you can do more towards spreading brotherly love among men, than all the
statesmen in the world will be able to accomplish. Say to the
Government, by your verdict, the publication of opinions shall be free.
This will spread brotherly love among men; for what is it that prevents
brotherly love from dwelling among men? The odious principle of
coercion. I do not believe the Government wish to follow up these
prosecutions if they can avoid it. They have a precedent, then, in the
case of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Carlile was in prison nearly _seven years_,
and many of his shopmen were imprisoned for various terras. Did such
vindictive persecutions change their opinions, or stop the sale of the
works prosecuted? Quite the contrary. The individuals became confirmed
and strengthened in their opinions, and all the prosecuted works are now
on sale in every bookseller's shop in London. The public began to
consider them martyrs, and Sir Robert Peel and the Government of that
day saw the injustice and cruelty of such proceedings, abandoned all
prosecutions, and liberated those whose terms of imprisonment were
unexpired. Surely those now in authority are not the men to recommence
these prosecutions for matters of opinion; and my quarrel with them is,
that they have not the moral courage to reply to the taunts of the
Bishop of Exeter, by alluding to this case of Sir Robert Peel's
Government; and boldly declaring that henceforth public opinion shall be
the only censor. Abolish that hateful principle of coercion for matters
of opinion, and mutual toleration, respect, and brotherly kindness, will
henceforth prevail.
Gentlemen, Christianity gives no sanction to persecution. The religion
of Jesus, rightly understood, is a practical and benevolent system. It
is founded on two great commandments, love of God and love of Man. The
_first_ commandment, in fact, resolves itself into a practical
observance of the _second_; for it is expressly declared that, "_If a
man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
hath not seen_?"(1) Recollect, Gentlemen, "_Love worketh no ill to his
neighbour_."(2) Jesus encourages all men to think for themselves. This
is his exhortation--"_Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is
right?*(3)" But while he has encouraged the exercise of mind, he has not
made eternal happiness to depend upon *belief_ but upon their _actions_;
and the great evil of society is attempting to coerce people into the
belief of that which they cannot believe--a system to which, I hope,
your verdict to-day will put a stop.
1. 1 John iv.; 20,
2. Rom. xiii.; 10,
3. Luke xii.; 57
Gentlemen, the Founder of Christianity, in his parable of the Last
Judgment, tells us distinctly that men are to be judged by their
_actions_ and not by their _opinions_; for he describes himself as
inviting the righteous to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the
foundation of the world: "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I
was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me." He then represents the righteous as
saying, "Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee I or thirsty,
and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or
naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and
came unto thee? And the King shall answer, Inasmuch AS YE HAVE DONE IT
UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, ye have done it unto me." He
then represents himself as denouncing the unrighteous for giving him no
meat, nor drink; for not clothing him when naked, nor visiting him when
sick; and when they desire to know when he required these things, and
they did not minister unto him, he replies, "Inasmuch as ye did it not
to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me." Here,
you perceive, there is no particular belief enjoined, none condemned.
All men are to be judged by their actions--not by their belief.
Gentlemen, I have now urged all that I deem necessary to ensure an
acquittal. I hope you will consider well the consequences of your
verdict, and reflect upon the wickedness and impolicy of tearing a man
from his family, for selling a book in the ordinary course of his
business. If I have said anything in the course of my address to raise a
prejudice in your minds, I hope you will discard it, and do justice by
pronouncing an acquittal.
The Attorney-General claimed his right of reply. He commenced by
observing that the Defendant, in his very long address to the Jury, had
not advanced anything that would call for many remarks from him, so that
he should occupy bu ta very small portion of their time. The Defendant
had contended that the blasphemous attack on our holy religion, which
they had heard read, was only free inquiry; and had taunted the
Government, and himself, who desired the extension of useful knowledge,
with having prosecuted this book. But was this book of Haslam's useful
knowledge? The Defendant said, Why not answer it? But he, the
Attorney-General, contended that it could not be answered. The only way
to do with it was to prosecute it. This publication--for the sale of
which the Defendant was indicted--was not fair argument and inquiry, but
blasphemous invective. The Defendant accused him of not objecting so
much to the matter of the publication, as to the price at which it was
sold. Not withstanding what the Defendant had said on this point, he,
the Attorney-General, contended that the low price at which it was sold
made the publication doubly mischievous, as it caused it to circulate
among the working classes of society, who were from their habits,
incapable of thought or discrimination; their time was so entirely
occupied that it was impossible they could devote sufficient time to
reading to guard themselves against the evil tendency of such works;
while the Jury, and men in their class of life, were, from their
education, furnished with an antidote to the poison. If attacks on the
Scriptures were to be permitted, what was to prevent the pious feelings
of the community from being outraged? Suppose a man were to carry a
board through the streets on which was inscribed in large characters,
that "Christ was an impostor." Could it be tolerated? Yet this,
according to the Defendant, was only free inquiry! Again, suppose any
one preferred a republican to a monarchical form of government, and was
to excite and recommend the substitution of the one for the other by
force of arms, inciting, by inflammatory appeals, the people to murder
the Government and the Queen--yet this would be, according to Mr.
Hetherington, only free inquiry! The Defendant had said that Mr. Haslam
was a Socialist; now the Socialists held an opinion that marriage was an
institution that ought to be abolished. If a man, under that plea, were
to recommend the seduction of his neighbour's wife or daughter--would
any one contend that such opinions should be published with impunity?
yet the Defendant considers this the free investigation of opinions; and
to prosecute a blasphemous publication, he says, is to prevent freedom
of opinion. No one wished to interfere with Mr. Hetherington's private
opinion. The policeman, when he went to Mr. Hetherington's shop to
purchase the numbers, did not inquire as to his particular belief. If
there were persons so unfortunate as to disbelieve the Scriptures--which
were the foundation of our holy religion--the law did not interfere with
them so long as they kept their opinions to themselves, and did not
publicly attack the authenticity of the Bible. Mr. Hetherington had
spoken of the effect of prosecution in extending the sale of such
publications, alluding particularly to the _Poor Man's Guardian_; but
he, the Attorney-General, called upon the Jury to do their duty by
bringing? to punishment those who outraged the law, that others might be
deterred from offending. If the Jury looked at the immoral tendency of
such writings, and the doctrines of non-responsibility laid down by Mr.
Hetherington, who declared that he was neither responsible for his
belief, nor his actions--
Mr. Hetherington here interrupted, declaring that the Attorney-General
was acting most unfairly towards him. He never used such language, but
quite the contrary; what he maintained was, that he was not responsible
for his _belief_ but that he _was responsible for his_ actions. If he
injured a friend, a neighbour, or a fellow-citizen, he was amenable to
society for the injury done. The Attorney-General, he contended, was not
replying to him, but perverting his arguments and misrepresenting facts.
Lord Denman said that he agreed with the Defendant in the first
instance, and therefore he thought he was justified in putting the
Attorney-General right; but the Attorney-General, he thought, was
entitled to make any remarks upon facts which came out in evidence.
Mr. Hetherington (with great vehemence).--But he is mis-stating facts,
and making statements calculated to mislead the Jury.
Lord Denman.--You must not interrupt.
The Defendant.--But my liberty is at stake, and I will speak. (Applause
at the back of the court, which was instantly suppressed by the
officers.)
Lord Denman.--You shall be heard in correction of anything you may think
a misrepresentation, afterwards; not in reply, but merely in correction.
The Defendant.--Thank you, my Lord.
The Attorney-General observed, that the Defendant denied being the
publisher, but he would convince the Jury that he was, by reading the
title to them. He then read the title of the book--omitting the
publisher's name, and reading the name of the Defendant only, till Mr.
Hetherington insisted upon his rending the whole title as
follows:--"Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations, showing the
Errors, Absurdities, and Irrationalities of their Doctrines. By C. J.
