CHAPTER IX. SOME WHO HELPED IN THE GOOD WORK

Francis Place.

This gentleman was often spoken of by his friends as a second Benjamin Franklin. With an intellect of the highest order he combined extraordinary business ability, and rose to an enviable position solely by the combination of these rarely united qualities. He built for himself a snug fortune, and had at his house a large and commodious library filled with well-selected works of every description suitable for reference and study.

To this library came many of the members of the House of Commons, and the room being quiet and commodious and always at their service, it grew to be a favorite place for committee meetings, more especially for secret councils. In this way and through his intimacy with so many of the members of the House, he came to know of all the secret projects which were afoot. He was frequently solicited for his advice or opinion, and stood very high in the estimation of most of the public men. He had often been urged to accept office, but preferred not to do so. In this position he was able to be of great service to Carlile, whom he greatly admired, and he kept Carlile informed of all the plots that were hatching for his destruction.

Place kept up a correspondence with Carlile, and may be said to have been his tutor in many things during the long years of his imprisonment. He loaned or otherwise procured many valuable works, and argued and discussed with him all their points of difference, his interest in his pupil never flagging for the best part of their lives. There is no doubt that Place saved Carlile's life more than once by warning him in time, and rendered him invaluable service in more directions than that. Not holding any office or being pledged to any secrecy, he was free to do so without violating any confidence. He certainly was a most valuable friend and coadjutor. It is pleasant to read over their letters and see their regard for each other showing through their pleasant banter. Here is an extract from one of the earlier letters written to Carlile in Dorchester:--

"Excuse me suggesting to you how necessary it is to keep by you an emetic; get about four ounces of antimony wine, and should you be attacked by sickness or pain in the region of the stomach or any uncommon symptoms after eating, be sure to take a tablespoonful of the wine frequently, until the vomiting clears the stomach of its contents. State prisoners frequently expire of anomalous disorders. You should very carefully examine everything before you eat. Be sure to take nothing that has a harsh or astringent taste or that edges your teeth. You ought to have such tests by you as would enable you to analyse your water, milk, or other fluids. Although you and I discard anything but natural agency, yet some supernatural power for all that might drop something into your food. What was the death of Napoleon? What become of Peter Annett, can you tell me? What was the disease of Queen Caroline? Act with suspicion and you will act with caution. The Christians become daily more exasperated against you as you foil one after another.

"The efficiency of your view affords a beautiful reflection. It is far more mighty than the sceptre or the crozier. The pen is levelling both with the dust. Really you have gained a proud triumph! The Christian ruffians, by resorting to force, have acknowledged their defeat, they have in fact confessed that they can no longer fight you with the pen, they have resorted to brute force--the horse and the steam engine. In the empire of reason you reign; you may be said now to have conquered 20,000 regular tithe eaters, all the ultra-quacks, and all the silly people they have succeeded in poisoning with their prejudice and superstition, which may be rated at some millions. Congratulate yourself upon your efforts, and be proud of your individual and single-handed success. Millions of unborn men will repeat your name, and as the age of ignorance is dispelled, you will be still more applauded. From your correspondent,

"Regulator" (Francis Place.)

Julian Hibbert. "_Now bow the head and betid the knee._" This most remarkable man, so good, so generous, and so noble, was so universally beloved and appreciated by those who knew him, that it became customary among his friends when about to mention him in their letters to each other, to use the above words in reverential recognition of his great goodness and manifold virtues. Yet he was a man of the most retiring disposition and disliked notoriety of any description. His lovely character and sweet disposition were clearly displayed in his beautiful features. His remarkable intellect, combined with his great benevolence and modest sweet demeanor, lent to his presence that quality which might be imagined of Deity itself. Fortunately for himself and others he was possessed of an ample fortune, which enabled him to live in a way that sheltered him from the storms as well as the battles of life. Thus he was able to devote his life to study, to writing, and to acts of benevolence. His health was of the frailest, it could not endure the least strain. The ordinary friction and annoyances of everyday life were torture to him. In his immediate circle all must be peace and goodwill. He separated himself from his family at an early age, and never spoke of them or of his birth to anyone as far as known. His family affairs were a secret to his most intimate friends. There was no doubt that he came of some fine family, but of that or of any other part of his past, or youth, he never spoke. At his death he laid the embargo of silence on all his friends as to himself, and begged them as they loved him to burn all his letters and to cease to speak of him. This was done, unfortunately for posterity, too faithfully by his friends, yet much against their own feelings. It prevents the biographer from giving as full a record of his beautiful life as would make it as perfect an example for all succeeding generations as could be desired.

Notwithstanding this over-weening sensitiveness in private matters, he wielded one of the boldest pens, and encouraged others to greater and more free expression of their opinions than they otherwise would have dared to declare. This very quality in Carlile was what first attracted Julian Hibbert to him, and a friendship was formed between them founded on the mutual appreciation of each other's talents and virtues, which continued uninterruptedly till Julian Hibbert's death in 1834.

Their acquaintance began during the imprisonment in Dorchester. As soon as the public subscription was started, or very soon after, there were some very handsome sums subscribed by one signing himself "An Enemy to Persecution". The frequency and amounts of these contributions aroused the curiosity as well as the gratitude of Carlile, and he begged for the honor of an introduction. This started a correspondence. Julian Hibbert contributed many articles to the _Republican_, and later publications of Carlile's, and rendered him great aid in all of his undertakings. All the advantages of his superior education, rare library and great wealth were at Carlile's service. Not less advantageous and benificial was his brotherly love and companionship; for, indeed, they were akin in their virtues. Both were gentle, loving and patient in their private lives. Both were bold to recklessness in the defiance, publicly, of wrong. Julian Hibbert delivered many lectures at the Rotunda while Richard Carlile and Robert Taylor were in prison, and wrote much during his short life.

He compiled a chronological table of the principal freethinkers of the last three centuries, a galaxy of names that adds lustre to the pages of literature, science, poetry and reformed religion. These tables show considerable research. He was also a poet of no mean order, and Carlile published many pieces of his.

The following short specimen does equal credit to his heart as to his talent.

"TO RICHARD CARLILE.

"Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. When honest virtue sinks beneath the arm Of tyrant power, when terror and alarm Stalk o'er the country with gigantic stride, And hungry, dismal want spreads far and wide; When Liberty, long harassed and oppressed, Prepares to leave the land she once caressed; When patient labor, too, may yield its toil That fools may live, or quit its native soil; Shall I be silent and my voice refuse, And smother in my breast the sacred muse? Oh! no, I own I feel her power inspire And fill my soul with Freedom's sacred fire. Oh! that my pen could pierce the coward's heart, Who dar'd confine thy limbs, Carlile. I smart-- My soul does smart--whene'er I think of thee, Thou dear devoted Son of Liberty! But droop not thou; in Britain still are men Will wake to Liberty, thy mighty pen Has rent the mask away and thousands see Corruption in its own deformity. Then droop not thou! we yet shall sweep away The juggling fiends who bar the light of day.

"Julian Hibbert."

To which the following was added by Carlile:--

"I will not droop! but sweep away The juggling fiends who tax and pray, And though in jail with limbs confin'd, I still am free in soul and mind!"

"Julian Hibbert to ye Invincible Richard Carlile.

"Health and tranquillity!

"Thanks for your kind note. I am surprised to hear that you are already free. I thought that the Whigs would have detained you another half year for your rejection of a mere formality. However, as it is, you (and Admiral Napier) have dared more than you ought, and have been gloriously successful--though rashly.

"I hope that now you will turn over a new leaf, i.e., that you will cease to insult the Unions, and to applaud the Duke of Wellington. Leave to the _Times_ newspaper the inglorious task of trampling on the low and exalting the powerful. You are at present the most unpopular man in existence. But you are in the prime of life and full of vigor. You may, therefore, if you choose, as easily write yourself up, as during the last few years you have been writing yourself down. If you want any more of this disagreeable advice, you will call on me whenever you may happen to pass this way. I am most generally here between four and five p.m., but sometimes I am so ill that I do not come to London for a week at a time. Farewell, and try to be more a friend to committees which are the essence of republicanism.

"30 West Norton Street,

"Friday, 9th August, 4 p.m."

The munificence of Julian Hibbert to Carlile as the advocate of Freethought, etc., excelled that of anyone else, though there were many instances of bountiful generosity which might be related. In the ten years or so of their personal acquaintance, Mr. Hibbert gave to Carlile for the cause sums amounting to £7,000 (nearly $35,000). On visiting Carlile in prison one day, the conversation turned upon the fact (which had just been published) of a political leader having been presented with a cheque for £1,000 by his supporters, Mr. Hibbert, saying that it ought not to be said that the advocates of Freethought were less generous to their exponent, sat down and wrote a cheque for the same amount, which he handed to Carlile. This most generous man and most dearly beloved friend died at the age of thirty-four, after a very short illness. His death was supposed to have been caused by a ruffianly verbal attack made upon him by Charles Phillips, a magistrate, who was presiding at a trial to which Mr. Hibbert had been subpoenaed, and was in consequence of Mr. Hibbert's avowal of being an Atheist, when called on to swear upon the Bible. Phillips was known as one of the most ruffianly and ungentlemanly of presiding magistrates, and many stories are extant of his abusive manners. Julian Hibbert, though a giant mentally, was of a peculiarly delicate constitution, and the attack really killed him. He lived but a very few days afterwards. Carlile grieved long and deeply for this dear and sympathetic friend who had stood by him through all his sufferings and weary imprisonments, and in a burst of grief and sorrow at the news of his sudden death, bewailed him as the great, the god-like Julian Hibbert.

Lines written on the death of Julian Hibbert.

"There was praise of the good from the lips of the just, And Julian it taught us to know thee; To prize what we held and to feel what we've lost, And to scan the huge debt that we owe thee.

"There are none could have heard with an unmoistened eye, That most simple and eloquent story, Which told us of virtues, so rare and so high, That we paused to admire and deplore thee.

"Oh thine was the spirit and thine were the deeds, Which told us of hope, light, and promise, We talked not of dogmas, we thought not of creeds, We but felt what a heart had gone from us."

Joseph Harris.

The Joseph Harris mentioned in several of the letters of Isis and of Carlile was one of the volunteer shopmen who received a sentence of six months' imprisonment; he again served them when prosecution had well-nigh ceased, but was fined and locked up for one night during the Church tithes trouble. Harris was, like all the other young men who volunteered, an exceedingly intelligent, upright and moral man, and he endeared himself to Carlile and Isis by his upright conduct and exemplary manners. He was of a studious habit, and Isis took great pleasure in assisting him with his studies; he became to her as a brother in the confidence she reposed in him, and he in turn gave to her and all of the name of Carlile his best friendship and assistance in time of need. It was to Joseph Harris Isis turned in her widowhood for advice and sympathy, and received such as a loving brother might give to a sister.

Some time after Carlile's death Harris entered into the London Post Office service as a letter-carrier, and by dint of pure merit rose step by step till he came to-occupy the position of paymaster--a most responsible post--which he held for several years.

Later on he went to America and was elected to-the State Senate of Wisconsin in 1863; he had been a newspaper man before that time, publishing a paper called the _Advocate_. The life work of Mr. Harris was the promoting and carrying through of the Sturgeon Bay Canal, and is best known in this connection. To-this work he devoted many years of his life, and almost every dollar he had. He was librarian to the United States Senate for eight years, and was special agent for the Impeachment Committee that was organised against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States. Later in his life he was private secretary to Senator Sawyer of Wisconsin. In all these offices he conducted himself as a strictly moral and upright citizen. In every sense a worthy specimen of the sort of young men who earned the name of being pupils and followers of Carlile. This testimony to his noble and superior qualities is given by one who has his history almost from birth.

Gratitude and respect for Joseph Harris is compulsory, for he was indeed the widow and orphan's friend. As he helped Isis and her fatherless children, so he helped the widow and nine orphans of Carlile's eldest son Richard, when he died on shipboard, or rather in hospital, on his return to America after visiting London in 1855.

Mrs. Sarah C. Chichester and Mrs. Welch.

