Imágenes de páginas

perhaps, that I had not sufficient circumspection to avoid the foul parts, caused his friends to retire. Freed from the restraint of the modest mantling cheek of lovely woman, I read those passages, and inwardly felt disgusted and wearied. But it was called forth by the myrmidons of Mr. Maule. They had called it blasphemy to ridicule this filthy, disgusting, and false book. I have proved it filthy. Mr. C. is calumniated; he is said to publish no works but such as are injurious to the morals of the people: it is false. Were the people allowed to read such works as Mr. Carlile's, he would make the people moral, happy, and industrious. Does the Bible tend to increase their morality, their happiness, or their industry? Oh, no, it is a millstone round their necks. It fills their minds with doubt; but does it deter them from crimes? Oh, no, Christian; happy and enlightened England, has more crimes committed within her jurisdiction, than any other country in the known world, and her criminal code is perfectly Draconian. Cannot preaching or hanging, then, prevent crimes? Let us try what moral (not religious) writings can effect. But no, say our Christian law-makers, Christianity is good for you; Christians you shall be. We reply, Christianity is a humbug, we will resist, expose, and finally conquer it. The learned judge said, a day or two since, that the legislature would be called on for severe laws; let them legislate, let them make it death to publish our opinions; yet will they not find us shrink from our duty. Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall now take a short view of the question at issue. The learned Gentleman has told you, that the question is whether the "law or the Defendant is to have the victory." He said, that the work which I have published is a false blasphemy, and that the scriptures are true, holy, divine, good, and all that sort of thing, for proof of which, you have the word of a lawyer! I say the Bible is a blasphemy, and the Republican, true, useful, well written; but, not divine. In proof of its truth, I have subpoenaed the Bible, you will of course believe the Bible, and the Bible asserts all, and more against certain characters, than the Republican does. Marry, there's proof. That it is useful, because the Bible being injurious, any thing tending to counteract it, is injurious; there is more proof for you, that it is well written, every man who knows any thing of composition must admit. Divinity, I believe none of our readers will accuse us of.

Respecting the smuggled paragraph, I shall not say much; it is in itself unanswerable; and, excepting in the way of prosecution, unassailable. At any rate, Christians have digested harder morsels, let them* "gulp it down," as a Spaniard would say; and indeed it is necessary they should use some means of preparation, for many a bitter dose will

* Alluding to the song "Tragala Perra."

they yet have to swallow. But to the point: if, Gentlemen of the Jury, the authenticity of the scripture can be proved by tangible reasoning, is it not the duty of its zealous and learned supporters to give us that proof in preference to calling you from your homes and useful avocations, to sanction by your verdict, our unjust and useless imprisonment? You will be told, Gentlemen of the Jury, that our works are not published in the spirit of fair discussion; but, Gentlemen, whoever makes that assertion, either makes it unadvisedly, or with an intention of deceiving you. If we were actuated by motives hostile to morality-what need have we to publish the Moralist? It must be evident to you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that we aim at nothing beyond free and fair discussion. And, I think, that it is sophistical, not to say hypocritical, to assert that we are criminal who publish works both pro et contra; while the legislature of the nation recognizes and protects sectarians, who, from the pulpit, promulgate doctrines with ours equally hostile; though perfectly as unreasonable as your own. And their hostility is aggravated inasmuch, as, unlike our works, their assertions cannot be answered. Their minister, in his pulpit, is as much beyond controul or contradiction, as is the learned Judge while delivering his charge to you. The only difference is, that the arguments of the former may annoy an individual of susceptible feelings, while the charge of the latter may, and in many cases has done so, injure the prisoner, who, be it observed, is then incapable of replying to his arguments or defending himself against his assertions: he is, in fact, tongue-tied. Gentlemen, you will shortly have to decide between religion as by "law establised," and myself as its reviler. Bear in mind, Gentlemen, that the Christian religion is not founded on truth; nor do the Christians believe in it as a result of their philosophical researches; but merely because their fathers and mothers have told them that it is true, and it pleases the noble and learned keeper of the King's conscience, and opponent of the liberty of the press, that they shall believe so. I must here observe, that I think it very degrading to the government, that they now occupy the situation so lately vacated by the Anti-Constitutional Society; of whom it may be said in the words of Juvenal:

"Sanguinis in facie, non hæret gutta morantur Pauci ridiculum et fugienter exurbe, pudorem." Nor is it by those pests of society, the informers, only, that we are harassed. Those very persons who ought to ap

