made a great discovery in astronomy, and was arraigned for his opinion
before the ecclesiastical tribunals of his country. The alternative was
allowed him either to die at the stake or to retract his opinions; to
save his life he did change his opinions, though he was convinced
of their truth. He however endeavored privately to disseminate those
opinions, but was discovered, and the religious government of that
country condemned him to three years' imprisonment. But, before the
expiration of that time, the truth of his opinion, that the earth was
not flat, but round, and that the sun did not move round the earth
but the earth round the sun, were established and admitted by his
persecutors. Who then will venture to stop human improvement? Who
will say we have gone far enough? I believe, from conviction, having
considered the subject, and got all the information I could connected
with it, that the book which is called the revealed will of God, is a
blasphemy of that God. [A murmur of indignation pervaded the Court.]
The Chief Justice: This is too much.
Mr. Carlile: I can state reason for my belief. I am supported by Sir
W. Drummond, a man of the finest education, and who had made the most
extensive enquiries the human mind could reach. I am deeply impressed
with the impropriety of bringing such a subject before a Court of
Justice, but I must either do that or go to a prison, from which perhaps
I will never be liberated. The consequence is dreadful to me. I must
either get the Attorney-General to withdraw the case from the Court, or
enter on my defence in the way I think most likely to answer my purpose.
The Chief Justice: There is another alternative; to conduct yourself with
decency and decorum.
Mr. Carlile: I am insensible of any indecorum.
The Chief Justice: Whether you are insensible, or cannot be made
sensible, it is right that I should check you when you misconduct
yourself.
Mr. Carlile: There is a statute which supports Deism
The Chief Justice: You may comment on that statute.
Mr. Carlile: There is a statute by which it is enacted that to impugn
the doctrine of the Trinity is not an offence. It is the law of the
land.
Mr. Gurney: That part of the statute of William and Mary is in force
which renders it criminal for any man to deny the Christian religion to
be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine origin.
Mr. Carlile: Why did not the Attorney-General found his information on
that statute?
The Chief Justice: Because he did not think proper to do so. That
statute imposed certain penalties, and he conceived it was better to
proceed on the common law. He was justified in doing so. A riot
is punishable by common law; but, as in the case of disturbing a
congregation, it may be punished under a particular statute, at the
option of the complaining party.
Mr. Carlile: Yes, but the riot is defined. The Riot Act states what
shall be denominated a riot. This is not the case here. There was an
Act in existence which allowed persons to impugn the doctrine of the
Trinity, on which the Christian religion is founded; and by so doing,
supported Deism, and admitted the nature of that religion to be
investigated. I was extremely unwilling to be brought here; for I think
a Court of Justice a most improper place for such a subject. If a
book be published containing questionable opinions, they ought to
be corrected by the intervention of the Press. I am charged, in the
information, with having excited "the great displeasure of Almighty
God"! Is not this a gross assumption? Is it not blasphemy? We ought to
venerate the Deity; and not speak of him as if he were subject to human
passions and frailties. I think I have shown that Paine had a more
sublime idea of the Almighty than the Koran contained. I will go
further, and say that he had a higher notion of the Divinity than is to
found in the Old Testament. I have no wish to proceed under continual
interruptions; it is, indeed, impossible that I can proceed; but, I am
sure, if anything I offer in my defence is not a justification of my
conduct, I alone will be the sufferer. If the book I wished to read
be the work of the Deity, it cannot be injured or shaken by the
observations of any man. It is, in my opinion, not the work of the
Deity.
The Chief Justice: You are now offending against a law which has been
quoted more than once.
Mr. Carlile: An Act of Parliament cannot restrain opinions.
The Chief Justice: It may restrain the expression of them.
Mr. Carlile: My case is similar to that of Galileo, in whose defence no
man stood forward. If Newton had been on the Continent when he made his
discoveries, he would have been treated in the same way that Galileo
was. The same course was pursued towards all men who wished to remove
bigotry and ignorance. Locke, if I recollect rightly, was expelled the
University on account of the freedom of his opinions. He did not deny
the Christian religion; but he went very near to that point; and it
cannot be denied that the 9th and 10th of William and Mary were passed,
in a great measure, to check the circulation of his writings and
opinions. The Attorney-General appeals to the authority of Locke, and
so may I. The great man says, "Reason only can judge of revelation". I
could wish, my lord, to understand whether I am to go into that defence
which I conceive to be my only defence, or to be put down unheard? I
cannot legally be put down. What I have to say in my defence I think the
Court is bound to hear.
The Chief Justice: The Court is not bound to hear the Christian religion
impugned.
Mr. Carlile: I must say that the Act to which I have alluded, by
dispensing with belief in the Trinity, admits the Christian religion to
be impugned.
The Chief Justice: It does no such thing.
Mr. Carlile: It tolerates others in doing it. For those who are really
attached to the Christian religion must believe Jesus to be a part of
the Godhead; which doctrine is now impugned by this Act. The
Attorney-General himself has been bred in the Unitarian belief; he has
been taught the Unitarian doctrines--doctrines which go to overthrow the
divinity of Jesus--and, if you destroy that divinity, Jesus must be a
man; there is no-medium. I feel an awful veneration for the Deity. In
conversation I never appeal to his name in vain. He resides only in my
mind; he is very seldom in my speech. The whole face of the earth is
peopled by nations that differ from each other in their opinions of the
Deity. In this country there are hundreds of sects of Christians; they
are almost innumerable; and they feel the utmost jealousy and indulge in
the greatest bickerings towards each other. How then is it possible to
arrive at a knowledge of what is right or wrong, unless we judge for
ourselves? The difficulty here arises from the impropriety of bringing a
question of this kind into a Court of Justice, where it cannot be freely
and fairly judged according to the rules of the Court. It would do honor
to the Attorney-General if he would withdraw the record, since I cannot
offer in my defence what I deem necessary. I am not like a barrister,
who acts according to the statement contained in his brief, and has no
opinion of his own. I avow that I published certain opinions, and those
opinions I am ready to defend. It is well known, and I am sure your
lordship cannot contradict me, that there are many passages in the Old
Testament which cannot be reconciled with reason, nor with the feelings
of delicacy. It is, I fear, a dislike to hear them repeated which
induces your lordship to prevent me from proceeding.
The Chief Justice: It is not any such feeling that actuates me; but
an awful veneration for the Scriptures. It is not competent for you to
defend yourself by impugning the truth of the Christian religion, with
which our hopes of eternal happiness are so nearly connected.
Mr. Carlile denied that he had impugned Christianity.
The Chief Justice: I heard you say that belief in the Scriptures was
blasphemy to God.
Mr. Gurney: The defendant said, "It is my firm belief that the Bible is
not the revealed will of God".
Mr. Carlile repeated that some parts of the Old Testament abounded in
morality, while others, he must observe, were revolting to the feelings
of any reflecting man, who wished to publish a book of morality,
according to the prevailing moral doctrines. If those parts of the Bible
to which he alluded were published by themselves, it would subject him
or any other individual to a prosecution by the Attorney-General; or, if
he did not prosecute, he would be guilty of a dereliction of his duty.
