can there be conclusions more logical? What ridiculous cant it
must be then to talk about morality and religion?
"My assumption then is, that the belief of every man is given to him
_independently of his will_, and that, therefore, no just power can
punish him for it.
"Your assumption is the opposite of this; you assert that the belief of
every man depends upon his own will; _that he can either believe in the
Bible, or not believe in the Bible_; that he can either be Christian or
Jew, Mahomedan or Infidel, and that, therefore, God will punish him if
he do not believe in a particular manner.
"These then, are our respective assumptions--and now let reason, 'the
grand prerogative of man,' determine between us.
"Gentlemen, contrast the spirit of Mr. Haslam in this passage with the
spirit of my prosecutors. He invokes Reason, 'the grand prerogative of
man,' to determine between them; the Clergy, on the contrary, resort to
prosecution to crush a reasoning opponent.
"I beg to inform you that I have read the Bible attentively, and that
the more I read it the more reason I see for disbelieving it.
"The Bible asserts things which the whole of my senses tell me are
false; and if my senses are independent of myself, how can I help
disbelieving it?
"I know that God gave me my senses; but how can I believe God made the
Bible, when it is directly opposed to these senses? To believe that God
is the author of both, is to believe that God commits absurdities like
yourselves; and to ascribe such a paltry and blundering performance as
the Bible to that power which governs the universe is to dishonour that
power, if any thing can dishonour it.
"But a man's belief is not only formed independently of his will, but it
is often formed in direct opposition to it. I, for instance, once
believed that the principles which I now hold were false; I used to
argue against them, and even write against them, and my will to
disbelieve them was so strong, owing to their apparent absurdity, that I
used to be delighted when I imagined I had discovered a fresh argument
with which I might overturn them. Continuing, however, to argue, I began
to see their truth; I saw the principles more clearly; I found I had
mistaken them very much; and at last I saw into them as clearly, as
Cobbett used to say, as the sun at noon-day.
"Now here, you see, my will was to disbelieve these principles; but,
after the process of reasoning was over, I was compelled to alter my
will. This, then, being the case, was that will free? Could I have
continued to disbelieve them, when my convictions told me they were
true? And if I could not, where, I again ask, was my free will?
"Here, then, is reasoning enough to prove the truth of my assumption;
and now I beg to call your attention to its peculiar effect upon your
various systems of religion.
"In conclusion, therefore, I beg to call upon you to defend your
doctrines from the serious charges I have here made, and shall continue
to make against them. You may either do it by writing, or by verbal
discussion, whichever you please. But do not continue to act so meanly
and dishonourably, as to preach doctrines to the people which have over
and over again been proved to be false and absurd, and which none of you
are able to defend."
Gentlemen, you will see by these passages that Mr. Haslam appeals to
reason. He calls upon the Clergy to defend their doctrines, telling them
they may either do it "by writing, or by verbal discussion." The
Government, however, disregarded this appeal; they ought to have called
upon the Bishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots of his class, to
come forward and confute Mr. Haslam. But instead of this they prosecute
a bookseller, who had never read a line of the book until this
prosecution. They ought to meet Mr. Haslam with his own weapons; and it
is disgraceful to the Government, which has always advocated the
diffusion of cheap knowledge, to submit to the taunts of the Bishop of
Exeter, and other bigots like him, by instituting these prosecutions for
blasphemy. However we may disapprove of Haslam's doctrines, we cannot
but perceive that he is sincere in his belief.
Gentlemen, I will, as I proceed, prove to you that the convictions of a
tat which he now believes to be true to have been false. Gentlemen, I
readily admit that the passage in the eighth number is offensively
worded; but I will prove that the free exercise of the right of inquiry
is not, and ought not to be, an offence in law. I will also call your
attention to the hardship of a general bookseller being held responsible
for every book that he sells, and will call your attention to the oath
you have taken, and claim from you that acquittal to which I am
entitled. I claim no exemption from punishment if I sell any obscene
publication,--anything calculated to corrupt or demoralize society,--or
any attacks upon a man's private character; but in cases of the
discussion of abstract truths, is a man to be punished for the
convictions of his mind, which are not in the power of his will? It is
too bad to bring a man into a court of justice on account of a few
solitary passages in a work of this nature.