The "West Country friends" to whom Carlile so frequently alluded to in his letters to Turton, sometimes calling them "My Gloucestershire friends", the "Ebworth ladies", and "My lady friends", were two very highly connected ladies, sisters, and both widowed. They were Mrs. Sarah C. Chichester and Mrs. Welch, grandnieces of the Archbishop of York. They were great admirers of Carlile and his principles, and sent him large sums of money to assist him in his various enterprises. They first commenced a correspondence with him under the assumed name of "Clay", but afterwards revealed their identity and invited him to their home, where he spent several happy weeks on different occasions. Isis was, too, a favorite friend and guest, and for some years a constant correspondent. These generous friends always urged Carlile on in his public work, assuring him that they would provide for his wife and family, should he be unable to leave them a support, and an allowance of £200 a year was agreed upon, but for some reason or other this money never reached Isis, possibly through the dishonesty of their chosen agent. These were the ladies who furnished the money to start Bronson Alcotts Concordium at Ham Common, near Richmond, and they sunk large sums of money in that venture, which did not prove a success. Many letters are extant to show how close was the friendship existing between these ladies and Carlile and Isis. Mrs. Welch also made some provision for Carlile's three children in her will, but this provision, like the £200 a year, did not mature. It goes to prove, however, that Carlile's friends were among the best people in the country. These ladies were advanced thinkers, always ready, too, to accept any new thought or help on any new project, and were humanitarians in the largest sense of the word.

I extract the following from Carlile's letters to Turton:--

"June 22nd, 1837.

"Some unknown lady has sent me £30 from Gloucestershire in sympathy for my loss in the _Phoenix_."

"September 20th, 1837.

"Did I tell you that my West of England friends had sent me another handsome remittance before I left, and still promise future good? Mrs. Carlile has been put in fine spirits and is delighted at this."

"Manchester, September 30th, 1857.

"My new friends remitted me £35 for my present excursion."

"December 8th, 1837.

"My friends are very lavish in their gifts of useful books and in supplying me with money. Their remittances already amount to £200. Mrs. Carlile and I are to visit these ladies before I return to Lancashire."

"I have a commission for you; my valuable friends in Gloucestershire write me thus...." [This was a commission to purchase and distribute £10 worth of the pamphlets of one S. Roberts, who wrote and worked in behalf of the poor and ill-used chimney sweeps.]

"London, May 4th, 1838.

"I came on to Cheltenham to visit my new and great and good friends, with whom I spent a most happy week."

"May 15th, 1838.

"I spent eight days with my new and good friends in Gloucestershire, where I was superlatively happy."

Mrs. Susannah Wright.

The only woman outside of the Carlile family to suffer imprisonment in the cause of a Free Press was Mrs. Susannah Wright. This plucky little woman took charge of the shop in Fleet Street, after the Carlile family had all been put in prison; and taking her turn at martyrdom, was indicted and sentenced. She, with her six months' old baby, was treated with great severity and harshness at first, as if she were a felon. She spiritedly resisted the treatment, and was removed afterwards to Cold Bath Fields Prison. There she was treated with more humanity, but being a very delicate woman, she came near dying in consequence of the treatment she had received at Newgate. One month of her term of imprisonment was remitted as well as her fine of £100. Carlile always regarded Mrs. Wright as a model for women to copy, and paid her the highest tribute for her enthusiasm, perseverance, coolness, and dauntlessness. To him individually she was the source of the highest gratification, and he took every opportunity of lauding the work she had done. Immediately on her liberation she paid a visit to Dorchester Gaol, and received hearty thanks and congratulations from Carlile. She soon afterwards removed to Norwich, where, with Carlile's assistance, she opened a little shop for the sale of liberal works. Here she at first met with much opposition, but by dint of her own courage and intrepidity on becoming better known her persecutions ceased, and she was left to follow her vocation in peace. She bears in history the distinctive honor of being the only woman (other than Jane and Mary Anne Carlile) who suffered imprisonment for their services in the battle for a Free Press.

In a letter to Holmes, on Mrs. Wright, Carlile writes:--

"September 21st, 1825.

"I did not write last week for I had Mrs. Wright with me, in whom, after all the slanders that have passed, I can find no fault You will see that I have called her the Pink of us all. She is quite ready to go to the shop again if prosecutions are renewed. Her sufferings as to health have been dreadful since she left the prison, indeed, through all the winter, no one thought of her living, which accounts for nothing having been heard of her. Like you, she is one-eyed, and, as at your visit, I sent her with a letter to Lawrence to see if her sight be recoverable."

In another letter to W. V. Holmes, Carlile says:--"I by no means coincide with what you say of Mrs. Wright, there is scarcely another woman in England who would have done for me what that woman has done, and from my knowledge of her in 1817-18 and 1819, I know that a love of principle has been her ruling motive."

George Jacob Holyoake.

It was the last year of Carlile's life that Mr. Holyoake was tried and imprisoned for Atheism, and it was almost the last public action of Carlile's life to aid and encourage the young warrior in this, his first real battle with the enemies of free thought and free speech. Carlile sat by Holyoake's side during his excellent defence, which lasted nine hours. Holyoake being a delicate man would probably have been exhausted had not Carlile kept him refreshed with raspberry vinegar, etc. Carlile did everything in his power to get the conditions of Mr. Holyoake's imprisonment modified, but with small success. Mr. Holyoake was happily the last man to be imprisoned for so-called "Atheism".

Herewith is appended some correspondence showing the impression Holyoake made upon Carlile, and also some letters which passed between the two men:--

"Richard Carlile to Thomas Turton.

"I wished you present, yesterday, in the Court of Gloucester, to have heard the truly grand display of character, talent, and integrity, made by George Jacob Holyoake.

"I honor your discrimination in seizing upon his great worth and exception to the common run of Radicals and Socialists. He spoke nine hours admirably. I made sure of his acquittal while his defence was in progress, but the judge was an alarmed bigot, and pleaded against him unmercifully without allusion to his noble defence.

"The stupid jury said guilty, after five minutes putting their heads together. He is to have six months' imprisonment.

"In your name, and as a present from you, I shall go to the gaol this morning and present Holyoake a pair of your razors. It is the only thing I have with me here to offer him. I was proud of him, and of myself too, to think I had brought forth such a state of mind. Holyoake was heard by a court fall of ladies, and had they been his jury, he would have been acquitted.

"The more I see and hear of Holyoake the more I like him.

"You would not have grudged the cost (of travel) to have seen Holyoake on Monday. It was a truly beautiful scene to see this young Jesus before the Jews and Pontius Pilate."

Carlile often wished that Holyoake had been his son, and Holyoake as often wished, too, that he had been. Mr. Holyoake expressed this wish quite recently in a letter to the writer. This friendship mutually existing between Carlile and Holyoake is as gratifying and sweet in its remembrance as is the odor of the rose after the vase is shattered, and their freely spoken appreciation of each other speaks well for both:--

"There was praise of the good from the lips of the just."