He had already stated that the statute tolerated Deism. It did so,
because it tolerated Unitarianism. He was a Unitarian, and therefore
a Deist--and, being a Deist, he was therefore a Unitarian. The words
Trinitarian and Unitarian were opposed to each other, to distinguish the
believers in the Trinity from those who did not agree to that doctrine.
The Old Testament, it ought to be observed, was never placed by the
Jews in the hands of their children; and the clergy of the Romish Church
endeavored to keep the Scriptures from the laity by retaining them in
an obscure tongue. It was in this country alone that the copies had been
greatly multiplied and placed in the hands of all ranks and ages. He now
called the attention of the Court to the "History of the English Bible",
which, as it was printed for the Religious Tract Society, his lordship
might easily conceive contained nothing offensive.
Mr. Carlile then read the small extract entitled "The History of the
English Bible", after the concluding words of which, viz.: Thus, after
the lapse of almost 100 years from the first appearance of the English
printed Scriptures by the labors of Tyndal, we are come to the present
authorised version, of which it has been remarked, that "it is the
birth-right of our numerous population, and has proved the means of
knowledge, holiness, and joy to millions; and we trust it is destined
for ages yet to come, to be the glory of the rich, and the inheritance of
the poor; the guide to the way-worn pilgrim, and the messenger of peace
to many a dying sinner". He said that in the latter day a Mr. Bellamy
had started up, who denied the correctness of this version, asserting
that in many parts it did not agree with the original Hebrew, proposed
writing a new translation, and got some of the Bishops and the Prince
Regent to subscribe for copies. Why did not the Attorney-General
prosecute Mr. Bellamy for saying, as he in fact had, that the Scriptures
(by which must be meant the authorised translation) did not contain the
word of God? After some other observations he proceeded. He could not
boast of having got a learned education. He ran through a country school
in the way most boys do, up to the age of twelve; and whatever learning
he had acquired since was in the time he had spared from his employment
and the calls of his business; but, notwithstanding, he had perused a
variety of commentators on the Bible, and finding them all disagree,
that circumstance created doubt in his mind, which ended in the opinions
he now held. He had been brought up in the doctrines of the Christian
Church, and his mother used to impress them on him with peculiar
earnestness. It was from the apprehension of similar doubts in the
people generally that the Bishops in former times universally prohibited
the reading of the Scriptures. His intention was to go through that part
of the Bible examined by Mr. Paine, and it he should establish that they
exactly agreed in the representation of them given by Mr. Paine, he was
entitled to a verdict of acquittal.
He then, after several remarks on the statutes before referred to, and
objections constantly over-ruled, commenced reading and commenting on
the first two chapters of Genesis, after which he read a tract from the
book on which the information is grounded, entitled "Extract of a Reply
to the Bishop of Llandaff".
After the defendant had concluded reading, he said that he had made it
clear from Mr. Paine's work, that Mr. Paine had shown that the book of
Job was written prior to the book of Genesis. Having read Mr. Paine's
letter to Lord Erskine, on the first and third chapters of Genesis, he
now proceeded to the fourth. [Here the defendant proceeded to read the
fourth chapter of Genesis.] On that part where it is stated that the
Lord had set a mark on Cain, the defendant said that the commentators on
the Bible were much puzzled as to what this mark was; some said it was
the mark on the African; some, the mark on the Ethiopian--but no one,
he said, could give a fair account of it. They also said that in
the different genealogical accounts in the Bible, in most cases the
accounts disagree with each other. After reading that part where the Lord
is said to have repented for having created man, he attempted to comment
on the passage. He said it made our Savior a mere human being--to repent
of an action was unworthy of a God.
The Chief Justice here interrupted the defendant. His lordship said,
that sitting there as an English judge he could not allow the defendant
to take that course. By the law of the land, no person was allowed to
deny the truth of the Christian religion, or to question the-divine
authority of the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile said he was sorry to observe that there was little of
Christianity about those who were around him. Mr. Paine himself said
that Jesus Christ was an amiable and benevolent man; he endeavored to
change the system of religion in his time--he made innovations on the
powers of the high priests of the Jews; and what were the consequences?
Why, he fell a victim to their rancor and malice. My lord, the priests
in this country are not more merciful, it is-from the priests of this
country that this persecution against me has originated.
The Chief Justice: It is unnecessary to read those chapters from
Genesis, the jury are acquainted with them.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I read them for the justification of Paine.
The Chief Justice: This surely cannot be a defence.
Mr. Carlile: My object is to show that Paine was justified in what he
asserted; my object is to show that Paine was not guilty of a falsehood.
The Chief Justice: I did not restrain you from reading the publication
itself; though if what is contained in it were urged by yourself, I
certainly would not allow you to proceed.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, in this country it is easy to-excite religious
prejudice. Paine said that no man should be condemned for differing
with another in opinion. Such conduct is surely not consistent with the
spirit of Christianity, nor with any principle of morality or justice.
The Chief Justice: I have already stated, and I now repeat it, that
sitting here as an English judge, I cannot allow any man to deny that
the Holy Bible is of divine authority.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the jury are the judges in my case. I see no law
that applies to my case--I appeal to the judgment of the jury. My lord,
Mr. Kidd, in his defence of Williams, was going into the same line of
defence that I now wish to take; he was interrupted by Lord Kenyon. Mr.
Kidd said he stood there the advocate of the prisoner; that in a Court
of Justice every man had a right to a defence; that he saw no course of
defence but that which he was about to take, and if he were not allowed
to pursue that, he might as well abandon the defence altogether. Lord
Kenyon desired him to go on.
The Chief Justice: In that very report you will find that Mr. Kidd was
about to read certain passages of the Bible, and on an intimation of the
Court, he desisted from doing so. I have allowed you in this case much
greater latitude than was allowed to Mr. Kidd in that. You may cite
passages, but do not read them.
Here the Attorney-General read a passage from the report of the trial of
Williams.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, Mr. Paine said that no book was more read and less
examined than the Bible. When I am prevented from reading passages from
the Bible, is it because the Bible is not fit to be read?
The Chief Justice: Not to be read irreverently--not to be read for the
avowed purpose of proving or attempting to prove that the Bible is not
of divine origin.
Here the foreman of the jury interfered. He said that the jury did not
think it necessary for the defendant to go any farther into the reading
of the Bible.
His lordship again said, that as an English judge, independent of every
other consideration, he would not suffer the defendant to question the
Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the Scriptures are here considered of divine
origin. The Mahometans consider the Koran as divine also. The Mahometans
would not permit a man, however conscientious, to doubt the dogmas of
the Koran.
The Chief Justice: If you in the Mahometan empire committed an offence
against the religion of the State, instead of receiving an impartial and
patient trial, as you have here, you would be devoted to instant death.
Mr. Carlile: Yes, my lord, and this shows how cool men should be, and
how much consideration should be given to matter of opinion.
The Chief Justice: I cannot allow you to violate the laws of the land,
and in affecting to defend yourself, to commit a repetition of the
offence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the entire case is a matter of opinion. I shall
now proceed to read some passages from the writings of Doctor Geddes,
the translator of the Hebrew Testament. That celebrated man was educated
a Catholic priest, and was one of the most learned and able men of
his day. Here he read a number of passages from Doctor Geddes, he was
proceeding to read further, when The Attorney-General said, that if the
defendant were thus allowed to proceed, he saw no termination to the
trial; if permitted, the defendant might continue to read every work
published on the gospel. What the defendant was reading had no relation
whatever to the charge, and he should not be allowed to occupy the time
of the Court.
