« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. Adolphus.—Is it for the Age of Reason!
Witness.- I have said no such thing. I may answer that question when put upon my trial.
Mr. Adolphus.-When were you Indicted?
counted. MIr. Adolphus.–Bút do you mean last November, or the November before ?
Witness. You know as well as I do that it was last November:
Witness. If you had used your eyes you would have seen plenty of them placarded
Mr. Adolphus.- Pray, Madam, was not there a placard with, “ This is the Mart for Sedition and Blasphemy” upon it, in the window.
Witness. I did not see it in the window, but I saw a copy of it in the “New Times” Newspaper.
Mr. Adolphus.-Do you believe there was such a paper in the window ? Witness.- I had such a paper given me to burn: but it had the expres
you use, within inverted commas, to represent that it was borrowed from somewhere, and in not copying it so the Newspapers misrepresented it.
Mr. Adolphus.-It had inverted commas had it? Witness.-Yes. Mr. Adolphus.--I do not ask you who wrote it, but did you order it out of the window. Witness.--I had no controul over the business nor any one there. Common Sergeant. She said before. that she had nothing to do with the business.
Mr. Adolphus.-Was there not another placard in the window which had the words “Factious Jesus” upon it.
Witness.- I have heard there was, but it was an error of the writer in coyping factious for factitious and as soon as the error was discovered the placard was taken down.
* Mrs. Wright was indicted for the Observations on Dr. Gregory's Letters and for some short Letters to Parson Wait in the Addresses and Correspondences of Mr. Carlile.
Mr. Adolphus.-Look and see if you can see the Marshalman that arrested the Prisoner; and mind, you are still amenable to the law for perjury though you have sworn on the Book you do not believe.
Commmon Sergeant (to the witness). —Do you believe in the Gospels on which you have sworn to speak the truth?
Witness.- I tell you again, I shall not tell you what I believe or what I disbelieve.
Mr. Adolphus.-Are you sure that is the man that arrested the Prisoner?
Witness. I am sure he arrested one of them, I cannot be certain which.
Mr. Adolphus.—That is very strange; you can recollect that he arrested one of them, and cannot say which of them.
Witness. It is not strange at all. They were both arrested within an hour; so it was natural that the cases should be confounded in the memory
Mr. Adolphus.—Did not you receive these men with a name?
Mr. Adolphus.--Answer me directly, or his Lordship will commit you for contempt of Court.
Witness.- I will not answer that question.
Common Sergeant.-If you do not answer that question I will commit you directly.
Here a Gentleman standing by begged the witness to answer the question; but she stood undaunted.
Common Sergeant.--You are amenable to the laws for perjury whether you believe in the Bible or not: I charge you on your oath, attend to me and answer; was the man with name unknown here, known to you by any name or not?
Witness._Of course he was.
Common Serjeant.—Did the Prisoner at the Bar know him by the name he went by ?
Witness Of course he did.
Mr. Adolphus.—Be careful; for I shall have to call upon you another day, if the next witness, the Marshalman, proves what you have said to be false.
Witness. I have spoken nothing but the truth; and I do not care what you do; you may do
Common Serjeant. --Be careful, Mrs. Wright; you are a young woman.
Witness.- I am not going to commit myself, I have spoken nothing but the truth.
Common Sergeant.--I hope not.
Here the examination was renewed, and witness refused to answer the same question a second time: the Common Serjeant threatened to commit her again, if she did not, and even made the witness go a third time through so severe, so impudent, so insolent a cross-examination, which she did without varying in a word, to the great satisfaction of a crowded Court, and with a degree of intelligence and acumen (say the reporters to the Papers) seldom witnessed in a Court of Justice.
Harrison, the Marshalman, was then examined as to the caption of the Prisoner, and stated that the warrant had no name in it. He saw the pamphlet sold, and took the Prisoner into custody. The man without a name immediately took the place of the Prisoner. Purton said, on his taking the Prisoner into custody, “ That is not the man," alluding to the person without a name.
Mr. Adolphus shortly replied upon the evidence, and remarked upon the circumstance of the refusal which had been given by the witness Wright to decitre upon her belief in the Holy Bible. He said this case itself sufficiently evinced the effects of such publications.
The Common Sergeant charged the Jury, who as a matter of course and consistency, (having tried the same case twice before) found a verdict of Guilty.
The Common Sergeant, chuckling himself amidst the chuckling of the Jury, instantly passed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with hard labour, in the Ilouse of Correction; and that the Prisoner, at the end of that period should be bound in his own recognizances in £500, to be of good behaviour for his life; as by the expiration of the period of his imprisonment his present associates would have abandoned him.
Sherwood, Blanchard, and Gardiner, three of the booksellers in Paternoster-Row, were on the Jury.