"July, 1842.

"R. Carlile, Esq., Enfield.

"My Dear Sir,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 11th. Am sincerely obliged by your kind offer of further advice as far as you can assist me. I am lost in London, as you will guess, and scarcely know where I am, or I should have replied to yours before. From your letter to Mr. Ryall, I find that my kind friend Mr. Turton, of Sheffield, has done me the honor to mention me in his letters to him. Mr. Turton is a gentleman whom I highly respect.

"I feel not a little encouraged by the courtesy with which you offer your assistance, and, indeed, have rendered it, as on Sunday last.... I have written to Cheltenham for a _Free Press_, containing your letter on my case, and will forward it the moment received.

"Yours very truly and respectfully,

"G. J. HOLYOAKE."

"London, July 24th, 1842.

"My Dear Sir,--Thank you for your advice. Shall be, I believe, in Cheltenham, before I go to Gloucester. Will write you before that. I elicited some warm cheers for you this morning at the Rotunda.

"Yours truly and respectfully,

"G. J. Holyoake."

"Birmingham, July 30th, 1842.

"R. Carlile, Esq., Cheltenham.

"My Dear Sir,--I am much obliged for your frank and candid advice. It is the most welcome, because you leave me free to reject where I may not approve without fear of offending you. You say, 'I have always thought for myself; do you so'. How many talk of free thought without even extending that privilege, as you do, to others. I am satisfied of your good intention in writing to ------. I object to no proceeding your kindness and experience may suggest so far as you alone take part in it. I thank you for expressly saying that I did not sanction any overtures. I cannot do so. I have no faith in Christians. My experience is limited, I grant, but as far as it goes I feel that any concession on my part would only increase their malignity. Men who have begun with the ferocity they have begun with me will never end by doing me justice.

"Your opinion as to the public, princes, women, and myself, I entirely accord with, and I scarcely know which to admire more, the correctness of the sentiment, or the beautiful manner in which it is expressed. I know the public, etc., is fickle, and have sought a higher reward, the _consciousness of rectitude_; this is not all-enduring, and when it fails I have done. Your estimate of -------- curiously coincides with many I have heard; his objection to discuss theology is puerile indeed. It is, as you say, to object to discussion of the cause of the evils he professes to eradicate.

"Yours obligedly,

"G. J. HOLYOAKE."

"County Gaol, Gloucester, August 18th, 1842.

"R. Carlile, Esq., Cheltenham.

"My Dear Sir,--I was much obliged by your kind letter, and although I must regard your remarks rather as those of a friend than of a critic, yet am I much gratified that my exertions should have met your approval. Your good opinion will compensate me for the unpleasantness of my condition. I shall take care of my health as far as is possible. I learn from Seymour that you have sent him a communication for the _Oracle_ [Holyoake's paper]. Your name will do the cause infinite service independently of what you will write. "With many thanks, etc., etc.,

"G. J. HOLYOAKE."

"Gloucester Gaol, October 22nd, 1842.

"My Dear Sir,--I am certainly gratified that you should have taken the trouble to write me so long a letter. The sovereign you so kindly caused to be remitted, duly came to hand by seven o'clock on Monday morning, and at the same time and hour my eldest little girl died, so that it arrived opportunely to assist in defraying the expenses of the melancholy obsequies of the grave.

"You say the word Christian originally meant wisdom and goodness. What it originally meant you can better say than I can; certainly it means nothing of the kind now, therefore I have acquired a distaste for the title. I do not cavalierly adopt that of 'Atheist', names little entice me, and in this case, you will archly rejoin, 'there are no principles to allure.' What you say about the prices of lectures, working-out reforms by poor men's instrumentality, etc., interests me very much, and will occupy my consideration. Your remarks concerning scarcity of subscribers for my support little surprises me. I did not expect what I have received. Enquiring into that subject prior to my imprisonment, or rather to my incurring it, did not present itself. It shows little knowledge of the world, and perhaps insufficient attention to the wants of those depending upon me. Busy with what I conceived to be an important principle, other things had few attractions. Shall I find at last that principles are to be talked of and the world to be lived in?... Should be gratified if you would present my regards to Mrs. Carlile [Isis].

"Yours truly,

"G. J. HOLYOAKE."

THE FALLEN HERO.

What though the head be weary, What though the hand be tired, The rest of a sweet contentment, Shall be by peace inspired.

What though the hero falleth, In the heat of the battle's strife, If he naileth the waving colors, To the mast of a noble life.

If he breast and conquer the tyrant, Who our cherished rights assail, Shall he sink in the sea's oblivion, Or pass beyond memory's pale?

Not so, for his deeds we'll emblazon, On the 'scutcheon of Liberty bright As one who feared not to be foremost In hope's forlorn Battle of Right.

And longer still longer and ever Will the roll of his virtues unfold, How he fought on, in lonely endeavor, Like the "Lion Heart Richard" of old.

And the eyes of the maiden will moisten, And the spirit of youth grow bold, As they learn of his love and his daring, Wherever his story is told.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I. TRIAL OF MR. CARLILE

FOR THE PUBLICATION OF PAINE'S "AGE OF REASON".

The first days' defence was devoted to the reading of the "Age of Reason", the book for which Carlile was prosecuted. He read and commented on it all as he went along, and in this way made the immense concourse of people acquainted with the arguments there used. It is almost unnecessary to say that the sale of the book after the publication of the trial reports was something enormous. Many thousands of Englishmen who never thought on such subjects before dated their awakening of mind from this event. The real "passage of arms" between Carlile and his accusers commenced on the second day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL. From the "British Press", October 14th, 1819.

SECOND DAY.--Wednesday, October 13TH, 1819.

The interest excited by this trial continues unabated. A considerable concourse of people assembled before the great entrance at Guildhall, between eight and nine o'clock. To the gentlemen connected with the public Press every facility was afforded by the secondary, Mr. Collenridge, and by Mr. Temple, the hall-keeper. The former admitted them into the body of the Court at an early hour, where they were accommodated with seats at the table. At a quarter before nine o'clock, the Court was regularly opened; and in a few minutes it was completely filled.

The Counsel for the prosecution, the Attorney and Solicitor General, Mr. Littledale, and Mr. Campbell, took their seats soon after.