The Chief Justice: The work the defendant is now reading is very
different from the publication of Paine. Dr. Geddes observes on the five
books of Moses, and expresses his doubts as to some of them.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, Dr. Geddes doubts some parts of the Bible, and Mr.
Paine's publication doubted some part of it.
The Chief Justice: No; the publication of Paine does not go to express
doubts, but it impugns the Bible; it says that the entire of the Bible
is a tissue of falsehood and imposition.
Here the foreman of the jury said that the jury felt great reluctance in
interfering with the defendant; but they felt it necessary to say that
the course he was taking did not seem to them to bear on his case.
Mr. Carlile: Then I cannot see what will bear on my case; prejudice has
been excited against me, and I am to be crushed.
The Chief Justice: If you will be crushed, it must be by the weight of
your publication. If you have done something that cannot be defended
without impugning the law of England, then you cannot be allowed to go
into that kind of defence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I don't see that the law is against me.
The Chief Justice: Sir, I have already given my opinion on this point.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, you said that by the recent statute, but one of
the provisions of the Act of William and Mary was repealed. I say that
the three provisions were repealed.
The Chief Justice: Well, sir, that is your opinion; it is for the jury
to say whether they will take the law from you or from me.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, the law is a very dubious thing.
The Chief Justice: Your course is very wrong. If you urge matter
irrelevant, it is a loss of time; if you urge what is profane, it is
still worse.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, what was written by Mr. Paine was also written by
other eminent men, who were not prosecuted.
The Chief Justice: It does not follow that if the offences of those
men were not punished, that others are to follow the same course with
impunity.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, Mr. Gibbon has attacked the Christian religion in
the most insidious manner. I am at liberty to go into its examination.
The Chief Justice: I say you are not; you are not at liberty to do
anything to question the divine origin of Christianity.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am a man of humble life, and therefore I am
prosecuted. Mr. Gibbon, far from being prosecuted, held an office
under the Crown. Mr. Hume, who far exceeded Paine in his attacks on
religion--Hume, also, was an Atheist--was sent as Secretary to an
Embassy to Paris, and had afterwards a pension of L600 a year. He
was never prosecuted, and never questioned, but by the people of the
country. My lord, if I am in error, let me be convinced by argument; but
let me not be thrown into a prison by those who are formed in concert to
crush me.
The Chief Justice: If you attribute anything of concert to me, you
attribute that which I am altogether free from. I am here discharging my
duty as a judge of the land, and the first dictate of that duty is not
to allow the character of the Christian religion to be assailed.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, if you deny one part of the Christian religion you
destroy the whole. The first principles of the Christian religion is the
belief in the divinity of Christ--the Unitarians do not believe so,
yet they are protected by the law; they believe that Christ was the
messenger of God, and that he performed some miracles--that he raised
from the dead. The statute law protects the Unitarians, and will it
be said that the same law does not also apply to those who, like the
Unitarians, do not believe in the divinity of Christ? I hold up that
statute as the shield of my protection--I have stated the law which
tolerated the impugning of the Holy Trinity. If the statute was not
passed I never would have published those works. The jury must know
that public opinion is liable to-change. Since the convictions that took
place for publishing "The Age of Reason", I thought I saw the change in
public opinion manifested in this Act of the Legislature. "The Age of
Reason" inculcates morality; it is as perfect in this respect as any
book that ever was published of the same kind. If, however, I am in
error, a loathsome prison is not likely to convince me of my error. My
lord, one half of the people of this country are Deists--thousands of
persons hold the same opinions that I do, but their situations in life
will not allow them to express those opinions. I believe in one God, and
no more. The same law that protects others should protect me. The law is
express, and if I am not to get its protection, it is of no use to the
subject. My lord, I have made great arrangements for my trial, but in
consequence of the interruptions I have received, my line of defence is
broken down. It was my intention to examine thirty or forty witnesses
who should express what their belief is. They are of different sects,
yet they are all tolerated, because their belief does not militate
against the interests of the priests of this country. I also would
produce persons to speak as to my moral conduct--persons who have known
me since I was thirteen years of age, and who could swear that I have
ever conducted myself as a peaceable and industrious citizen, and as
a moral member of society. I do not wish to occupy unnecessarily the
public time, but there have been cases of much less importance--the
case of Sacheverell, who was tried for holding the doctrine of passive
obedience--a doctrine which is now publicly preached from the pulpits of
this metropolis, and is hailed by the present system of government;
his case took up ten days. Trials for high treason, founded on the most
frivolous charges, which were attempted to be worked up to high treason,
and which were not of half so much importance as the question between
me and the Attorney-General, took up many days. The Attorney-General,
in this question, has left his case to be made out by the Court; he
has failed to make it out himself. But I will not take the law from
the Court; the jury are my judges; I will not take the dictum of his
lordship. I cannot sit down without going further into my defence,
unless it is positively decided that I shall not proceed.
The Chief Justice: You must not deny the truth of the Christian
religion, nor are you to go into irrelevant matter; if I am wrong you
can appeal to the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. Carlile: By what means can I appeal to the Court of King's Bench
when I am confined within the walls of a prison?
The Chief Justice: I know nothing of the walls of a prison. If I am
wrong in point of law, you will be entitled to the benefit of my error.
Mr. Carlile: The law tolerates those who deny the Trinity--therefore
it tolerates Deists. I have been frequently interrupted by the
Attorney-General; it is, I believe, the first time an Attorney-General
has at-tempted to dictate to a defendant what line of defence he should
pursue--that at least should be left to the Court. My lord, the work of
Dr. Geddes is a fair examination of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Chief Justice: Geddes doubts some points--Paine denies all.
Mr. Carlile: Paine, my lord, I consider one of the finest writers; his
"Age of Reason" is one of the most useful and able works that have been
published. My lord, I am prepared with matter to show that in all
ages great doubts were entertained of the truth of the Christian
religion--and that the works of the Fathers were composed of the most
idle and ridiculous tales. Most of them professed to work miracles.
The Chief Justice said these works had no bearing on the question.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am left then without a defence. There are two
books, one is protected by an Act of Parliament, and the other I am not
allowed to-support.
The Chief Justice: I cannot let men be acquitted of a charge of
violating the law because they are unbelievers.
Mr. Carlile: Everything that is true should be allowed. Another part of
my defence is to show the general persecution that has existed since
the commencement of Christianity--that same system of persecution is now
exerted against me; because I have published certain opinions, I am to
be sent to prison without a defence. My lord, for the truth of opinions
hundreds have been burnt in Smithfield and thousands on the Continent.
The Attorney-General, I am sure, would pursue me to the stake with the
same pleasure and avidity that he now pursues me to a prison.
The Chief Justice: You have no right to say that.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I shall now proceed to a short examination of
a statement made by Bishop Burnet. The Bishop says "that damnation is
repugnant to the wisdom and mercy of God". He says in his charge to-the
clergy that they should not give their real opinions to the world.
He says, that the idea of hell is as ridiculous as the idea of
Transubstantiation. But it should be recollected, however ridiculous it
may appear, hundreds have suffered death for maintaining it; and though
he treats it as absurd it was a few years before his time the sacred
doctrine professed by the Christian world, venerated as ancient, and
revered as the essence of the established religion of his country. Here
he went into a recital of some observations of distinguished authors,
on the dignity of avowing the truth: Tacitus exclaimed, when will the
blessed time arrive when men may think without awe and speak without
danger. Milton, Bacon and Boyle expressed themselves in the like terms;
but the Attorney-General said he would send me to a prison, merely
because I would uphold what I think to be true; not that my opinions are
different from his; no, I could hold up the hand of fellowship to Sir
Robert Gifford, he is a Unitarian, and a Unitarian is a Deist. If I am
once found guilty, I know well that no objections will avail me. I shall
be placed in the hands of those who are now my prosecutors.
The Chief Justice: I repeat it, if I am wrong in point of law, you will
be entitled to rectify that mistake by applying to the Court of King's
Bench. I shall, indeed, myself consult the Court on the subject.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I have no faith in the Court; I hope for no
indulgence--my defence rests on matter of opinion, not of law. Where
legislatures enact laws against opinion, their acts are a nullity and
absurdity. My lord, I have no hope of bringing the jury round to my
opinion; but I had a strong hope that if I was allowed to proceed I
should show that I had some reasons to doubt, and that I might have
doubted without a malicious intention.
The Chief Justice: I have not excluded you from that line of defence.
You may, if you can, show that your intentions were innocent; but you
cannot, and must not do that by impeaching the Holy Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, there are some parts of the Scriptures which Paine
has not touched on, or to which he has slightly alluded; for instance,
the Songs of Solomon in the Old Testament. These contain the most
voluptuous tales--it was my intention to read them--and then I would ask
you, gentlemen of the jury, whether you would put into the hands of
your children that book in preference to "The Age of Reason"? The Bible
contains tales which no young mind can read un-contaminated. "The Age of
Reason" rescues the character of the Deity from the degraded situation
in which the Bible placed it, and instead of suppressing the works of
Paine by prosecutions, a statue should be erected in this hall sacred to
his memory--in this hall, and in every public place in this country.
My lord, there were fifty Gospels afloat until the councils of Nice and
Laodicea collected them, and selected these Gospels out of them which
are now professed by Christians. I am not precluded from showing you the
authority of these Councils. The early Christians were celebrated for
persecuting each other. [Here he referred to "Eusebius's Ecclesiastical
History". After reading some passages, the Court asked with what object
he proceeded? He replied, he read it to show that the New Testament was
no gift of God to man.]
The Chief Justice: In this Court we assume that the Christian religion
is true. I am anxious to give every possible latitude of defence, but I
cannot permit the introduction of blasphemy; I cannot allow this day's
proceedings to form a precedent that might be dangerous in future times.
Mr. Carlile: I wish to show that there are some reasons to doubt.
The Chief Justice: The publication you are now to answer for does not
express doubts; but it calumniates and reviles the Christian religion.
You cannot justify by denying the truth of the Christian religion.
Mr. Carlile: Your decision, my lord, sets aside the statute.
The Chief Justice: I have given my opinion on the statute. It is
useless, and it certainly is not decorous, to contend against that
opinion now. If it be a wrong one, you will have an opportunity of
rectifying it.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I feel that I do not stand in a Court of Justice;
but that I stand in an Inquisition, where I am prevented from going into
my defence.
The Chief Justice: You stand in a Court where the Christian religion
must be observed as the law of the land, and where no man is allowed to
revile it; you stand in a Court willing and most anxious to give you the
full benefit of every fair, legal and decorous defence.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am persecuted because these publications are
directed against the revenues of the Church. If it were not for this
the publication would be safe. How many odious and absurd doctrines have
been tolerated, nay, supported in this country? Johanna Southcote had
twenty thousand followers in this country--she was encouraged in her
impious and indecent conduct--whilst the publisher of "The Age of
Reason" is prosecuted, but not allowed to be defended. My lord, I shall
now take leave to show you the persecutions which Luther endured. That
persecution originated in the same spirit that now assails me. Luther
was the son of a Saxon minister; he was sent to a school in Magdeburg,
but was afterwards obliged to beg for his bread; he wrote against the
authority of the Pope and the practices of the Church of Rome, and he
was denounced as a heretic. He was grievously persecuted for maintaining
what he considered truth, and if the Court is not prepared to defend
that persecution, his lordship cannot defend his own conduct nor the
conduct of the Attorney-General as against me. If Luther was exposed to
a trial of this kind--if, like me he was prevented from entering into
a defence--he would never have been able to carry the Reformation into
effect; but happily for him, before the Pope could lay his hands on
him, he found a friend in the Elector of Saxony; if it were not for that
fortunate circumstance, the pious Christians of those days would have
committed him to the flames. The Attorney-General, like the Friar
Hiegostratus, who advised the Pope to commit Luther to the flames,
now calls for my conviction to send me to a dungeon, to have my family
ruined, and to prevent me from ever rising in the world by any effort
of care and of industry. Luther was summoned before the Council. He
attempted to defend himself on grounds of argument, but he would not be
heard, and finding that his person was in danger, he was obliged to fly.
He was excommunicated, he was interdicted, he was hunted down like a
wild beast, but this he bore for conscience sake. He had the idea
of truth, and when the mind of man is impressed with that heavenly
sentiment, he will suffer a hero and a martyr to his principles. Though
humble my efforts, yet, like the great reformer, I am impressed with the
justice and propriety of the course I have taken. It will not be denied,
my lord, that sometimes it is necessary to resist power; nay, sometimes
to resist law. It is too often the case that the propagators of new
doctrines fall victims to their principles. Luther, Calvin and Knox
might be said to be the only exceptions. My lord, falsehood will not
bear the light of enquiry, but truth is powerful, it is impossible to
stop it; it is not perverseness in me to propagate what I conceive to
be for the good of man; like Luther, the mind of a sincere believer,
whatever his doctrines may be, would rather perish than retract, while
unconscious of error. My lord, I cannot but consider that the same
persecuting spirit that harassed him is now directed against me; it
is true that the Roman Catholic religion in his day had no
Attorney-General, but it had its Inquisition, its accusing officers, the
ministers of its vengeance, and the creatures of its power.
He then attempted to show that there was no evidence of the miraculous
conception of Jesus Christ, insisted on the alleged discrepancy between
the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and was entering on an argument
to prove that the latter Gospel was not written by St. Luke, when he was
interrupted by the Attorney-General. He observed on the consequences of
the toleration granted to Unitarians by statute 53 Geo. III, whom, he
said, he considered as Deists. He had been denied every opportunity of
showing, even from Eusebius, that the books of the New Testament were
not written by the persons whose names they bore in our version. He had
intended to be prepared the next morning with a list of the names of the
persons to whom they had been attributed before the Councils of Laodicea
and Nice, but in consequence of having been interrupted in his intended
line of defence, everything was in confusion and derangement with him.
He had an extract to produce from St. Chrysostom, which stated that
there was no evidence that the books of the New Testament were the
writings of those who are commonly supposed to be their authors. Was it
not then severe that he should be punished for his industry in searching
out truth, and endeavoring to diffuse it among the public, for he
had most studiously examined all the works written as evidences of
Christianity, from Eusebius and Origen down to Addison? They had not
convinced him. He had been charged with publishing the work for the
purpose of brutalising and demoralising his country; but it was not
true. He loved his country with ardor, and his object had been to
instruct, enlighten and improve it. The system of morals which now
obtained in it was founded on error--true morality could not rest on
error--and his intentions in printing the works of Mr. Paine had been to
dissipate that error, by calling reasonable men to the investigation and
trial of it--and it was for this he was to be persecuted, condemned
and punished. He was not to be confuted by argument, but crushed and
overwhelmed by penalties. It behoved the jury to look well to it whether
he deserved to be given up by them for what had originated from nothing
but pure motives. If he was in the right, would it not be most unjust?
If he was not, would not such means taken to suppress his opinions cause
them to spread the wider? Had not persecution always had that effect;
and was it for the present enlightened age to be taxed with attempting
to put down opinions by torture and imprisonment? He had intended,
had he not been interrupted in his defence, to read to-morrow morning
extracts from Bolingbroke, Gibbon and Hume, who had evidently held the
same principles with Mr. Paine, and who had published their principles
in their writings, though these had passed unnoticed and unobserved by
any former Attorney-General. The works of Bolingbroke went quite as far
as Mr. Paine. Gibbon had adopted a different mode of attack; he meant
the same thing as Mr. Paine, but he did not go about it in so honest a
way. Paine proceeded fairly and openly--Gibbon insidiously. Hume went
farther than either of these, for he even composed a defence of Atheism.
Why had all these escaped with impunity, and Paine and he (Mr. Carlile)
to be singled out as victims? The tendency of Mr. Paine's system was to
enlarge and elevate the mind, by removing the erroneous and false,
and inspiring true notions of the Deity; not to sink and degrade it as
alleged by the Attorney-General. But whatever might follow his attempt
to render them known in this country (for it should be recollected that
the two last tracts had not been before published here), something would
be suspected from the Attorney-General's preventing him from pursuing
the line of defence he had marked out. Why was the information against
him founded not on the statutes the 9th and 10th of William III., but
on the common law? What was the common law? It was supposed to reside
in the breast of the judge. But what one judge in one term, or in
one Court, laid down to be common law, another judge in another term
pronounced not to be common law; nay, the same judge frequently varied
from his own opinion, and over-ruled what he had on former occasions
decided to be law. Let a law be given which people could understand....
He had framed a most extensive system of defence; he had been prepared
to lay before them passages from the works of the most eminent divines
in different ages, enforcing and insisting on the duty of allowing
a full freedom of opinion in religious matters; but he found himself
precluded from what he had contemplated, which was the only defence in
his power. For he maintained, that if a man did any act, and was then
precluded from justifying that act, he was precluded from, and deprived
of his natural defence. The first reformers of religion were generally
and deservedly applauded for their spirit and boldness, yet they might
as well have been prosecuted in their day as himself. Luther ventured
much farther than he had, for he had no statute law on which to rest a
justification of his conduct, as he (Mr. Carlile) had. It seemed to
him that the Legislature, in passing the statute to which he had so
frequently referred, had at length seen and acknowledged the propriety
of indulging all persons in a free profession and discussion of their
tenets in religion. He had heard most intelligent men say it was a
toleration of Deism, and in that light, after the most deliberate
reflection, he had looked on it. Deism had been much abused; but what
was Deism? It was a belief in one God; and it might as well be
opposed to polytheism or idolatry, or any of the ancient systems of
superstition, as to the doctrine of the Trinity. But the creed of the
Trinity was not in any wise essential to morality of life and rectitude
of conduct. Greece and Rome boasted of citizens equal, if not superior,
in all the virtues which can adorn men, to any ever trained under the
Christian code. It was in vain for him to take up any other volume at
present. His whole defence rested on one point. From that he had been
debarred, and, in consequence, was disabled from proceeding further
into his defence that evening. He had an immense number of witnesses to
produce, who would say that his moral character, in every particular,
had been at all times unimpeachable; also a vast number ta describe the
variety of religions, systems and tenets, held even among Christians.
Many of them had been subpoenaed, and more would be subpoenaed
to-morrow. But he thought it due to him, when the interruptions he had
suffered was taken into consideration, that the Court should adjourn
till to-morrow morning. His whole line of defence had been thrown into
confusion, and he was totally unable to continue it till to-morrow.
The Chief Justice: What then am I to understand?
Mr. Carlile: That in consequence of the interruption I have met with, I
am unable to proceed in my defence to-night, and therefore request that
the trial may be adjourned till to-morrow morning.
The Chief Justice: For the purpose of examining witnesses only.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I have not been allowed this day to read any of
the books to the jury I had intended, in order to justify what I am
charged with as an offence. I should wish to read some of them, as well
as to have witnesses examined.
The Chief Justice: It is not competent to me as a judge, sitting here
and expounding the law of England, to permit you to read Bolingbroke,
or Gibbon, or Hume or any author who denies the Christian religion to be
true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, neither can any
witnesses be examined who may be brought forward to assert either
of these things. As to your moral character it is not at present in
question.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly, my lord, I conceive it is.
The Chief Justice: You appealed to me; hear me to the end, that you may
see why evidence of that nature would be useless and irrelevant. All
evidence to character applies itself and corresponds to the charge
against the accused. When a man is charged with murder, he brings
forward witnesses to prove that he had the reputation of being humane
and benevolent, and not one likely to commit such an offence; in the
same manner of robbery, or any other charge. Your moral character, at
least in the common sense of the word, is not impeached, therefore there
would be a waste of time to disprove an accusation not made. You propose
to call witnesses, to state the different systems of religious belief
among Christians, all that I should reject as being utterly irrelevant
to your case. If the book you are charged with publishing attacked the
opinions of any particular sect, it might be relevant, but yours is an
attack on all the systems of Christianity that ever were known in
the world. Perhaps there are some persons here who will speak to your
character now.
Mr. Carlile: I am not aware there are, my lord.
The Chief Justice: But there should have been if you wished to produce
evidence of that nature.
Mr. Carlile: I had subpoenaed a number of the leaders of different sects
to explain their various doctrines, and the grounds on which they held
them; and the inference I proposed to make from their testimony was,
that the grounds of their different creeds might be examined into.
The Chief Justice: I certainly could not suffer these to be examined
into; they would go for nothing, as you are charged with doing that
which would subvert all Christian faith, unless they would lead to
a denial of the truth of the Christian religion, or of the Divine
authority of the Scriptures, which I would not permit.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly I think it would be very useful to me to put
some Unitarians in that box, and have them declare their opinion on the
Trinity, which ultimately would come to what Mr. Paine has advanced.
The Chief Justice: If so, I would not hear them.
Mr. Carlile: I also intended to read the opinions of several most
eminent divines who inculcate perfect freedom of opinion in religion.
The Chief Justice: Well, if you are not prepared with them, it is not my
fault.
Mr. Carlile: Certainly not, my lord. It was also my intention to have
persons examined who would state the great variance that exists between
the original Hebrew and the authorised version of the Bible here--this
is of great consequence to me.