Gentlemen of the Jury, our great and popular moralist, Dr. Johnson, has
declared that "Truth is the basis of all excellence." This axiom is so
clear and indisputable, that no intelligent man can hesitate to adopt
it. How, then, can the truth, upon the various subjects interesting to
human beings, be elicited? Not by letting interested men think for us,
but by judging for ourselves--by collecting and examining facts and
arguments, and communicating to society the impressions they
respectively make upon our minds. There is no effectual mode of arriving
at truth, but by the exercise of the right of free inquiry, and the
unrestricted publication of the result of such inquiry. This right has
been deemed of pre-eminent importance from time immemorial, and by men
of all sects and parties; and although corrupt and tyrannical rulers in
the past ages of the world have prosecuted honest men, and endeavoured
to suppress the truth, you will find that in every case to which I shall
call your attention, the intrepid advocates of truth have ultimately
triumphed. Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will proceed at once to fortify
myself with a few authorities,--not that I think truth depends upon
great names, however numerous and illustrious they may be, but because I
am determined to advance nothing that is not, in my opinion, strictly
true, and sanctioned and maintained by the greatest intellects of the
age.
Gentlemen, I will begin with a Bishop.
"God has given us rational faculties to guide and direct us, and we must
make the most of them that we can; we must judge with our own reasons,
as well as see with our own eyes; and it would-be very _rash, unmanly,
and base_ in us to muffle up our own understandings, and deliver our
reason and faith over to others blindfold."--_Bishop Burnett's
Thirty-nine Articles_, A. 39.
"Gentlemen of the Jury, will you, by your verdict, consign a man to a
dungeon, because he is too honest and independent to act a '_rash,
unmanly, and base_' part? Will you declare, by your verdict, that
henceforth we shall not '_judge_ with our own reasons, nor _see_ with
our _own eyes_?' I feel confident you will not.
"_Dr. Whitby_, in his _Last Thoughts_, tells us, "that belief or
disbelief can neither be a virtue or a crime, in any one who uses the
best means in his power of being informed.
"If a proposition is _evident_, we cannot avoid believing it; _and where
is the merit or piety of a necessary assent?_ If it is _not evident_, we
cannot help rejecting it, or doubting of it; _and where is the crime of
not performing impossibilities, or not believing what does not appear to
us to be true?_"
Gentlemen of the Jury, can you dispute the truth of the passage I have
quoted from Dr. Whitby? Will you, by your verdict, pronounce it to be
"_a crime_ not to perform _impossibilities_, and endeavour to _force us
to believe_ what does not appear to us to be true?" Gentlemen, you
cannot do it. Let us briefly trace the operations of the human mind, and
we shall find that the mind is governed by a law of necessity. Are we
not definitely and necessarily' affected by the circumstances which
surround us? Have we power to avoid receiving impressions from the
objects presented to us? If we have not, which is now universally
admitted by intelligent men, then the act of _perceiving_, or _forming
ideas_, is a necessary mental operation. Can we, for instance, have an
idea of a man when a monkey is presented to us? Or of colours other than
those which are placed before our visual organs? We cannot, if the eye
be not diseased, perceive red to be green, or green red. The power of
_perception_, therefore, appears to be perfectly involuntary--it is
governed by a law of necessity.
The next operation of the mind is to form a judgment of the things
perceived; and it is these two things--_perceiving_ and _judging_--which
constitute a man's knowledge or experience. If two bodies of different
magnitudes are presented to our view, are we not compelled to judge of
them according to the impression they respectively make upon the mind?
It is precisely the same with _men, manners, and opinions_. Must we not
conclude that things are what they appear to be, till we know the
contrary? I would appeal to your own experience, Gentlemen, whether you
do not invariably and necessarily judge of men and things according to
their inherent or imaginary qualities? Some men, indeed, are puzzled to
account for the diversity of judgment observable where different men
examine the same subject, and from the same data; but this circumstance
is easily accounted for. It results simply from this fact, that men
judge of things precisely as they appear to them: and the different
judgments formed of the same things are ascribable wholly to the
different degrees of strength in the power of perception, and to the
extent and variety of knowledge previously acquired. _Perception and
judgment_, therefore, appear to be involuntary and necessary.
Gentlemen, if this be true, is a man who has arrived at conclusions
adverse to the _received opinions_ of society a fit subject of
punishment? If not, how much less so is the bookseller who merely sells
his book?