At a quarter after nine, Mr. Carlile entered the Courts He was preceded by two friends, who placed on the table an immense pyramid of books, in folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo.

At twenty minutes before ten, the jury having arrived, and having answered to their names, the cause of the King v. Carlile was called, the Chief Justice having previously taken his seat.

After a short pause, Mr. Carlile rose, and proceeded with his defence. He said he had endeavored yesterday, by going through the whole of three parts of "The Age of Reason", to show to the jury that it did not contain one immoral sentiment or expression; but that any expressions, which were at all questionable in that work, were quoted from other publications. He endeavored, satisfactorily, he hoped, to prove that Paine's object was to rescue the character of the Almighty from the account which was given of him in those books called "The Bible". He (Mr. Carlile) was anxious as far as possible to make the writings of Paine justify the composition, and the doctrines laid down by him in "The Age of Reason ". In order to do this, he would read a discourse pronounced by Mr. Paine before the Society of Theophilanthropists, at Paris. That discourse contained a complete refutation of the statement that Paine was an Atheist. His character was in fact most remote from Atheism. He had indeed proved that he entertained a more correct idea of the character of the Almighty than was to be found in the Bible. Mr. Carlile then proceeded to read the "Discourse", which is printed along with Paine's "Theological Tracts". [The whole _gist_ of this production may be collected from a single paragraph, "The _un verse_", says the author, "is the Bible of a true Theophilanthropist; it is there that he reads of God; it is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the work of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make that we must seek evidence for our belief, and that _something is the universe_--the true Bible--the inimitable word of God." In going over this tract, the whole of which he read, Mr. Carlile made no observation, except in one place, where the text set forth "that persecution had ceased". "Happy", said he, "would it be for me, if persecution had indeed-ceased!" Having concluded the tract, he said this little discourse had been published by some persons, who were so convinced that it was a perfect refutation of Atheism that they sent it into the world with Mr. Paine's name to it. Having gone through so much of "The Age of Reason" as, at present, was necessary for his purpose, he would lay it aside; but he would in a future stage of the trial again to refer to it, for the purpose of supporting certain principles connected with his defence. He would now proceed to examine the book of which Mr. Paine's work was an investigation. But before he went further, he must observe that the Bible was not the only book supposed to be a revelation from God. The Koran, for instance, was supposed, by millions of people, to be of divine origin.

The Attorney-General here interrupted the defendant. He submitted that he could not proceed further with such a line of defence. The expression of the defendant was, that he would go into an examination of the book of which Paine's work was an investigation. He contended that he could not go into such an examination. The question was whether, according to the law of the country, the defendant had been guilty of the offence with which he was charged? It was neither competent for his lordship nor the gentlemen of the jury to go into such an examination as the defendant proposed--an examination of the truth of the Scriptures.

The Chief Justice: You hear the objection taken by the Attorney-General?

Mr. Carlile: Yes, my lord. The Attorney-General states that it is not competent for your lordship or the jury to go into such an examination as I propose; but he has quite forgotten that it is necessary to my defence. I have been brought into this Court to answer charges, and must avail myself of every means of defence. The Attorney-General has stated that I have published a work in which the Scriptures are spoken of as containing obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, cruel and tortuous executions, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Now I feel it to be my duty to justify what has been published by appealing to the Bible, which contains them.

The Attorney-General: I did not at all forget that the defendant is very deeply interested in the result of this trial; but this, like all other causes, must be proceeded in according to the rules of law. And, looking to those rules, it is not competent for a defendant, charged with this offence, to go into such an investigation. I beg to call your lordship's attention to the trial of an individual charged with a similar offence--I mean Williams. When he was brought up to the Court of King's Bench to receive judgment, Lord Kenyon said, that "having re-considered what had been done during the trial, he took blame to himself for having listened even to the arguments used on that occasion". In that case of the King and Williams, the whole Court expressed their opinion that they could not allow anything to be said against the established religion of the country--the Christian religion. That is the proposition for which I contend. I trust it will receive the sanction of your lordship, and that the defendant will not be suffered to promulgate blasphemous doctrines as part of his defence.

The Chief Justice: The charge against the defendant on this occasion is the publication of a book calumniating and reviling the Holy Scriptures. It is not that, in any book published by him the doctrines of revealed religion were discussed with that respect, temper, and moderation which ought to be applied to the discussion of every subject, human or divine, public or private. It can be no defence of such a charge that the party against whom it is preferred should reiterate, in his address to the jury, the same sort of calumny as that which is contained in the book, for the publication of which he has been called on to answer; and I should very ill discharge my duty, as a Judge or a Christian, if I suffered this Court to be made a theatre for uttering calumny against the religion of the country. Any thing the defendant can advance to the jury, to explain away what is contained in the book, and to show that its tendency is proper, I am most ready to hear. I wish to give to this defendant, as well as to every other person, an opportunity to defend himself fully and fairly, according to the established law of the land. But I am not to suffer the law of the land to be calumniated by such a defence. I cannot permit it.

Mr. Carlile: The only object I have in view is to clear the book, entitled "The Age of Reason", from the charge make against it, and to justify the observations which it contains on the Old and New Testament. I presume that book cannot be founded on any law of this country. Your lordship has spoken of the law of the land as applicable to this case. I should like to have that law pointed out.

The Chief Justice: I state that the Christian religion is a part of the law of the land--and the most important part--because it is that on which all its institutions are founded, and to which they all refer. I speak of the Christian religion generally. There is one particular mode of faith amongst those who follow the Christian religion which constitutes what is called the Established Church; the law of England, however, admits every other class of Christians to adhere to their religious worship, according to their own particular faith, tenets, and creed; but it permits to no man the right to impugn the whole sum and substance of the Christian religion, and to treat the book which contains its doctrines as a mass of lies and falsehoods. I cannot permit such a defence.

Mr. Carlile: I cannot submit to have my course of defence marked out for me.

The Chief Justice: Whether you submit to it or no, I have stated the law, as was my duty; and it is not for a man, accused of having infringed the law, to rise in this place and declare what is or what is not law. I speak in the hearing of gentlemen who have often attended in this Court, and such of them that know me will answer for the truth of what I assert when I say that, though I lay down the law to them, as I conceive it to be, according to my judgment, yet, when a question of fact arises, I leave it in the fullest manner to their consideration. But I never will suffer the Holy Scriptures to be examined in this Court for the purpose of calumniating and reviling them.

