talk to me about Jesus Christ, as a Saviour for a future life, I explain to them, that there is no future life, that shall be conscious of the present; that there is no such place in being as they call heaven and hell; and that, consequently, no such a being as Jesus Christ or Devil can be in existence. If they refer me to the long standing history of the tale, I go to its origin, shew it to be fabulous, and that antiquity does not convert a fable to truth. I can controvert all their positions, either physically or historically. If they seek a refuge in the Old Testament, the history and present condition of the Jews, or the pretended prophecies, I shew them the bad foundation of such a refuge, by showing that the Jews were not known in Asia Minor two thousand four hundred years ago; whilst their sacred books pretend to place their residence as a people in that country a thousand years before we have any authentic history of them. Such a circumstance proclaims their first fourteen books to be fabulous. For my part, I never either conversed or coresponded with a Jew upon the subject, who did not avow his abomination of the superstition of his ancestors; and I have known many to make that avowal. I understand that the case is almost universal with them, at least with the educated part; for the uneducated are evidence of nothing, in any sect or party. If they talk to me about a God, I ask them, what they mean or refer to by the word? To this they can give me no answer: for no one man knows any thing further about a God than any other man; and let every man put the question to himself, whether he knows any thing about God? and he will be constrained to say, that no one man is more of an Atheist than any other man. are all Atheists alike, when we examine the matter fairly, and rest upon our knowledge instead of our ignorance and superstition."

We

The learned Gentleman said he should call a witness to prove the publication.

George Leadbetter sworn-Is a Bow Street patrol. On the 27th of May last he went to Carlile's shop, 84, Fleet Street; the defendant was there; he asked for the last No. of the Republican, which had been published on the Friday before. The defendant said it was prohibited. Witness told him that he had been there some days before, and that they promised to send it to his lodgings. The defendant then said, "Oh! very well, you shall have it;" and then brought him the No., for which he paid sixpence. Witness marked it with his initials, so that he could afterwards identify it.

Mr. French, Counsel for the defendant, said he would ask the witness no questions.

Mr. Barnard said that was his case.

Mr. French then rose and addressed the court for the defendant. He said that after the disgusting scene exhibited in that Court, the day before, by the defence of the deluded man who was on his trial, a scene which must have been to the mind of the learned Judge, and all then present, a source of the most excruciating torment; how pleasing must it appear to them now, to have a Christian advocate, however uneloquent, to rivet the attention of a Christian audience. Yes, Gentlemen, one who glories in a lowly, unaffected, unreserved belief in the pages of that sacred volume, and in the assistance of its inspiring God, even at the present moment, as a man of his sublime capacity can possibly do in rejecting it with sentiments of disdain and horror. It was no later than yesterday, Gentlemen, that I expressed my disinclination to act as counsel in causes of this nature; nor, should I have had the honour of addressing you this day, had I not been reminded of a promise to my present client, which I had really forgotten. Not, Gentlemen, that I feel any thing like the sting of remorse from my feeble exertions in behalf of these most unfortunate of men, but that my heart really sickens at the constant repetition of the word blasphemy, to which my ears hitherto had not been accustomed, either in private or in public life. It is but justice, however, to my learned friends, the gentlemen who have opened the indictments for these few days past, to observe, that, incongruous and unbeseeming as these altercations must necessarily be to the dignified character of a Christian, they seem, as it were, divested of half their horrors, by the the animating manner with which those learned gentlemen brighten into eloquence, in defending Christianity from the calumniating aspersions of her enemies. But now, Gentlemen, to come more immediately to the point. If the majesty and holiness of religion has no longer any resource or prop to sustain it, flourishing untainted and unadulterated amongst us, but by recurring to prosecutions that familiarise the ears of the people of this country to the sounds of blasphemy, (sounds constantly reiterated in these indictments) will it not, Gentlemen, be natural to think, that the great oracle of our law, Sir Edward Coke, was not unauthorised by the dictates of deep and pondering wisdom when he said, "That the cognizance of these matters to wit, heresy and blasphemy-belongs not to the common laws of England; for that the matters are of too grave a nature to be agitated, except according to the

King's Ecclesiastical Laws of this realm." Gentlemen, far be it from me to call in question the cognizance of this court in these matters, arrogantly opposing my opinion to that of the learned Judge, who presides in this court with so much dignity, impartiality, and intelligence, and who has already laid down with the utmost accuracy what the law really is upon these occasions. I merely cited this passage from my Lord Coke, in order to prove the inevitable aptitude that these sounds must have to soil and profane-if I may use the expression-the temple of the mind, in which a reverential awe for religion constitutes the chief ornament. To these seats of justice, Gentlemen, the people of this country resort in crowds, if not in expectation of being recreated by the charms of eloquence, at least of being rather edified and instructed by the sages of the law, than shocked or scandalized by the accents of a blasphemer. I am well aware, Gentlemen, that according to our poet, the illustrious Milton

"Evil into the mind of God or man,

May come and go, so unapproved, and leave
No spot or stain behind."