The Chief Justice: Neither would I receive any evidence meant to impugn
the correctness of our authorised version of the Scriptures.
Mr. Carlile: Mr. Bellamy asserts it contains passages not in the
original Hebrew, and which ought to be expunged.
The Chief Justice: The book against which the information is directed
is not an attack on detached passages, but on the very substance and
essence of the Bible.
Mr. Carlile: Then, my lord, I pray you to adjourn the Court, to give me
an opportunity of quoting the opinions of Locke and others on universal
toleration.
The Chief Justice: You ought to have been prepared with them now; but
at all events it will do you no injury if they are not read. Everyone is
agreed on the reasonableness of permitting a freedom of thinking on, and
discussing religious subjects, as long as the discussion is conducted in
a calm, temperate manner; and if your object is to impress this truth,
the quoting these writers is to no purpose, but if you would quote them
to disprove Christianity, I would not suffer them to be heard. So take
it either way, adjourning the trial would be of no use to you.
Mr. Carlile: Then, my lord, am I to understand that you refuse my
request to adjourn the trial?
The Chief Justice: You have not advanced any proper or relevant ground
to induce the Court to consent to an adjournment.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, it is of great consequence to me to prove to the
world, that though I may be sent to a prison for three or four years, I
have acted in all the relations of life as a conscientious moral man.
I again entreat, my lord, you will suffer the trial to be adjourned. I
have much important matter to introduce to-morrow morning. I have done
all that any mortal could do. I have stood the whole of this day without
any refreshment but water; in fact, I am so confused, that I scarcely
have a recollection of anything.
The Chief Justice repeated that the adjournment would not be to any
purpose.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, it is fit I should add a few observations to my
defence.
The Chief Justice: Well, then, add them.
Mr. Carlile: My lord, I am really unable. When I came into Court this
morning I was hoarse with the exertions of yesterday.
The Chief Justice: If you have unfortunately spent your strength in
doing that which was foolish and improper, you have to blame yourself
alone. You have placed me in a most painful situation, but I must
perform the duty which is incumbent on me.
Mr. Carlile: Do you wish me, my lord, to proceed now?
The Chief Justice: Sir, the jury are considering.
The jury continued conferring with one another for some minutes, without
coming to any conclusion.
The Chief Justice: You say now that you wish your trial to be adjourned.
If the Court consent to it, it must be on the understanding that the
matter you offer in the morning will be by way of mitigation, and that
you don't mean to attempt the same line of defence you did to-day,
either by endeavoring a justification of the publication, or by reading
authors who only repeat what Paine said.
Mr. Carlile: Undoubtedly, my lord, I will not, as I would only injure
myself; it would embarrass me by leaving me open to interruptions which
would throw me off my guard.
The Foreman of the Jury: It is the wish of the jury, my lord, to allow
him till to-morrow, provided he limits his defence.
The Chief Justice: Then with the pledge that you will limit your
defence in the manner I pointed out to you, the Court is adjourned till
half-past nine o'clock to-morrow morning.
The Court accordingly rose at half-past seven o'clock.
APPENDIX II. A LETTER TO LORD SIDMOUTH,
Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ON THE CONDUCT OF THE MAGISTERIAL AND
YEOMANRY ASSASSINS OF MANCHESTER,
On the 16th of AUGUST. 1819.
London, August 18th, 1819.
My Lord,
As a spectator of the horrid proceedings of Monday last at Manchester,
I feel it my duty to give the public a narrative of those proceedings,
through the medium of a letter addressed to you, who ought to be
the _conservator of the public peace_. My motives for doing this are
twofold; the first is to call on you, as Secretary of State for the Home
Department, to cause the Magistrates of Manchester, and Yeomanry
Cavalry acting under their direction, to be brought to the bar of public
justice, for the unprovoked slaughter of the peaceable and distressed
inhabitants of that place and neighborhood, whilst legally exercising
their rights in public meeting assembled. For, unless the administrators
of affairs in the governmental department of the country feel it their
duty immediately to take this step, the people have no alternative but
to identify the Ministers in the metropolis, with the magistrates of
Manchester, as having conjointly violated and subverted that known and
admitted law of the country, _which countenances the meeting of popular
assemblies for a discussion of the best means to obtain a redress of
their grievances_.
And secondly, in case of the default of the existing government to give
satisfaction to the full extent of their means and power, to the mangled
and suffering, and to the friends of the Murdered Inhabitants of
Manchester, the people, not only of Manchester, but of the whole country
are in duty bound and by the laws of nature imperatively called upon to
provide themselves with arms and hold their public meetings with arms
in their hands, to defend themselves against the attacks of similar
assassins, acting in the true _Castlereaghan_ character.
The safety of the people is not now the supreme law; the security of the
corrupt borough-mongers and their dependent can only be perceived to
be the object of the existing administration. Where, my Lord Sidmouth,
where are now to be found the assassins with their daggers? Let us hear
no more of the assassinal intentions of the advocates for reforming
your corrupt system of government; you have used every means within your
reach to urge the Reformers to the use of the dagger; they have been too
prudent, and you, no longer able to resist their reasonable demands by
reasonable argument, have thrown off your mask and set the first example
of shedding blood. The people have no alternative but immediately to
prepare for a retaliation. The noble spirit and attitude displayed by
the Reformers of Manchester on Monday, can never be annihilated, and
it is within probability, that before this letter goes to the press,
it will return to the attack. Whatever means they resort to at such a
moment as the present, they will be justified in. The laws having been
violated by those who profess to support them, in an unprovoked attack
on a peaceable and unoffending people, in public meeting assembled,
that people are no longer bound to deny themselves a mode of defence
by respecting and adhering to those laws; but if they value liberty or
independence they will immediately rid themselves of those who not only
have driven them to starvation and desperation, but now goad them to
destruction.
I shall now proceed to give your Lordship a narrative of the proceedings
of the meeting, which as far as I could collect from my situation I
will vouch for its authenticity. About 11 o'clock the people began to
assemble around the house of Mr. Johnson, at Smedley Cottage, where
Mr. Hunt had taken up his residence; about 12. Mr. Hunt and his friends
entered the barouche.
They had not proceeded far when they were met by the Committee of the
Female Reform Society, one of whom, an interesting looking woman, bore
a standard on which was painted a female holding in her hand a flag
surmounted with the cap of liberty, whilst she trod under foot an emblem
of corruption, on which was inscribed that word. She was requested to
take a seat on the box of the carriage (a most appropriate one), which
she boldly and immediately acquiesced in, and continued waving her flag
and handkerchief until she reached the hustings, where she took her
stand on the right corner in front. The remainder of the committee
followed the carriage in procession and mounted the hustings when they
reached them. On leaving Smedley Cottage, bodies of men were seen at
a distance, marching in regular military order, with music and colors.
Different flags were fallen in with on the road, with various
mottoes, such as "No Corn Laws," "Liberty or Death," "Taxation without
Representation is Tyranny," "We will have Liberty"; the flag used by the
friends of Mr. Hunt at the general election for Westminster, and various
others, many of which were surmounted with "caps of Liberty". The scene
of cheering was never before equalled. Females from the age of twelve to
eighty were seen cheering with their caps in their hand, and their
hair in consequence dishevelled; the whole scene exceeds the power of
description. In passing through the streets to the place of meeting, the
crowd became so great, that it was with difficulty the carriage could be
moved along. Information was brought to Mr. Hunt that St. Peter's field
was already filled, and that no less than 300,000 people were assembled
in and about the intended spot of meeting. As the carriage moved along
and reached the shops and warehouse of Mr. Johnson of Smedley, three
times three were given, also, at the Police Office and at the Exchange.