Mr. Haslam calls upon the Clergy to enter into the controversy with him,
and to let _reason_ decide between them. Why do not the Government, and
the learned Attorney-General, adopt Mr. Haslam's recommendation, instead
of instituting a prosecution against a bookseller who never read a line
of the book till his attention was called to it by this unjust
prosecution? Why do not the Government,--who patronise penny
literature--who affect to be friendly to free discussion, call on the
Bishop of Exeter, and other well-paid bigots, to defend the Bible
against the assaults of Mr. Haslam? For the learned Attorney-General to
attempt to crush the free expression of opinion by prosecutions of this
nature, is most unjust and impolitic. I maintain that two out of the
three passages read would not support the indictment at all; and the
third passage--set forth in the first count of the indictment--so far
from being blasphemy, declares that the author _rejects the Bible,
because he looks upon it as containing statements that were insulting to
God_. In the passage immediately following that which is prosecuted, the
author admits that the book contains some good precepts, but declares
that he deems mere precepts to be useless. I will take the liberty of
reading the passage to the Jury.
"I allow that there are some good precepts in it, but I contend that
these precepts are useless. I contend that _all_ precepts are useless.
Of what use have all the precepts in the world been to the human race?
Have they made man wiser, or better, or happier? Have they lessened the
amount of his vice and his misery? 1 contend that they have not. Vice
and misery have been increasing, although these precepts have been more
and more preached to the people. Precepts, reverend ministers of the
gospel, are mere wind; they are as empty as the vapour issuing from the
kettle's spout; they have no effect whatever in making man wise, or
good, or happy; the present wretchedness of the world is a proof of it.
The way, reverend sirs, to make man wise, and good, and happy, is, not
to preach precepts to the people, but to abolish the present irrational
system of individual property; to arrange society in such a manner that
the interest of one man will be the interest of the whole. Until this be
done, all the precepts in the world, preached, too, with all the
eloquence in the world, will never remove man from his present
deplorable condition."
Gentlemen, you will perceive by this extract that the author is a
socialist. It is not necessary for me to maintain that he is right in
these opinions. All that I have to do is to show that these opinions
were sincerely believed by Mr. Haslam. I have clearly shown that belief
is involuntary. No man can tell one day what his belief will be the
next. In my own person I furnish an instance of this. I married young,
and having formed in my mind a standard of ideal perfection, I
determined that my children should equal that standard, as far as human
means could make them. I tried to effect my object by severity. Acting
upon wrong principles, of course, I failed; but at that time I was young
and ignorant, and believed myself to be right. However, a friend who
knew better than myself, and who had had much experience, lent me Miss
Williams's Letters on the Philosophy of Education, and the reading of
that book put new ideas into my mind. It produced, in fact, a mental
revolution;--I changed my opinion and my system, and did so with the
happiest success. From that time I banished coercion as a principle of
education. I repeat, then, that belief is not voluntary, and that
compulsion is not a good means of producing good belief or good conduct.
Gentlemen, I will now quote the opinion of Bishop Marsh, as to the
importance of free inquiry. I quote from the Bishops as persons of the
greatest authority on this subject, far greater than the
Attorney-General, or any of his legal brethren.
"Investigation, it is said, frequently leads to doubts where there were
none before. So much the better. If a thing is false, _it ought not to
be received_; if a thing is true, _it can never lose in the end by
inquiry_."--_Bishop Marsh's First Lecture_.
Gentlemen, you have heard the opinion of Bishop Marsh. You cannot
suppose that the Bishops are adverse to the Church--they are great
supporters of it, and so, perhaps, might I be if I got so much by it--(a
laugh)--as like circumstances produce like effects. Well, Gentlemen,
Bishop Marsh maintains that "if a thing is _false_, it ought not to be
received; if it is true, it can never lose in the end by inquiry." Why,
then, should the Attorney-General prosecute a person who rejects a thing
that does not appear to him to be true?
Gentlemen, let me now submit to your attention the opinion of Sir
William Temple.
_Sir William Temple_ says, "They may make me do things which are in my
power, and depend on my will; but to believe _this_ or _that_ to be true
depends not on my will, but upon the light, and evidence, and
information which I have. And will civil discouragements and
incapacities, fines and confiscations, stripes and imprisonment,
enlighten the understanding, convince men's minds of error, and inform
them of the truth? Can they have any such efficacy as to make men change
the inward judgment they have framed of things? _Nothing can do this but
reason and argument_: this is what our minds and understandings will
naturally yield to, but they _cannot_ be compelled to believe any thing
by outward force. So that the promoting of _true_ religion is plainly
out of the magistrate's _reach_, as well as beside _his office_."
Here, Gentlemen, you have the opinion of Sir William Temple, that men
cannot be forced to believe anything by outward force and persecution,
so that the promoting of true religion is out of the magistrate's power,
as well as beside his office. This is a most true and proper
declaration; and if the Attorney-General had reflected upon this
passage, I am sure he must have fully appreciated its truth, and then
this prosecution would not have been instituted. I appeal to the learned
Attorney-General, whether my being ruined and sent to a dungeon will
alter the state of things? Will it alter the opinion of Mr. Haslam? Will
it make me believe that I ought to be prosecuted for selling this book;
or that a man has not a right to promulgate his opinions? I am placed in
an awkward position in having to defend a man's right to publish, while
I dissent from some of Mr. Haslam's opinions, and the manner in which he
has thought proper to express them. I have been told that the
Attorney-General is a good kind of a man, who has no wish to press
severely upon persons in my situation; and some friends--not my true
friends--have urged me to forward a memorial to him on the subject of
this prosecution. Now what could I do? There was no way of inducing the
Attorney-General to stay this prosecution, but by pleading guilty; and
although I am well aware that your verdict, if adverse to me, will be my
ruin, yet I would rather terminate my existence on the floor of this
court than plead guilty to this lying indictment, or admit that I am a
wicked, malicious, and evil-disposed person, when I know that to the
best of my judgment and ability I am an upright, honest,
well-intentioned man. If I believed myself to be the man described, in
the indictment--which I must do before I could consent to plead
guilty--I would fly to the uttermost parts of the earth; for a man is
totally destroyed when he has lost all feeling of self-respect, and the
esteem and regard of his friends and associates.
Gentleman of the Jury, I have yet a host of authorities before me, but I
will not waste time by quoting them; as I am convinced you must now be
quite satisfied, from what I have already adduced, that every Englishman
has an undoubted right to investigate all subjects--whether religious or
political--and to publish the result of the investigation for the
benefit of society at large; but, Gentlemen, in closing what I have to
say on this part of the subject, I beg to lay before you two striking
and convincing passages from Lord Brougham and Dr. Southwood Smith--two
of the most intellectual and eminent individuals of the present day.
Gentlemen, the first passage I will quote is from Dr. Southwood Smith,
who strikingly and beautifully describes the proper boundary of human
investigation; and I beg the particular attention of the learned
Attorney-General to this passage.
"There is no proper boundary to human investigation," says the doctor,
"but the capacity of the human mind. Whatever the faculties enable it to
understand, it ought to examine without any restraint on the freedom of
its inquiry, and without any other limit to its extent than that which
its great Author has fixed, by withholding from it the power to proceed
farther. When the means of conducting the human understanding to its
highest perfection shall have become generally understood, this freedom
of inquiry will not only be universally allowed, but early and anxiously
inculcated, _as a duty_ of primary and essential obligation."
Gentlemen, I now beg you to listen to the extract I am about to read
from _Lord Brougham's Inaugural Address to the University of Glasgow_.
"As men will no longer suffer themselves to be led blindfold in
Ignorance, so will they no more yield to the vile principle of judging
and treating their fellow-creatures, not according to the intrinsic
merit of their actions, but according to the accidental and involuntary
coincidence of their opinions. The great truth has finally gone forth to
the ends of the earth, _that man shall no more render_ ACCOUNT TO MAN
FOR HIS BELIEF, OVER WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF NO CONTROL.
"Henceforward nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame any
one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin
or the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect
those who conscientiously differ from ourselves, the only practical
effect of the difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance, on
one side or the other, from which it springs, by instructing them, if it
be theirs, ourselves, if it be our own; to the end that the only kind of
unanimity may be produced which is desirable among rational beings,--the
agreement proceeding from full conviction after the freest
discussion."--_Lord Brougham._
Gentlemen, after hearing these splendid passages, will it be possible
for you to sanction a renewal of persecution to crush freedom of
opinion?
Gentlemen of the Jury,--I now come to the next point in the argument.