But still, Gentlemen, I do maintain, that the constant reechoing of these unhallowed sounds in courts of Justice, from one mouth to another, cannot but be injurious to the interests of that religion, which the Solicitor of the Treasury is so zealously anxious to uphold in all its dignity and lustre. And yet, Gentlemen, to whom are we indebted for this ruggedness and asperity of blaspheming sound, from which a Christian ear recoils with horror? Is it not to those, who permit blasphemy to be embodied into a system, under the protecting name of Unitarianism, and yet prosecute the poor, abject, insignificant mortals, who dare to blaspheme without the ingenuity of having first invented some high sounding name, such as that of Unitarian, to rescue them from the indignation of the law, that scorns to be violated by the poor and the ignoble? Why does not Mr. Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury, send his well-paid myrmidons to the Unitarian Meeting-houses, where blasphemy is weekly poured forth to large congregations-where the divinity of Christ is openly denied, not probably in language so coarse and direct as that used by the defendant, but in language more fascinating and insidious? Why is there not some high sounding name given to the systematic blasphemies of the Unitarians? Why are they not indicted and brought to the bar, by those who are prosecuting the ignorant and the poor? Why were they not upon the same footing as his client? His client was equally as respectable, but with this diffe

He

rence that the one had the misfortune to be a defendant at that bar, and the others were suffered to go free. They were allowed to profess publicly their doctrines; they were supported by persons high in station, who believed in their doctrines, nay, who openly protected and upheld them. was standing before them, not as a Catholic, a Protestant, or a member of any other sect, but as a general Christian; and he would scorn to mix up his political or religious opinions on such a topic, or such a theme; he would scorn the man who did so. Could they sit in that box and feel sentiments of indignation against that poor ignorant man, when the systematic blasphemer -- the Unitarian-should be exempt from punishment, and who should be at that bar, if law did as it ought? was not this shameful partiality of the laws which made them the gaze and stare of the whole world, when the Unitarians were looked upon as a respectable, a moral, and a religious sect?-these titles were given to them, but they were denied to other blasphemers. If a Roman Catholic aspires to any dignity in the state, he is not allowed, because he differs from the established religion. Although he is as virtuous, as moral, and as good a citizen as the Protestant, still he is proscribed. It was not for him to comment or call in question the wisdom of the Legislature; but it was abominable to see that the Catholic could not rise to any great dignity in the Army or Navy, or even obtain a silk gown, while the Unitarians were eligible, and possessed posts of the highest honour and distinction in the state. If a place in the state was offered to a Catholic, and that the usual oath was proposed to him, he would refuse the proffered dignity-which shows the strict regard of the Catholic for his religious principles; but if such an oath was proposed to an Unitarian, he would take it, with this mental reservation, that I believe this book to be the Bible, and I believe Christ to be not God, but human. The laws of justice require every man to be treated alike. If there exists a law, which says that the denying of the divinity of Christ is blasphemy, and such a law existed time immemorial-and he called upon the learned Judge to contradict bim if he stated any thing wrong-this being the case, why are not those who blasphemed brought to this bar? Should they be prosecuted, and the great mass of Unitarians be allowed to remain unprosecuted? If a man stood at that bar for murder, and that he pleaded as an excuse for the crime, that other murderers were at large unpunished, this would not be a good argument, because the crime was a natural crime, and not a positive one. He was sure that the remedy of all

this evil and partiality was to be found in the thinking, reflecting, and conscientious minds of a British Jury. He had often been tempted by some of his Learned Friends, to go and hear, as they said, the learned and eloquent discourses at the Unitarian Chapels, although his curiosity and the charms of eloquence would have induced him; but his scruples of conscience to be present at the proclaiming of blasphemy always recalled him to his duty, and he desisted. This metropolis contained in the Unitarians a collection of serpents, who be predicted would one day bring this country to infidelity. It was an admirable answer which our late revered Sovereign gave to the Queen and Princesses when they supplicated his Majesty for Dr. Dodd to remit his sentence, which, although his crime deserved his fate, still it excited our sympathy, considering the former character of the man." If," said his Majesty, "I forgive Dr. Dodd, I have murdered the Perreaus." Therefore, Gentlemen, are you to murder that man at the bar, and allow the Unitarians to go unpunished. It was preposterous to suppose that there was justice in punishing a poor illiterate man, who was obliged to do something for the support of his family. He did not wish that the Unitarians should be persecuted for their opinions, but that they should keep such dangerous opinions locked up in their own bosoms. The great question in this case was, did his client know that the book contained a blasphemous libel? Although at first the witness staggered him a little when he said that the defendant told him that the work was prohibited-but it was by his master that they were prohibited-when the Bow Street officers were prowling about like roaring lions, seeking whom they could devour. How did he know it to be a libel? He is an ignorant and an unlettered man, he went there for his bread. There were books of all sorts there, how was he to know the difference of what was, or was not, blasphemy? Was it defined by the law? and what he was now going to say was on record. He was the counsel for a young man of the name of Trust, who was brought up before the King's Bench for judgment in a case of this kind. Trust asked the Chief Justice to define blasphemy? The Chief Justice said he did not sit there to define blasphemy. If he was to ask the worthy Dr. Cotton, the chaplain of Newgate what Popery was, he would say it consisted of mild doctrines and true wisdom; but if he had to ask one of his predecessors, he meant Dr. Coetlegan the same question, he could anticipate his answer: for his answer to a similar question some years since was on record, when he pronounced Popery