The procession arrived at the place of destination about one o'clock.
Mr. Hunt expressed his disapprobation of the hustings, and was fearful
that some accident would arise from them. After some hesitation he
ascended, and the proposition for his being chairman being moved by Mr.
Johnson, it was carried by acclamation. Mr. Hunt began his discourse
by thanking them for the favor conferred on him, and made some ironical
observations on the conduct of the Magistrates, when a cart, which
evidently took its direction from that part of the field where the
police and magistrates were assembled in a house, was moved through the
middle of the field to the great annoyance and danger of the assembled
people, who quietly endeavored to make way for its proceedure. The cart
had no sooner made its way through, when the Yeomanry Cavalry made their
appearance from the same quarter as the cart had gone out. They galloped
furiously round the field, going over every person who could not get
out of their way, to the spot where the police were fixed, and after a
moment's pause, they received the cheers of the police as a signal
for attack. The meeting at the entrance of the cavalry, and from the
commencement of business was one of the most calm and orderly that I
ever witnessed. Hilarity was seen on the countenances of all, whilst
the Female Reformers crowned the assemblage with a grace, and excited a
feeling particularly interesting. The Yeomanry Cavalry made their charge
with the most infuriate frenzy; they cut down men, women, and children,
indiscriminately, and appeared to have commenced a premeditated attack
with the most insatiable thirst for blood and destruction. They merit a
medallion on one side of which should be inscribed "The Slaughtermen of
Manchester", and a reverse, bearing a description of their slaughter of
defenceless men, women, and children, unprovoked and unnecessary. As a
proof of premeditated murder on the part of the magistrates, every stone
was gathered from the ground, on the Friday and Saturday previous to
the meeting, by scavengers sent there by the express command of the
magistrates, that the populace might be rendered more defenceless.
This is the social order system which we are exhorted, by Royal
Proclamations, to rally round and support. These are the modes of
reasoning adopted by villainy in power. I can assure you, my Lord, that
the only painful feeling I felt was to see so many thousands of resolute
and determined friends of freedom, without the means of self-defence.
The _Courier_ has this evening claimed the gratitude of the Reformers
towards the amiable Mr. Nadin, who, it asserts, saved the life of Mr.
Hunt from the fury and vengeance of the Yeomanry Butchers. That these
Butchers were ready and willing to cut him in pieces, there is no doubt;
but in return, let me remind the Editor of the _Courier_, that nothing
but the uniform and steady determination of Mr. Hunt to use no other
weapons than our oppressive legislators themselves have sanctioned,
nor to encourage the use of any other weapons where he has had any
influence, could have saved the lives of these Yeomanry and Police, from
a people goaded to desperation by a violent and outrageous attack on
their lives. The people of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire are fully
prepared to assert their rights, either by argumentative reasoning
or open combat; neither will the desperate schemes of a Castlereagh
repeated, foil them. Mr. Hunt, and the people about him, stood firm, and
began to cheer the military on their approach to the ground, until they
were within arms length, and cutting their way with their sabres. I
appealed to the females on their fear of the approach of the military,
and found them the last to display an alarm. The police were as expert
in applying their clubs to the heads and shoulders of the people as
the cavalry their sabres, and there was no alternative but to run the
gauntlet through the one or the other. The brutality of the police,
equalled in ferociousness the massacre of the Yeomanry Cavalry. A better
character has been given to the regular troops for their endeavors to
disperse the people without wounding or otherwise injuring them. The
women appear to have been the particular objects of the fury of the
Cavalry Assassins. One woman, who was near the spot where I stood, and
who held an infant in her arms, was sabred over the head, and her tender
offspring drenched in its mother's blood. Another was actually stabbed
in the neck with the point of the sabre, which must have been a
deliberate attempt on the part of the military assassin. Some were
sabred in the breast; so inhuman, indiscriminate, and fiend-like, was
the conduct of the Manchester Yeomanry Cavalry. This, my Lord, is but
a faint picture of what really occurred. They are facts and particulars
that came under my own sight and cognizance; and I have no hesitation
in saying, that if the inhabitants of Manchester cannot resent this
massacre of their peaceable inhabitants, by retaliating on the Yeomanry
Cavalry and police, collectively, they are called on by the laws of
nature, by the love of their country, their fire-sides, and families, to
retaliate on them individually.
And again, my Lord, if the administration of that Government, of which
you are a member, cannot support itself without violating the laws and
compact between the police and people, in an unprovoked and unrelenting
massacre of the latter, you had far better retire, and not wait to be
driven.
It will be in vain, my Lord, to attempt to palliate this circumstance
by exaggerated statements and falsehoods; the many thousand witnesses
of this tragical event will proclaim it as it happened. Those who have
hitherto opposed the demand for Reform, are now heard to condemn this
act, and must awake from the delusion that has too long prevailed over
them. The present is an important crisis for England. A reform, or
despotism must immediately follow. But I, my Lord, who witnessed the
attack of the blood-hounds on the inhabitants of Manchester and its
vicinity, do feel a confidence, from the calm and resolute conduct of
that meeting, that Despotism and not Reform will be crushed. The people
were taken by surprise: when the sabres began to fall on them, they were
astonished at the uncalled-for and wanton attack. I, who felt confident
of the legality of the proceedings of the meeting, did not expect that
any authority would, in this country, have been so far abused as
to exceed in atrocity the caprice of a Ferdinand of Spain, a Dey of
Algiers, or a Grand Seignior of Turkey. When I saw these Yeomanry
Cavalry gallop round, and through the meeting, I had no other idea than
that the object of the magistrates was to impress the people with an
awe, and to endeavor to terrify them, and to prevent the proceedings of
the meeting, by exhibiting the military to its view. But they soon found
this would not do, as the people, both men and women, kept cheering
until they began to feel their sabres.
After these Yeomanry Cavalry (which belonged to Cheshire and Manchester)
had performed this grand achievement of attacking by surprise an unarmed
assemblage of people, and dispersing them, they were not content, but
persisted in riding after, and cutting down, those who were flying from
them. One man, who dropped his hat in his flight, stooped to pick it up,
and received a sabre wound in the calf of one leg, whilst the other was
dreadfully bruised by the horse trampling on it!
I will now, my Lord, quit the dreadful scene of St. Peter's Field, and
examine the conduct of the police and Yeomanry Cavalry in and about the
streets of Manchester. Intoxicated with the idea of having dispersed so
great an assemblage of persons, they began to increase that intoxication
by the use of strong liquors, and, taking them in the aggregate, they
were evidently in a state of inebriation. A blacksmith who, from his
appearance, had just quitted his work, was standing in the course of the
afternoon at the corner of a street, in all his working habiliments;
a special constable comes up to him and orders him to walk away; the
blacksmith seeing no cause for it, refuses; the constable, without
ceremony, draws his staff from his pocket, and strikes him over the
head. This was intolerable! the blacksmith struck him down with his
fist, and a crowd collecting, he received that treatment which he justly
merited, in a town where law and justice were dispensed with by those
whose duty it is to enforce them for the protection of those who are
under their care.
