Part 3 (1/2)
eglise; et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre nostre lev: et, Sir, si
_church; and in like manner they are obliged to know our law; and, Sir, if_
poit apperer or u nous que Tevesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel
_it can be shown thus to us that the bishop has done as a layman would in such_
cas, adonq nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,' &c.(1) See S. C,
_a case, then we ought this to judge good, or otherwise not at all._
1. _Translation read to the Jury._
Fitzherbert's Abr. qu. imp. 89. Brown's Abr. qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his first book, c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and misstates it thus, 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in _holy scripture_ our law giveth credence,' and cites Prisot, mistranslating 'ancien scripture' into 'holy scripture;' whereas Prisot palpably says, 'to such laws as those of holy church have in _ancient writing_ it is proper for us to give credence to wit, to their ancient written laws.
This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot.
Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wingate's Maxims, 3; and Sheppard, t.i.t. 'Religion in 1675. copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Year-book, Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words, 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.'
”It is proper for us to respect the laws which the members of the holy church have in _ancient ma.n.u.scripts_, because they are the general source from which all laws are drawn. Thus, Sir, it is necessary for us to be acquainted with ecclesiastical law, and in like manner the judges of the ecclesiastical courts are obliged to understand our law: in consequence, Sir, if it can be shown to us that the ecclesiastical court has decided as a court of civil law would have done in the same case, then we ought to deem the judgment good; but if a civil law court would have decided otherwise, the judgment of the eclesiastical court must be deemed erroneous.”
”Ventr. 293. 3 Keble, 607, but quotes no authority. By these echoings and reechoings from one to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King v. Woolston, 2 Strange, 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law. Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and says, 'that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law,' and cites 2 Strange. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the law of England,' citing Ventris and Strange: and finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans's case in 1767, says, 'that the essential principles of revealed religion are parts of the common law,' thus engulphing Bible, Testament, and all, into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook; and that a mistranslation of the words 'ancien scripture,' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate; Hale cites n.o.body; the Court, in Woolston's case, cites Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best-read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this _judiciary forgery_; and I might go on further to show how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 10th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this between Church and State! Sing Tantararara, Rogues all, Rogues all; Sing Tantararara, Rogues all!”
Gentlemen, after hearing this statement from the pen of an educated and eminent lawyer, can you hesitate to return a verdict of acquittal? You have now a complete history of this ”_judiciary forgery_” as Jefferson terms it, before you; and I am satisfied that that which originated in a _fraudulent mistranslation_, cannot, now that the fraud is detected, long retain the force of law. On this ground, then, I confidently claim your verdict.
Gentlemen, I now come to the trade argument--that it is a great hards.h.i.+p and injustice to hold a bookseller responsible for the contents of the books he sells.
I am a general bookseller; and so great is the compet.i.tion, and so fully is my time occupied, that I have no time to spare for reading the various works in my shop, even if I had the inclination. My excellent and amiable son, before his death, and before I had any idea of this prosecution, drew up a paper for the management of my business, by which it appears that upwards of seventy weekly periodicals pa.s.s through my hands every week, besides books and many other periodicals that are merely collected to order. Amongst them will be found every possible variety--”The Church of England Magazine,” ”The Sacred Alb.u.m,” and many others maintaining contradictory and conflicting opinions; but I do not hold myself responsible--either legally or morally--for any of them. I have no right to set myself up as a censor of the press. I sell them all--and am not responsible for any man's opinions upon an abstract or general subject. When the subject matter of a book relates to the people at large, the public alone should decide upon its merits. If the book be a good one, they will support it; if a bad one, they will condemn and reject it. This is the only proper punishment for a bad author. The line of duty I mark out for myself in that I will never sell obscene publications--works that demoralise and corrupt society--nor any attacks upon private character; and if a person comes to me complaining that his character has been falsely and slanderously attacked, I sell no more of that work. What more can be expected from a general bookseller? If the sale of a controversial book is to be suppressed, because it contains a few pa.s.sages in bad taste, and of objectionable phraseology, then the sale of the Bible itself must be prohibited, for that book contains many pa.s.sages far more objectionable in the present day than any to be found in ”Haslam's Letters to the Clergy.” I have here a list of pa.s.sages from the Bible, of a highly objectionable character; but as I perceive a number of ladies in the court, I will not pollute their ears, nor shock the feelings of the Jury, by reading them. My only object in alluding to them, is to show that if the principle of selecting two or three objectionable pa.s.sages from a work is to lead to its condemnation, and the punishment of the bookseller, then I might with equal justice be condemned for selling the Bible itself. On this ground, also, I claim and am ent.i.tled to your verdict.
Gentlemen, the Attorney-General has not done justice to Mr. Haslam; he has dwelt upon the pa.s.sages contained in the indictment, but has left the Jury in total ignorance of the general nature of the work. In many parts of the book are to be found pa.s.sages of great beauty. So far from a charge of blasphemy fairly attaching to Mr. Haslam's Letters, he uniformly declares that he rejects the Jewish Scriptures because they are _irrational_, and _dishonour_ the G.o.d ”that governs the universe.” I will read a pa.s.sage from his Second Letter, which shows the veneration he entertains for the Deity.