Mr. Carlile: I appeal to your lordship, what proof have we that they are _divine?_

The Chief Justice: I will not answer such a question as that. You have not, I say, been brought here to answer for any work containing a fair and dispassionate consideration of the Christian religion; but for a publication reviling and calumniating the Scriptures. And calumnies and revilings, whatever the subject may be, are contrary to the law of the land. Is it to be supposed that the law, which affords protection to every individual, has not the power to protect itself? Is it not to protect those who, from their youth, from want of education or from weakness of mind, are not so deeply confirmed in their religious feelings as they ought to be, from being exposed to all those aberrations which, not the force of reason, but the influence of calumny, may occasion?

Mr. Carlile: I wish to arrive at the same end; but we take different ways of effecting it.

The Chief Justice: The discussion is somewhat early; but I will let you go on, advising you to keep within the bounds I have pointed out. I cannot suffer this book to be defended by reviling the Christian religion.

Mr. Carlile: If these writings are of divine origin, they cannot receive any injury from investigation or from any comment made on them. I will therefore go into a full investigation of this question, and I cannot do that without examining the book itself, which gave rise to this work.

The Chief Justice: We shall see in what mode you conduct your defence.

Mr. Carlile: I have stated to you that there are many books existing on the face of the earth which are, by certain individuals, believed to be the revealed word of God. One of these I now hold in my hand. It is believed in by a greater number of persons than believe in the Bible. I mean the Koran. I will read to you the manner in which it is represented by its author to have been sent down by the Almighty. It is contained in the 14th chapter, which is headed, "Abraham--revealed at Mecca--supposed to be sent to Mahomet ". The book, it may be observed, is filled up with a great portion of the history of those persons whose names are to be found in the Old Testament. [Mr. Carlile read the whole of the chapter, which embraced various topics, but particularly set forth the joys which God would bestow on those who served him, and the vengeance he would shower down on those who disobeyed him.] This, gentlemen, continued Mr. Carlile, is a specimen of what is called revealed religion, and which they say came down from heaven to Mahomet. It is believed by many millions of men, more than compose the body of Christians--and yet, is there anything in it comparable with the idea of the Almighty which is given by Paine? Certainly not. And yet those who believe it dislike the Christians, and treat them with reproach and contumely. Why, therefore, should such books be considered as the will of God? and how can we tell that they are worthy of being so called unless we examine them? I will read no more of the Koran. What I have read is a fair specimen. There are some fine moral lessons in that work, and some beautiful ideas of the Deity, but they are mixed up with trash which spoils the whole. Mr. Paine is not the only man who has investigated the Old and New Testament, and doubted of their validity. I hold in my hand the work of a man who ranks very high in this country--who was Ambassador to the Court of Naples--and is at present a member of the Privy Council. I allude to Sir W. Drummond--who has canvassed the Scriptures very freely. The book, though never published (a few copies only being printed for the author's friends), shows what the opinions of Sir W. Drummond were. [Mr. Carlile proceeded to read extracts from the work, which we are unwilling to publish at any length, in consequence of an observation that subsequently fell from the Attorney-General.] Sir William commences by stating that it would naturally be asked, by those who saw this volume, why he caused a book to be printed which he had not published? The reason was, because he had treated of a work which was said to be sacred--and, to avoid the calumnies and falsities to-which it might give rise, if published, he had confined it to a narrow circle. Indeed he did not wish his opinions-to be handed about _amongst the mob_. After observing that the ancient Jews had their _isoteric_ and _exoteric_ doctrines, which were signified by types and figures, the meaning of which was not now known, he proceeds to express an opinion that the language of the Old Testament was symbolical, and he censures those descriptions of the Deity in which he was painted with human passions, and those none of the best. Nothing could be more absurd than to describe the Deity as a material being who dwelt in a box of shittim wood in the temple.

The Attorney-General: I object to such observations.

The Chief Justice: They are indeed very offensive. I caution the defendant against taking that course of defence.

Mr. Carlile: If it be in opposition to the sense and feelings of the jury, I only do myself harm. I wish to-show that others wrote on this subject as well as Paine.

The Chief Justice: That is not the question. The question is whether the book published by you is a blasphemous libel.

Mr. Carlile: I know of no law that takes cognisance of blasphemy.

The Chief Justice: There is such a law.

Mr. Carlile: Then I wish your lordship would define it.

The Chief Justice: I have done so, and will not again.

The Attorney-General: The defendant ought to know, or those who advise him ought to have informed him, that he will have an opportunity of appealing to the Court out of which this process proceeds--the Court of Kings Bench--and, if he pleases, to the last resort in the country, the House of Lords. There he may discuss whether the charge be or be not according to law. This is not the place for that discussion. To the charge preferred against him he has pleaded "Not guilty", and the question now is, whether he be or be not guilty.

Mr. Carlile: I must, as it is necessary for my defence, go through these books.

The Chief Justice: You are not now examining any book--you are merely stating the opinion of another person. You cannot justify one libel by proving that another of the same nature had been written.

Mr. Carlile: It is not proved to be a libel, as yet.

The Chief Justice: I will call it by what name I think proper; but leave it ultimately to be decided by the jury.

Mr. Carlile: You may certainly give it what name you please; but I must defend it to the best of my judgment.

The Chief Justice: I wish you to do so; but I cannot allow the calumny of another person to be introduced as a defence for yours.

Mr. Carlile: I am aware that I need look for nothing from your lordship. I stand alone, unsupported, the array is against me. Sir W. Drummond's work is only a repetition of what may be found in the Old and New Testament. He quotes those works and reasons on them, and he has a right to do so.

Mr. Carlile was proceeding with the passage which had just been objected to, when Mr. Gurney requested his lordship's interference.

Mr. Carlile: You have nothing to do in this cause.

Mr. Gurney: I have the honor of assisting the Attorney-General.

The Chief Justice: I have told you, that you cannot justify one calumny by introducing another.

Mr. Carlile: Is it not actually the case, that God is represented in the text as dwelling in a box of shittim wood in the temple?

The Chief Justice: Certainly not, sir.

Mr. Carlile: If my defence be bad, I only injure myself. He then proceeded to read some remarks of Sir W. Drummond, condemning the reason assigned for God's determining not to curse the earth any more, when he was interrupted by

The Attorney-General, who said: I do trust your lordship will interpose. I say, when a defendant is charged with a publication attacking the truths of Christianity, he cannot be allowed to defend himself by making new attacks. No man can be suffered to make this Court the arena where the calumnies from the pen of Paine, or of any other writer, are to be promulgated. The object of the defendant is evident. He wishes that those calumnies should come forth to the public in a shape more disgraceful than they have hitherto appeared; but in the discharge of my public duty I will take care that such publications shall not pass unnoticed or unpunished.

Mr. Gurney: The Court cannot hear the statute law, as well as the common law of the land, treated with contempt. Those who put the law in motion proceeded on the common law; but the statute of William and Mary is still in force.

Mr. Carlile: The Attorney-General has not founded his information on the statute of William and Mary. He wishes for a different punishment than that statute provides.

The Chief Justice: I am free to confess that I am placed in a very delicate situation. I am unwilling to prevent the defendant from going on with what appears to him fit and necessary for his defence; but, as a Judge, I am bound not to admit the law of the land to be insulted in my presence.

Mr. Carlile: I am not aware of having insulted any law.

The Solicitor-General: I wish to state to your lordship what Lord Ellenborough said on Eaton's trial. When the defendant was addressing him, his lordship interrupted him. "You have already," observed his lordship, "begun a passage, of which I caution you. This is not to be an opportunity for you to revile the Christian religion; and if you persist in doing so, I will not only prevent you, but perhaps animadvert on your conduct in committing an offence which was of the most heinous nature in the eyes of the Court." Defendant answered: "I have no intention of offending the Court." Lord Ellenborough observed, "You have got to a passage that is abominable--you must not read it". Now, my lord, the defendant before you says: "I will prove the truth of what Paine asserts, namely that there are obscenities, inconsistences, and contradictions in the Bible." This, I submit, he can only do by pursuing the course which Mr. Eaton was checked in, which cannot be permitted.

The Chief Justice: Let the defendant go on, if he can advance anything relevant and serviceable to his cause.

Mr. Carlile: It would be as well if the Solicitor-General read a little further, that the Court might see the result of that discussion.

The Solicitor-General: Mr. Eaton observed, "I believe what I am come to is inoffensive"; and nothing offensive was afterwards said.

Mr. Carlile: The fact is, Lord Ellenborough grew angry, and called out repeatedly, "Read it all, read it all!"--which was done.

The Chief Justice: The Christian religion shall not be reviled here.

Mr. Carlile: In what I say, I found myself on the late statute.

The Chief Justice: You made some remarks on it yesterday. At first I thought your idea was erroneous; and on looking into the subject, I see that an Act was passed, in the time of King William, for the punishment of those who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity. An Act was recently passed, respecting that particular part of the statute of William, which it repealed; but it leaves untouched all that is contained in that statute and the common law of the land, for the punishment of those who impugn the truth of Christianity in general. The work in question does not impugn the opinion of any particular sect, but impugns the whole of the doctrines contained in the Old and New Testament. It is directed against the tenets of every sect who believe in the Scriptures as the foundation of revealed religion.

Mr. Carlile: I have been told that the Christian religion is the law of the land. Now that religion is founded on the doctrine of the Trinity; and here is a statute dispensing with a belief in the Trinity, and thereby making Deism a part of the law of the land.

Chief Justice: I say it does not, and I will not hear such a defence.

Mr. Carlile; I stand here alone, and I best know what shape my defence ought to take.

The Chief Justice: In your own opinion it may be so; but it is for me to look to the legal course of defence. If you cannot proceed without reviling the Christian religion, you cannot defend yourself.

Mr. Carlile: The law in question allows me to proceed in this course, for it tolerates Deism.

The Attorney-General: One part of the statute of William and Mary is repealed, but the remainder is in force. It is there treated as a great offence for any persons to deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures, namely the Old and New Testament, to be of divine origin.

Mr. Carlile: I do not know on what the Christian religion is founded, except on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Chief Justice: If you have any good legal defence, proceed with it.

Mr. Carlile: I do not know that I am wrong. If there be an allegation that I have published a work in which it is stated that there is an obscene story in the Bible, surely you would not prevent me from referring to the Bible to prove the truth of the assertion?

The Chief Justice: I cannot hear this. The Bible is the history of a sinful people, and of the vengeance of God on them.

Mr. Carlile: I do not think the Bible is true, as a history.

[Considerable agitation was created in Court by this declaration. Murmurs of dissatisfaction were heard from every quarter.]

Mr. Carlile was proceeding with another passage from Sir W. Drummond's book, when he was interrupted by The Solicitor-General, who objected that he was going on in the way which had already been deprecated by the Court.

The Chief Justice: I cannot allow it. If I am mistaken there are means of correcting my error; but I think I am not mistaken when I say, that I cannot and ought not sit in my place and suffer any person to revile the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Carlile: I have no wish to revile, but merely to examine them.

The Chief Justice: Examination does not consist in, and cannot be supported by, bold denials. It is a repetition of the offence.

Mr. Carlile: Can we compel our minds to receive as true what we do not believe because there is a law in support of it?

The Chief Justice: As long as a man keeps his opinion to himself, it is of no consequence to the community, and no human power can take cognizance of it.

Mr. Carlile: Your lordship's observations argue nothing but the absurdity of legislating on matters of opinion. He was proceeding with Sir W. Drummond's work, when The Solicitor-General again interrupted him. The defendant, he said, wanted to prove that other persons had written on the subject as well as Mr. Paine, which he contended formed no point of defence.

The Chief Justice: I cannot allow such a course to be taken.

Mr. Carlile: I have a right to go on with what I think necessary for my defence.

The Chief Justice: You have no right to go on with a defence of a mischievous nature. It would be a high misdemeanor in me to allow it.

Mr. Carlile: My wish is to defend my conduct from the imputation of malicious intention. In the course of their practice, these learned gentlemen quote precedents on all occasions; why then should not I quote Sir W. Drummond, a man of great talent and research?

The Chief Justice: His book has nothing to do with the case before the jury.

Mr. Carlile: The authority of Sir W. Drummond is as good as that of Lord Ellenborough.

The Chief Justice: You had better conduct yourself with propriety.

Mr. Carlile: In my mind, the authority of Sir W. Drummond possesses far greater weight.

The Chief Justice: Don't suppose, because great forbearance has been shown, that there may not come a time when forbearance must end.

Mr. Carlile: I don't want forbearance, I only want justice.