REMARKS. The whole case of Joseph Rhodes was a case of foul play. In the first place he was drawn into a plea by menace, and when in a subsequent session he showed a wish to withdraw his plea and to plead in a correct manner, he was told that was not the time, and it was a matter of indifference, so as he had pleaded, whether his name was Holmes, Rhodes, or Robinson. Unacquainted with law proceedings, and having no one at hand to advise him, at the moment that the officer (Cooper) swore falsely that his name was William Holmes, he did not know but it was a matter of necessity that he should plead to that name.
The examination of Mrs. Wright indicates strongly the degree of venom with which those prosecutions are conducted, and the pains that were taken to catch a variance in her answers, with the hope of indicting her for perjury. These wretches want to raise a clamour, that those who reject their obscene Jew Books have no respect for truth : but in this point I can proudly assure them they will fail. When it is known that Mrs. Wright is a very delicate woman in health and constitution, and that when she stood at the Bar and went through that examination she was near eight months advanced in pregnancy, the reader will be able to judge of the humane feelings of Mr. Adolphus and the Common Sergeant. She is very subject to fainting fits, and she wrote me afterwards that it was with the greatest difficulty and a sort of forced energy and resolution, that she saved herself from falling in the Court. If she had fallen, doubtless, we should have heard a clamour about the effects of Infidelity on the mind, or some such imposing nonsense.
The sentence on Joseph Rhodes is another proof of the vindictive feelings roused by the Constitutional Association, but if the corrupt reptiles who formed the Court and passed it think they can deter others from following his conduct, they are much mistaken. There are now six volunteers at Leeds, panting with a desire to tread in the steps of their townsman and companion, Boyle; whilst in Manchester and its vicinity there is an assurance of a supply to any extent that I will call for them. This is not boast and swaggering; the moment I find those now indicted brought to trial, I will bring on fresh hands for further Indictments instantly; whilst Humphrey Boyle shall be the specimen of what will follow. The Jurymen in the case of Boyle were Joseph Sparks, Benjamin Shaw, James Jones,
John Donaldson, Shoemaker, Walbrook,
William Brigg, or Grigg, Tallow-Chandler, Leadenhall-street. It was Donaldson, the shoemaker, who made himself so ridiculous as to ask the Defendant if he knew the moral of the obscene tales read from the Jew Books, as if it was possible that any moral could be connected with any thing of the kind. The horrible story of Lot and his Daughters is not only a gross lie, as a physical impossibility of being true, but there is not the least moral in the story, or any object resulting from it more than
say how the tribes of the Ammonites and Moabites originated. What moral is there in the story of Judah, his Son's, and daughter-in-law, Tamar? What moral is there in the story of Ammon and his sister Tamar, and Absalom with his father's concubines on the house-top, and in the face of all Israel? It must have been a great all, a mighty nation, to have all seen such a spectacle at one time! Such beastly, such abominable tales must be put down, and not thrust into every family. Let the Vice Society be consistent, and see to it. Dorchester Gaol, June 16, 1822.
R. CARLILE. POSTSCRIPT.-LETTER TO MR. R. CARLILE. DEAR SIR, I TAKE the liberty of enclosing you a list of the Jury who tried Humphrey Boyle, in expectation that you have not been able to get a list of them. I heard his Trial, and if an portunity had occurred would have requested him to have objected to one of the Jurymen, viz. Donaldson, who keeps a shoemaker's shop close to the Mansion-House, at the top of Walbrook. I knew him about ten years ago as a shoe-inspector in the Storekecper-General's department, a department I was then employed in myself; he is a Scotchman by birth, and a bigoted scoundrel : he got up in his place and requested Boyle not to read the chapters in the Bible, and at parts of his Defence made expressions of disgust, and appeared quite shocked. He used to receive a guinea for the inspection of a thousand pair of shoes, which he would finish in three hours, besides the bribes he received from the contractor for passing notorious bad ones. The others I unfortunately know nothing of, you or some of your correspondents very possibly may. With my respectful compliments to Miss and Mrs. Carlile, with my congratulations to the latter on her safe deliverance,
I am, dear Sir, Yours sincerely. Benjamin Shaw is the brother of Sir James Shaw the Alderman, and a noted man at Bible Society Meetings, and, if I am not much mistaken, a Subscriber to the Constitutional Association. John Wright, a Tobacconist and Snuff-maker, and the same individual who stuck out against his fellows in the case of Mary-Ann Carlile. He was heard afterwards to declare that nothing but a want of snuff could bave induced him to yield ! Does not this his appearance on a second trial of that kind look as if Mr. Murray and Sharpe can pick their own men ?
Printed by R. CARLILE, 55, Fleet Street.