Haslani. Fourth Edition. Manchester: A. Heywood. 56 and 60, Oldham
Street. London*; Hetherington, 126, Strand; Cleave, Shoe Lane, Fleet
Street; Watson, City Road, Finsbury; and J. Guest, Birmingham; and all
Booksellers in Town and Country."
The Attorney-General then proceeded.--Conceive, gentlemen, a servant or
an apprentice reading this work where the institution of private
property was said to be the great evil of society--would he feel any
compunction at appropriating the goods or money of his employer to his
own use? Would he not find arguments in this work to justify him in his
iniquity? Mr. Hetherington had taken credit to himself for disinterested
motives, but he feared that he was actuated by mercenary
motives--looking only to emolument--careless of the effect it might have
on the morals of the unthinking working-classes.(1) He called upon the
Jury, by the oaths they had taken on the Holy Gospel--which this book
blasphemously attacked--to consider the effect of a verdict of
acquittal, and to do their duty to the public. By such a verdict they
would license the most infamous attacks on the Holy Scriptures, and
would loosen the bonds which held society together.
1. This comes well from a gentleman who descended from his high
professional position to attend at the Old Bailry, for a fee of
L. 100, to plead for a man charged with murder.
Mr. Hetherington explained that it was the custom of the trade to place
the name of any bookseller, with whom the real publisher did business,
on the title-page of the book, and that his name had been so placed by
Mr. Hey-wood, of Manchester, the real publisher, without his knowledge.
Mr. Heywood was the original publisher; he received no punishment, and
was now at liberty.
Lord Denman, in summing up, observed, that the law considered the vendor
of a work the publisher of it, and that consequently he must be held
responsible. It had also been constantly laid down that blasphemy was an
offence at common law. In the Defendant's defence, TO WHICH HE HAD
LISTENED WITH FEELINGS OF GREAT INTEREST, AYE, WITH SENTIMENTS OF
RESPECT TOO, he had complained of the hardship of a general publisher
being held responsible for the contents of all the works he might sell,
but he had himself answered that argument by the conduct which he stated
he pursued with regard to obscene and personally libellous publication,
and from the title-page of this work it was scarcely possible not to be,
in some measure, aware of its contents. Discussions on a subject, even
the most sacred, might be tolerated when they were conducted in a fair
spirit; but when appeals were made not to reason but to the bad feelings
of human nature, or where ridicule or invective were had recourse to, it
could not be considered discussion. As to the impolicy of these sort of
prosecutions that was a question with which they had nothing to do; the
only question for them to determine was, whether the publication in
question was a blasphemous libel, and whether it had been published by
the Defendant.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Attorney-General prayed the immediate judgment of the Court.
Lord Denman.--I think the passing sentence had better be deferred, until
we have had the opportunity of considering the subject.
The Defendant then retired, and the Court adjourned.
OBSERVATIONS
The renewal of a series of Government prosecutions for alleged
blasphemy, will justify me in accompanying the publication of the
foregoing trial with a few words of comment.
The points upon which I deem it my duty to animadvert--are the conduct
of the Government, the Attorney-General, and the Jury.
I consider that the Government have acted towards me, in this
prosecution, in a very unjustifiable manner. They first placed Mr.
Cleave on his trial for selling the fifth, eighth, and thirteenth
numbers of Haslam's Letters. He pleaded _Not Guilty_, but was convicted
(after an able and convincing speech from his-Counsel, Mr. Chambers), by
as stupid a Jury as ever sat in judgment on an honest man. The Judge
sentenced him to four months' imprisonment, and a fine of L20. Such was
the force of public opinion, however, on the injustice and impolicy of
such prosecutions, that Mr. Cleave was liberated, upon paying the fine,
after five weeks' imprisonment.
The trial of Mr. Heywood, the original publisher, came next. His known
integrity and respectability had attached to him many influential
friends, who represented to the Government the folly and injustice of
these proceedings, and Lord Normanby at length yielded to their
importunities, by agreeing, on condition that he pleaded guilty, that
Mr. Heywood's prosecution should proceed no further. Mr. Heywood
complied, and was left at liberty, on entering into his own
recognizances, to appear when called upon.
Public opinion unequivocally declared that such prosecutions were
indefensible, and it was very generally believed that the Government
would abandon them from a conviction of their injustice and impolicy.
Instead of which they proceeded against me for selling the same numbers
of the identical work that Messrs. Cleave and Heywood had been
prosecuted for selling, though the punishment of Mr. Cleave was
remitted, and the Government compounded blasphemy in the case of Mr.
Heywood. To injure and annoy honest and industrious tradesmen, because
the author of a book has in two or three instances expressed his ideas
in vulgar and objectionable phraseology, is unworthy of an enlightened
Government. I feel pity for the Jury who could ignorantly pronounce a
verdict of guilty against a man who never wilfully injured a
fellow-creature, merely because he had sold a book that combated the
established opinions of the day; but I entertain very different
sentiments against the Government that could institute and carry forward
prosecutions of this nature, when, from their superior knowledge, they
must be fully aware of the iniquity of their proceedings. They encourage
"reason and free inquiry," while it favours their objects; and they
persecute and ruin all those, who, by the exercise of reason and free
inquiry, arrive at conclusions adverse to the established opinions of
society. The time has passed, however, for a renewal of persecution for
matters of opinion. No Government can stand that will attempt it; and I
tell Her Majesty's Government, that when they interfere with the
religious or anti-religious opinions of the people, they step out of
their province,--and to inflict punishment upon either the original
publisher or the general bookseller, who supplies all works to order,
for the opinions contained in the works they respectively publish or
sell, is an odious act of tyranny that good men of every opinion should
denounce and oppose. I, for one, will never sanction or submit to such
tyranny. Whether any and what sentence will be passed upon me I know
not; but I have made up my mind that I will maintain, at all risks, and
under every privation, to the utmost extent of my ability and means, the
right of all men to freely publish their opinions upon every subject of
general interest--whether social, political, or religious; aye, or
anti-religious,--and if the Government would receive a suggestion from
me, I would suggest to them to take their stand on this glorious
principle--perfect freedom is the formation AS PUBLICATION OF OPINIONS
FOR EVERY SECT AND PARTY. That is the most effectual way to elicit truth
upon all subjects; and I would respectfully ask them, whether they ever
knew the truth injure any sect or party that was disposed to act
honestly?
I hope the Government will reflect upon the injustice and impolicy of
this new crusade against the free expression of opinion, adopt my
suggestion, and abandon all prosecutions against those who honestly
controvert the received opinions of society.
Having now expressed my feelings with regard to the conduct of the
Government, I must say a word or two respecting the behaviour of the
learned Attorney-General towards me, on my trial. He made very few
observations in opening the case, but reserved himself for his Reply; a
privilege which I think he was not entitled to, as I called no
witnesses. Had I anticipated he would have claimed the privilege of
reply, and abused it in the shameful manner that he did, I could have
overthrown, by witnesses, the false impression which he so unjustly
laboured to establish on the minds of the Jury--that I was the publisher
of the work, because my name was affixed to the book first of the London
agents. What is the object of a reply? It is to answer the facts and
arguments adduced by the Defendant; to show that he has reasoned
illogically; and to point out to the Jury, succinctly and clearly* the
points in which he has failed to answer the charge laid against him in
the indictment. In addition, however, to this base attempt to hold me up
to the Jury as the original publisher, the Attorney-General obviously
sought to make the Jury believe--(and there is every reason to think
that he triumphed in this his unjust attempt to injure me)--that I
claimed immunity not only for my belief but my actions, When I insisted
upon setting him right, by showing him the utter falsehood of his
assertion, in which I was supported by Lord Chief Justice Denman, he
treacherously aimed at fixing upon me the consequences of doctrines to
which I had not even adverted in my speech, and which had no reference
whatever to the subject then before the Court. He basely insinuated that
I was virtually claiming immunity for all acts of aggression--such as
robbery, murder, seduction, unjustifiable rebellion, and assassination
of the Queen; striving to raise in the minds of the Jury a confusion
between the right of freedom of opinion and the wrong of licentious
action! This, too, was slanderously repeated, after my open appeal to
the Court against such malignity; and this the learned Attorney-General
calls availing himself of his privilege of reply! I was not allowed to
answer these falsehoods of the Attorney-General; though, as the accused
party, I was in justice, if not in law, entitled to every opportunity of
making the truth apparent to the Jury.
As to the Jury--What shall I say of them? I can only pity men who
exhibited such woful ignorance and imbecility as to be led away by
misrepresentations that had not even the appearance of truth. Let me ask
the Jury one simple question. They were bound by their oath to give a
true verdict according to the evidence. Now let me ask them, was there
any evidence of BLASPHEMY?
The evidence adduced merely proved the sale of a certain book. There was
no evidence that the contents of the book were blasphemous. This
question--(that is to say, the very question in dispute--the question
whether or not there was any blasphemy)--this question was decided by
Judge and Jury without an iota of evidence, without even an attempt at
any evidence bearing Upon it. The opinions of the Judge and Jury decided
the question of the indictment---Was there blasphemy or no! There was no
evidence at all upon it. Gentlemen of the Jury--common and special--was
your verdict in accordance with the EVIDENCE brought forward for your
enlightened consideration--was your verdict in accordance with the terms
of your oath? The verdict to which I was entitled from honest and
reasoning men was the following:--either a direct "Not Guilty of
blasphemy"--or this, "Guilty of selling a certain book concerning the
nature of which wc=e have had no evidence"--matters of opinion not
being, in fact susceptible of evidence.
H. HETHERINGTON.
I cannot close these Observations without tendering my best thanks to
the editor of _The Sun_ for the zeal and ability with which, in a
succession of leading articles, he defended the right of Free Inquiry
and the Free Publication of Opinions. The _Morning Chronicle_ published
an impartial report of the Trial, and gave a good leading article on the
subject. The _Morning Advertiser_ and the _Weekly Chronicle_ also
published a fair report of the Trial. The _Weekly Dispatch_ and The
_Statesman_ are both entitled to thanks for their advocacy of Truth and
Liberty, in reference to the principle contended for in my Defence. The
three Letters of Publicola, in The _Weekly Dispatch_, are invaluable;
and I regret that I cannot find room for the whole of them in this
pamphlet, without considerably enhancing its price and defeating my own
object of extensive circulation for my Trial. They are worthy of a
distinct publication. I can only fill up the space I have left by the
insertion of the following excellent article from _The Sun_ of Friday,
December the 11th, 1840, and Publicola's Letter to Lord Chief Justice
Denman.--H. H.
Extract from The Sun Newspaper
We brought evidence yesterday to show that the suppression of objections
to the Scriptures by penal enactments is tyrannical, unjust, and absurd,
and that the law is partially administered. If we return to the subject,
it is from a deep sense of its almost immeasurable importance. Our whole
internal A policy, nearly, is framed with a view to support the Church.
The Church is founded, or rather pretends to be founded, on the Bible;
but we are now told by the decision of the Jury on Tuesday, that it is a
crime to object to its statements. The happiness of society, then, is to
be chained and bound by principles and doctrines, which society must not
examine; for if men must not object, what is the use of examination?
"We see disorder pervading every part of society. The poor are set
against the rich, and the rich are zealously engaged in oppressing and
coercing the poor. Crime increases, and though more churches are
building, religion is decaying. The remedies suggested for our
disorders, within the bounds sanctioned by the Church, are more numerous
than the disorders themselves; but though confusion and anarchy threaten
us, the law forbids men to say aught against principles which our rulers
have followed, while society has been brought into its present
condition.