Another instance, equally disgraceful to the instigator, occurred in the
neighborhood of New Cross, just before dusk. A young man, who was one
of the Yeomanry Cavalry, called on a Mr. Tate, in that neighborhood; and
seeing from the window a number of persons collected on that spot, he
imprudently, and with an air of derision and defiance, took out of his
pocket a flag that had got into his possession in St. Peter's Field, and
shook it from the window before the assembled people. This became the
signal for attack. The windows of the house were immediately demolished,
and the calling of the military to this spot caused the loss of life to
8 or 10 persons, one of whom was a mere passer by, and was shot in the
head at a distance of 500 yards from the scene of action; at this spot a
woman was also shot dead.
The conduct both of the Yeomanry Cavalry, and police, was of the most
ruffian-like kind; the military always preceded the police, which
is contrary to the known and established laws of this country. The
advocates of a Reform in the Commons' House of Parliament must now
consider themselves as placed out of the pale of the law. A war was
declared on them by the late Royal Proclamation, which has been enforced
by the Magistrates of Manchester, and the Reformers have no alternative
but to make it a trial of strength. They had no man to advocate their
cause among the existing authorities. There is not a man in the present
Borough-mongers' House of Commons that is "bold enough to be honest, or
honest enough to be bold". There is not a man that ventures to rise and
tell them of what they are composed. We then can have no hope left by
an appeal to that House, nor by an exposition of its character and
composition; we must, therefore, appeal to those weapons and that
strength which nature has left in the hands of the oppressed to resist
the oppressor. The Executive has denounced the demand for Reform, and
has thrown itself into the arms of the Borough-mongers. The House of
Lords has not pronounced its determination collectively, but when we
know that the majority of the Commons are produced by its members, we
are justified in the inference, that it will combine with the Executive
to protect its own offspring.
And now, my Lord, since a partial triumph has been gained over the
Reformers by dispersing them, unarmed in a public meeting, let us
examine what would have been the consequences if the dispositions of the
Reformers had been so very violent as they have been represented to be.
In the first place, they would not have stood and cheered the military
until their sabres began to fall on them, but would have been silent,
and sought immediately for the best means of defence. What if they
had fallen back into the streets, and had filled the houses, and there
sought weapons for attack and defence, they would have annihilated every
aggressor in a few hours, whilst they themselves would have suffered
little or no loss. In a house, an unarmed man will find better means for
attack and defence than half a dozen armed, in the streets. Let us
hear no more charges of violence or disorder, against the advocates of
Reform, but be pleased, my Lord, to take them into your custody, and
confer them on the magistrates of Manchester and other places.
I shall anxiously wait, my Lord, to see whether in the executive and
administration of the present Government there is sufficient respect
for the laws and justice, to enforce them against the magistrates of
Manchester; or whether the Executive and Administration will make the
cause of the magistrates of Manchester their cause; in either case,
my Lord, as an individual, living in a country where the laws will
not protect the subject, I shall feel it my duty to make the best
preparation for the defence of myself, family, and property, against the
attack of a magistrate, police officer, or a troop of Yeomanry Cavalry,
who begin to show a contempt for those laws which they are commissioned
to respect and enforce.
Your Lordship's Fellow-Citizen,
R. CARLILE.
APPENDIX III. DEDICATION.
* Prefixed to the fourteenth and final volume of the
Republican.
To Posterity.
The first publication in which free discussion has existed is not a
publication for the present generation, but for posterity. Others must
feel the benefit, though the merit of introducing it be ours.
In such history of man as we have, we have no proof that free discussion
is older than the present fourteen volumes of the _Republican_. In its
fullest extent it had scarcely been contemplated. The question, What
is God? was never before broadly asked and answered in print. Idolatry
being a habit on which the mind spiritually feeds, but few will thank
one for destroying the source of their devotions. "I have lived fifty
years with these impressions and never before had them questioned,"
cries an old man or woman, "and am I now to yield them to the
discoveries of a mere boy? They have been my comfort through life,
and though I cannot defend, I will not forsake them." This is ever the
reasoning of deep-rooted prejudice. The mere antiquity of error is to
such minds a proof of its divinity. Younger folks come on, less ignorant
from the new motions given to mind, and they easily discard the follies
of their parents.
Thus it is that the _Republican_, though admired by many, and useful to
many, has not extended its influence throughout the whole community, in
consequence of its unparalleled shocks upon old systems and deep-rooted
prejudices. The next generation will grow up acquainted with its
doctrines, and those doctrines will most certainly be adopted for
practice.
There must be a beginning to all systems and all changes in human
action, but it does not follow that he who begins will see the end of
his work.
Admirable changes have taken place in public opinion upon the subject
of religion within the last ten years, but we feel it rather in the
cessation of persecution than in any application of the change to the
lessening of religious burdens. Such a legislature as that of this
country will ever be the last part of a nation to learn a new
doctrine, and a nation is not to be instructed as you would instruct an
inquisitive individual. Were a statesman in advance of the knowledge of
a nation he would find insuperable obstacles in attempting to act up to
the extent of his knowledge. Mankind as a body is ungrateful, and will
not thank you for benefits conferred nor see your good intentions to
serve it, if you step out of the beaten track. The sound reformer has
no other encouragement than to bequeath his merited caresses to his
senseless memory, or to enjoy them in anticipation. His patrons live not
with him, but are to be his posterity, and from those persons with whom
he lives he finds more of insults than of gratitude. They see not
the end of his reformation; they appreciate not his motives. It is
consolatory to be able to say that, while the foregoing is true of
mankind as a body, it has, like every general rule, its exception in a
part of that body. The life of a reformer would be intolerable if
there were not some keen-sighted individuals who can see his ends and
appreciate his motives and who are bold enough to encourage him to
proceed, and honest and benevolent enough to assist him. His state would
indeed be intolerable but for these exceptions, for his proposed changes
constitute an arraignment of all existing political and prejudicial
powers, and those powers naturally make war upon him while he is weak
enough to suffer from their influence. To posterity, then, I dedicate
the fourteen volumes of the _Republican_, and to posterity I appeal,
to say whether or not I have done my duty as a Reformer. There are
thousands living who will say that I have done it. But I aspire to
the approbation of mankind as a body, and that I know must be the
approbation of a future generation.
RICHARD CARLILE. 62 Fleet Street, December 28th, 1826.
APPENDIX IV.
LIST OF CARLILE'S IMPRISONMENTS.
1817 (August 15th--December 20th).
Eighteen weeks for selling the Parodies (on the Book of Common Prayer).
Compter.
1819 (November 16th)--1825 (November 18th).
Three years for selling the Age of Reason and Palmer's Principles of
Nature.
Three years more exacted for non-payment of fine of L1,500. Dorchester
Gaol.
1831--1833.
Three years for an article in the Prompter at the time of the
Agricultural Riots. Compter.
1834.
Four months for resisting Church Assessments.
Compter.
The actual time of imprisonment undergone was nine years, seven months,
and one week.