Having, I hope, successfully proved the right of free inquiry and the
free publication of opinions, I will proceed to show, by a reference to
past events, that it is highly important that this right should be
preserved, and handed down to our latest posterity unimpaired.
Gentlemen, it has been a uniform practice, from the earliest records of
time, to stigmatize those who introduce new truths, or who attack the
existing institutions of a country, as infidels, and to fix upon them
all sorts of opprobious epithets.
"In all ages _new doctrines_ have been branded as impious; and
Christianity itself has offered no exception to this rule. The Greeks
and Romans charged Christianity with 'impiety and novelty.' In _Cave's
Primitive Christianity_ we are informed 'that the Christians were
everywhere accounted a pack of _Atheists_, and their religion _the
Atheism._' _They were denominated; 'mountebank impostors,' and 'men of a
desperate and unlawful faction.' They were represented as 'destructive
and pernicious to human society,' and were accused of 'sacrilege,
sedition, and high treason.' The same system of misrepresentation and
abuse was practised by the Roman Catholics against the Protestants at
the Reformation. Some called their dogs Calvin; and others transformed
Calvin into Cain,' In France, 'the old stale calumnies, formerly
invented against the first Christians, were again revived by Demochares,
a doctor of the Sorbonne, pretending that all the disasters of the state
were to be attributed to Protestants alone.'"--*Combe on the
Constitution of Man_.
In our own enlightened country, where the importance of truth--and free
inquiry as a means of its attainment--is beginning to be appreciated, a
different practice should prevail. We ought not to persist in this
unmanly course. Recollect, Gentlemen, the Prophets of the Jews were
_blasphemers_ against the established religions of their day. Did that
deter them from denouncing the idolatry and false religions of the
surrounding nations? Elijah is represented as ridiculing the God of the
Moabites in a most offensive manner: "_And it came to pass at noon, that
Elijah mocked them and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is
talking f or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he
sleepeth and must be awaked._'" 1 Kings xviii. 27. And in Judea, Jesus
and his Apostles were charged as blasphemers against Judaism, or the
religion established by Moses. We have a remarkable proof of this in the
case of Stephen, recorded in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Acts of the
Apostles.
"And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he
spake.
"Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak
_blasphemous_ words against Moses, and against God.
"And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and
came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
"And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak
blasphemous words against this holy place and the law:
"For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy
this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered
us."--Acts vi, 10--14.
And Stephen defending himself before the Council, boldly asks them,
"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have
slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; _of whom
ye have_ BEEN NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS.
"When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they
gnashed at him with their teeth.
"And they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran
upon him with one accord,
"And cast him out of the city, and stoned him." Acts vii; 51, 52,
54,57,58.
Now, Gentlemen, is it just or politic that the proclaimers of new
truths, and new systems, should be treated in this manner? Would it not
be far more rational to hear what a man has to say, and answer him, than
to "gnash at him with the teeth," to "stop your ears," to "run at him
with one accord," and to "stone him to death?" Can you, Gentlemen, by
your verdict give your sanction to a course of proceeding similar to
that which deprived Stephen of life? All persecution is the same in
spirit--highly unjust and impolitic--whether it be exercised against the
Apostle Stephen, or the humble individual who now addresses you.
Gentlemen, the supporters of the established religion in the days of the
Apostles, pursued the same course that the bigots of the present day are
pursuing. They applied to the High Priest, or to the Attorney-General of
that day, to prosecute Stephen for _blasphemy_, and stirred up the
people. In the present case the Bishop of Exeter did not stir up the
people, but he stirred up the Government. He sent a packet of papers to
Lord Normanby, who handed them to the Attorney-General, and he appears
to have considered it to be his duty to institute the present
prosecution. The learned Attorney-General, as was the case with the
priests and rulers of the Jews, would not allow any discussion to take
place that was likely to change existing customs. I will do the
Government the justice to say, however, that I do not believe they are
disposed to put a stop to the full investigation of any subject, if
conducted with decency. I readily admit that the passage in the eighth
number of Mr. Haslam's Letters is highly objectionable in
phraseology--it is in very bad taste--but is that a reason for sending a
bookseller to prison, because he has sold a book written in bad taste?
It cannot be--all published works must be left to the fiat of public
opinion to determine their merit.