The Chief Justice: Justice you shall have, according to law; but to let you proceed contrary to law would not be justice. It is no justification for you to say that others have committed the same offence.

Mr. Carlile: I am not willing to take your lordship's-opinion that it is an offence.

The Chief Justice: I have said, all along, that the character of the publication would be ultimately left to the decision of the jury.

Mr. Carlile was proceeding, but the Solicitor-General again interposed.

The Chief Justice: I say it is no justification; but still I would not prevent the defendant from going on if the quotation be not offensive. I do not know that to be the work of Sir W. Drummond.

Mr. Carlile: It is his, for it has been answered by the Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is the best way to elicit truth. Sir W. Drummond's name is to it.

The Chief Justice: No matter by whom it is written. I cannot stay in this place and hear the doctrines of Christianity impugned.

Mr. Carlile: It is not yet proven that I have committed error.

The Chief Justice: I know that--I have stated so all along; but you must not revile and calumniate the Christian religion.

Mr. Carlile: I do not calumniate. I wish to enter on a fair examination.

The Chief Justice: You are not allowed, neither is any man, to read in this place matter calumniating the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Carlile: It is not calumniating.

The foreman of the jury now addressed his lordship. He said the gentlemen of the jury thought the defendant could not do himself any service by going on with such a defence

Mr. Carlile: Am I to understand that to be the sentiment of the jury?

Several Jurymen: Certainly.

After a short pause, Mr. Carlile proceeded. He at length came to a passage in which Sir W. Drummond stated that he did not believe God had ever spoken to Moses.

Mr. Gurney submitted that was the denial of the truth and divine origin of part of the Old Testament, and was punishable by the statute law. It could not therefore be tolerated in that Court.

Mr. Carlile: To what are we to appeal, if not to reason?

The Chief Justice: You are charged with publishing a calumny on the Christian religion; show that the book does not contain such calumny. You cannot prove that there is no calumny in it by reading works of a similar nature.

Mr. Carlile: There are passages in the Bible which I view with as much horror as your lordship does this book. I do not believe them--your lordship does, or you profess that you do. Now it is only by reading controversial disputes on the subject of religion that we can know what is right or what is wrong.

The Chief Justice: We are not here trying the verity of passages of Scripture. I cannot put it to the jury to say whether the Holy Scriptures contain the will of God. This cannot be done in a Christian country.

Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to read, in my defence, things that are disgusting to myself, and which I would not read if I were not compelled to do so.

The Chief Justice: You are not compelled. It can do you no service to read passages of a similar tendency with those which you are charged with having published.

Mr. Carlile: As there is no other passage in this book essential to my defence, I shall now go to the Bible. In reading that work, which the information charges me with calumniating, I can only express my own opinion, as a justification of what I have done. If that opinion is not satisfactory to the minds of the jury, still it would afford some ground for believing that I act from conviction.--[Here Mr. Carlile exhibited a large Bible, which was interleaved for the purpose of entering remarks on different passages.]--The Old Testament, like many other books, begins with giving an account of the creation.--[Mr. Carlile here read several verses from the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," etc.]--Now (continued he) I have to state to you that that part of society who believe in this book differ in their ideas of the account of the creation. Some believe it to be an allegory--others consider it a statement of a real transaction. Some of the greatest fathers of the Christian Church, one of whom was Origen, considered it an allegory. When we see persons, who call themselves Christians, and who rest all their future hopes on this book, differing on such a passage, I think an individual, whose mind is not made up on the subject, is at liberty to enquire into the reasons offered for one party believing it to be an allegory, and the other for taking it literally. Moses is stated to be the author of the book of Genesis, but I think it is proved by Paine that he did not write it. Whether it was written by him or not did not, however, invalidate the work. When you read, "In the _beginning_ God created the heaven and the earth," the philosopher naturally asks, what beginning? If it were said, from the beginning of time, then the world had existed through all eternity, for, to deny the eternity of time, is to deny the eternity of God. But this doctrine did not coincide with that of the Old Testament, although it was founded in reason.

Mr. Carlile was then proceeding with an enquiry into the nature and probability of such a revelation as was mentioned in the Old Testament, but was interrupted by

The Attorney-General, who submitted that no such enquiry could be gone into.

The Chief Justice: It is a very difficult thing to stop a person on his defence, at the commencement of every sentence. I would wish to err on the side of forbearance rather than of severity. Of all cases that can be brought into a Court of Justice, this is the most painful to a Judge. It is not connected with the politics or property of the country, but with its religion. The person on the floor says I profess to be a believer in Christianity. I feel myself called on to say, that I am a firm believer in Christianity. It is most painful to me and to the gentlemen of the jury to hear the observations of the defendant, but still it is a nice and difficult point to stop him.

The Attorney-General said an enquiry into revelation could not be allowed.

Mr. Gurney: His lordship has declared it cannot be admitted.

The Chief Justice: I have said over and over again that we are not to enquire into the truth of the Christian religion; but I am unwilling to stop the defendant till his observations become offensive.

Mr. Carlile: The information charges that the book which I have published describes the Old Testament to contain obscene stories and voluptuous debaucheries, and to be a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind. Another account charges me with publishing a book in which the Bible is stated to be full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Now, how can I defend myself but by showing the truth of the book I have published? If I do prove its truth, I can plead that I published it with a good intention.

The Chief Justice: You cannot go into the truth of the Christian religion.

Mr. Carlile: It is a most improper question, I admit, to be brought before a Court of Justice.

The Chief Justice: Whatever you can state to the gentlemen of the jury, that is proper and relative to your case, shall be heard.

Mr. Carlile: But I must enquire into the truth of the Old Testament.

The Chief Justice: No, sir. As I have said before, it is the history of a sinful people, and of the divine vengeance. The gentlemen of the jury, I have no doubt, are well acquainted with it.

Mr. Carlile: You have not pointed out the divine origin of the Scriptures. I am not of opinion that it is divine; and I wish to state my reasons for holding that opinion.

The Chief Justice: Behave with decorum, and I will not interrupt you.

Mr. Carlile: I do not wish to offend any person. It is not my intention. But what I conceive to be truth, I will promulgate, be the consequence what it may.

The Chief Justice: I will take care that you shall not promulgate in this place anything that is improper.

Mr. Carlile: Your lordship has of course read the case of Galileo. He 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 £600 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 à 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 £1,500. 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.