”But is it not monstrous, that that power which gives life and motion to millions of worlds; which guides them in their eternal revolutions in the boundless ocean of s.p.a.ce, and which preserves them in everlasting order and harmony; is it not monstrous that that power should be represented in this ridiculous point of view? Vain, violent, and boisterous, without the least indication of any thing rational, good, or merciful in any of his proceedings. Such a G.o.d may be the G.o.d of the Christians, but he is not the G.o.d who governs the universe. That G.o.d is no more to be compared to the Bible G.o.d, than the dazzling sun is to be compared to the glimmering light of a candle.”
Mr. Haslam's work has many other pa.s.sages of the same description; and the Attorney-General will see that the pa.s.sage in the Eighth Letter--almost the only objectionable pa.s.sage in the work--was not deliberately designed to give offence, when I tell him that the author, in deference to the opinion of his friends, has cancelled the objectionable pa.s.sage, and re-written it. Now what would the learned Attorney-General have more? The object of prosecution has been always held to be preventive, or corrective, not vindictive. The object sought, then, is already attained. Mr. Haslam has antic.i.p.ated your wishes by correcting the objectionable pa.s.sage.
Gentlemen, I have urged sufficient, I hope, to induce you to give me your verdict; but before I conclude, I will read a pa.s.sage from the works of Dean Swift, which is worthy of your profound attention.
”Whoever,” he says, ”could restore, in any degree, brotherly love among men, would be an instrument of more good to society than ever was or will be done by all the statesmen in the world.”
Gentlemen, let us commence the glorious work to-day. I will tell you how you can do more towards spreading brotherly love among men, than all the statesmen in the world will be able to accomplish. Say to the Government, by your verdict, the publication of opinions shall be free.
This will spread brotherly love among men; for what is it that prevents brotherly love from dwelling among men? The odious principle of coercion. I do not believe the Government wish to follow up these prosecutions if they can avoid it. They have a precedent, then, in the case of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Carlile was in prison nearly _seven years_, and many of his shopmen were imprisoned for various terras. Did such vindictive persecutions change their opinions, or stop the sale of the works prosecuted? Quite the contrary. The individuals became confirmed and strengthened in their opinions, and all the prosecuted works are now on sale in every bookseller's shop in London. The public began to consider them martyrs, and Sir Robert Peel and the Government of that day saw the injustice and cruelty of such proceedings, abandoned all prosecutions, and liberated those whose terms of imprisonment were unexpired. Surely those now in authority are not the men to recommence these prosecutions for matters of opinion; and my quarrel with them is, that they have not the moral courage to reply to the taunts of the Bishop of Exeter, by alluding to this case of Sir Robert Peel's Government; and boldly declaring that henceforth public opinion shall be the only censor. Abolish that hateful principle of coercion for matters of opinion, and mutual toleration, respect, and brotherly kindness, will henceforth prevail.
Gentlemen, Christianity gives no sanction to persecution. The religion of Jesus, rightly understood, is a practical and benevolent system. It is founded on two great commandments, love of G.o.d and love of Man. The _first_ commandment, in fact, resolves itself into a practical observance of the _second_; for it is expressly declared that, ”_If a man say, I love G.o.d, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love G.o.d whom he hath not seen_?”(1) Recollect, Gentlemen, ”_Love worketh no ill to his neighbour_.”(2) Jesus encourages all men to think for themselves. This is his exhortation--”_Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is right?*(3)” But while he has encouraged the exercise of mind, he has not made eternal happiness to depend upon *belief_ but upon their _actions_; and the great evil of society is attempting to coerce people into the belief of that which they cannot believe--a system to which, I hope, your verdict to-day will put a stop.
1. 1 John iv.; 20, 2. Rom. xiii.; 10, 3. Luke xii.; 57
Gentlemen, the Founder of Christianity, in his parable of the Last Judgment, tells us distinctly that men are to be judged by their _actions_ and not by their _opinions_; for he describes himself as inviting the righteous to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world: ”For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” He then represents the righteous as saying, ”Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee I or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer, Inasmuch AS YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, ye have done it unto me.” He then represents himself as denouncing the unrighteous for giving him no meat, nor drink; for not clothing him when naked, nor visiting him when sick; and when they desire to know when he required these things, and they did not minister unto him, he replies, ”Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me.” Here, you perceive, there is no particular belief enjoined, none condemned.
All men are to be judged by their actions--not by their belief.
Gentlemen, I have now urged all that I deem necessary to ensure an acquittal. I hope you will consider well the consequences of your verdict, and reflect upon the wickedness and impolicy of tearing a man from his family, for selling a book in the ordinary course of his business. If I have said anything in the course of my address to raise a prejudice in your minds, I hope you will discard it, and do justice by p.r.o.nouncing an acquittal.