Gentlemen, the same spirit was evinced by the wicked and corrupt rulers
of the Jews against the founder of Christianity. They sought false
witnesses against him; but at length, Jesus having spoken out
explicitly, the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, "_He hath spoken
blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have
heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said_, *HE is
guilty to death.*" (Matt. 26; 65.) Will you, Gentlemen--a Christian
Jury--considering Christianity part and parcel of the law of the land,
by your verdict say, that Jesus was rightly treated by the Jews? Ought
the constituted authorities of that day to have obstructed the glorious
truths of Christianity, and have put to death the Messenger of Man's
salvation? Unless you deliver a verdict of acquittal, in my case, you in
effect sanction and justify all the cruelties exercised against Jesus
and his Apostles by the rulers of the Jews?
The learned Counsel for the prosecution will, perhaps, think that there
is no analogy between the cases cited and my own case--that Jesus and
his Apostles introduced truths of the greatest magnitude and importance,
while I am indicted for selling a book that denies the truth of the
Jewish Scriptures. Why, Gentlemen, Dr. Adam Clarke says, "There is some
reason to fear that they (the Jews) _no longer consider the Old
Testament as divinely inspired, but believe that Moses had recourse to
pious frauds_." And, Gentlemen, Jesus and his Apostles denied the
_truth_ of the Jewish Scriptures--_as understood by the rulers of the
Jews_,--and for denying the orthodox and received sense of the Jewish
Scriptures were accused of blasphemy, and received the fate of martyrs!
That cannot be disputed. Was it just, then,--was it politic, I ask, to
settle this controversy by force and cruelty? To _scourg or imprison,
and destroy_ those glorious men who had important truths to impart to
the world? If England has embraced Christianity--and we are not a nation
of hypocrites--let us act upon the spirit of his religion. He says
plainly and emphatically, that we are not to root up error by force or
cruelty.
In the parable of the tares of the field, he sets forth our duty. "The
Kingdom of Heaven," he says, "is likened unto a man who sowed good seed
in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among
the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and
brought forth fruit, there appeared the tares also. So the servants of
the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good
seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares! He said unto them, An
enemy hath done this. The servant said unto him, Wilt thou then that we
go and gather them up? But he said, _Nay; lest while ye gather up the
tares, ye root up also the wheat with them_. *Let both grow together
until the harvest.*" Matt, xiii; 25--30.
When his disciples demanded an explanation of this parable, he said,
"The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the Kingdom:
but the tares are the children of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed
them in the devil: the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers
are the Angels. The Son of Man shall send forth his Angels, and They
shall gather out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them which
do iniquity." Matt, xiii; 38, 39. 41.
Gentlemen, how unjust and impolitic, then, are these prosecutions. Do
they stop the progress of truth? Persecution for matters of opinion is
the same in every case--impolitic--for it never yet succeeded in
stopping the circulation of a correct opinion or a prohibited book? Why
should _Christians_ prosecute men for disbelieving the _Jewish_
Scriptures, when, according to Dr. Adam Clarke, the Jews disbelieve
parts of the Old Testament themselves? Why should professed Christians
take up and defend that which the Jews themselves reject? Paul, himself,
teaches us that the Jewish law has been superseded by a superior system.
He tells us that the Jewish law "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ (or Christianity), but after that we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." Gal. iii; 24, 25.
I can assure the Jury that if Haslam's Letters to the Clergy is an
improper book, it cannot be put down by prosecution; it is far better to
leave it to coldness and neglect. I could give many proofs of this. I am
myself an instance of the inefficacy of prosecution. I have been
prosecuted, as I think with great injustice, for the publication of a
paper called _The Poor Man's Guardian_. Five hundred men was imprisoned
for selling it; I was twice imprisoned, and the circulation of the
paper, thus prosecuted, more than paid my losses; but at last, in the
Court of Exchequer, before Lord Lyndhurst, the Jury found a verdict in
my favour, for I convinced the Jury that the publication was one which
was not against the law.
The Attorney-General: The Jury found that it was not a newspaper.
Precisely so: and as soon as it was known that the _Guardian_ was a
legal paper, it went down at once. I could not sell copies enough to pay
the expenses (a laugh). It has been just the same with these Letters;
they have remained unsold till this prosecution, but as soon as it was
known that they were prosecuted, the man who published them could not
print them fast enough.