plaud us, are continually abusing us; they cannot see that the blow which is apparently intended to crush only these particular publications, is in reality a deadly blow aimed at the whole press. For having carried to such an extent their definition, or no definition, of the word, and the publication of-libel; what paper, obnoxious to the existing government, can be published, or who, being an independent man, would continue to be an editor? There is a part of this PRESS which I would not at present notice; but that it become me to caution you against every source of prejudice. It is worse than the most servile of the avowed ministerial journals, inasmuch as it has all its sycophancy and time-serving baseness, without the talent to support-or the boldness to avow it-possessed by the former: and, in addition to its baseness, it has the impudence to arrogate to itself the title of the "liberal press;" and is it from the filthy and ignorant assertions of such a press as this, Gentlemen of the Jury, that you are to receive your ideas of right and wrong or is it from the florid and overcharged speeches of a well-paid Counsel, that you are to form your judgment as to our guilt or innocence? or is it from witnesses, such as the learned Counsel has this day called, that you are to learn what is "contra bonos mores," and what is not? What, has the time then arrived, when twelve well informed merchants of the world's first city, are to consider themselves bound to cast into prison, all who shall dare stand forward to advocate the cause of mental freedom, merely on the dictum of an hired advocate, supported only by the testimony of a bribed and ignorant witness? No, Gentlemen, I trust that his Lordship will, as is his bounden duty, tell you, that with the learned gentleman's eloquence you have nothing to do. You must view every attempt at eloquence, or more properly speaking, interested exaggeration, as an insult to you, and as an attempt to prejudice your minds, and render you unequal to the just execution of your arduous duties. In short, as an attack on your mental rights, similar to those apparently liberal, but certainly destructive, nets laid for the uninitiated gamester in the form of wine and meretricious beauty. I should insult your understandings were I to warn you farther against the insidious arts of the base and contemptible press; and, confident I am, that you have already perceived, and perceived, too, with honest indignation, the Christian motives of the witness for the prosecution. Consider well, Gentlemen, the evidence adduced; strip the speech of the learned Counsel of its rhetorical flourish and interested cant;

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

restore me to liberty, and consign to contempt the hireling crew, who, in our persons, have aimed a disguised, but not less deadly blow at your own mental and corporeal liberty. You are now jurors, you may on a future occasion be defendants. You will be told that Judge Hale and other Judges laid down and practised this law of punishing for matters of opinion; but if the world have been cursed with some unjust Judges, ought their conduct to be followed as a precedent in ages long subsequent, and every way superior to theirs? ridiculous idea. So then, while every science, every handicraft, is improving daily, the lawyers, who should be the peoples' protectors, are obliged to refer back some one or two centuries to find authorities for plundering and oppressing their fellow subjects. To you, my Lord, I have but little exclusively to address, and that little I trust will not offend. On your feelings as an independent man, I ask, and as a British Judge holding the commission of your soverign, I demand your protection: not for myself merely, for even should you consigu me to the dungeon for my abode, and the wretched door-mat for my bed, which Christianity has provided for me; still, I would scorn to ask forbearance. But, my Lord, on you, Europe, nay the whole civilized world, all who dare claim, or know how to appreciate mental freedom, are now anxiously gazing. You cannot, it is true, confine the mind; but you can avert the aim of our persecutors. Do so, my Lord and Gentlemen, and your own hearts, and the gratitude of thousands will richly reward you. In your hands I shall shortly leave the question, not merely of my liberty, but the mental liberty of mankind. As you hope for a subject for self-gratification in your declining years, crush the reviving spirit of persecution, give to us liberty of publication, and thus aid the work so well commenced by the undaunted and highly talented, though calumniated Carlile. By so doing, you will open the way for fair and dispassionate argument, the right must then prevail-imprison me, and you make inveterate foes of candid opponents. Every good man of every sect must pity us as oppressed, and admire us as undaunted, and thus afford you another proof, that "Jus summum sæpe summa est malitia."

The Recorder then charged the Jury, he said, that the publication of blasphemy was punishable by law. The question for the Jury to determine was, did the defendant publish the book? The witness for the prosecution had sworn to the fact of having purchased it from the defend

ant, and indeed the defendant had admitted having published it; but denied that it was blasphemous. For his part, he had no hesitation in saying that it was a most blasphemous libel. The Jury turned round in the box, and having consulted for about ten minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty. The defendant was then asked if he had any thing to say.

Defendant-My Lord, you observed in your charge to the Jury on a late occasion, that it was a proof of the consciousness of guilt on the part of all who had been sentenced for this description of libel, that none of them had ventured to appeal to an higher Court. This assertion sounded a little strange to me, inasmuch as I am not aware of any Court to which I can appeal. I put the question to your Lordship. because, if there is a possibility of appeal, I will avail myself of it?

Recorder (hesitating)--You cannot appeal.

Defendant-Then, my Lord, your assertion was gratuitous and absurd.

Recorder-You can only proceed by obtaining a writ of error from the Attorney General.

Defendant--That would, indeed, be realising the vulgar proverb of "out of the frying pan into the fire.”

Recorder-You have been found guilty of publishing a blasphemous libel. That the libel is blasphemous no reasonable man can deny but you have this day uttered blasphemies terrible to Christian ears. Your vanity is intolerable; for you have taken upon yourself to define, and even to defy the law. That you have received a liberal education is evident-but you have turned your abilities to a purpose of which you will one day be ashamed. I hope, Isincerely hope, that 'ere the period of your imprisonment is expired, you will have seen the error of your opinions, and repented the hardihood you have displayed in support of them, and in defiance of the law. Nothing but your youth induces the court to refrain from passing a more severe punishment on you, than on any of your compeers. But the Court find, that you are only twenty-one years of age, and they hope, that you will yet atone for your conduct. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate for Three Years, and at the expiration of that term, your are to enter into your own recognizance in the sum of One Hundred Pounds, to keep the peace for your life; and I take this opportunity of informing yon, that should you forfeit those recognizances you will be liable to banishment for seven years-and should you be found in England before the expiration of that term, you

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »