689. Proceedings on the Trial of DANIEL ISAAC EATON for a blasphemous Libel, tried at Guildhall, by a Special Jury,. before the Right Hon. Edward Lord Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Kings Bench, March 6, 52 GEORGE III. A. D. 1812.* COURT OF KINGS-BENCH, Guildhall, March 6th, 1812. NAMES OF THE SPECIAL JURY. W. P. Hayward, merchant, J. Dunage, merchant, J. Philipps, merchant, J. Hodgson, merchant, Daniel Lambert, merchant, T. W. Wetherington, merchant, IL Farr, merchant, G. Stevenson, merchant, Augustus Browne, merchant, Thomas Lug; merchant, S. Wilson, merchant, J. Withers, merchant, Mr. Garrow. As the defendant has no counsel and may appear to defend his cause in person, is not your lordship of opinion that he should be called. Lord Ellenborough. Certainly. The defendant was then called ; but he did not appear. Lord Ellenborough. Is the defendant aware that his trial stands for this morning Mr. Garrow. He attended on the former day and was then told the trial would come on at nine oclock this morning ; since which a letter has been written to him on the subject. Lord Ellenborough. Let the trial proceed then. * See the trials of this same defendant for seditious libels Vol. 1, of this oontii4uation p. 753 ,and 705. [In a few minutes afterwards the defendant made his appearance, and took his seat at the table.] Mr. Abbott. May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury This is an information exhibited by his majestys attorney-general against the defendant, for publishing a blasphemous and profane libel against the Christian Religion, and the divine Founder of it. Mr. Attorney General. CSir Vicary Gibbs, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas]. May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury In the execution of my official duty I have felt it incumbent on me to file this information against the defendant, for the publication of a libel, so full of impiety and blasphemy, that I had flattered myself with the hope that the British press would never have been disgraced by sending forth to the world such a work. In opening this information, you have been told, that it is for a libel against the Christian religion, and the holy Author of it; and I know not how to express to you, in terms worthy of the occasion, the regret and indignation I feel, that any man in this country should dare to disseminate such pernicious doctrines. In the publication to which I allude, the author denies the exist. eine of that religion, as derived from a divine origin, on which we all depend for eternal happni ess to which we all look for comfort and consolation ! He states, that the holy scriptures are, from beginning to end, mere fables; he tells You, that the authors of that work are liars and deceivers; he denies the miracles, 929] for a Blasphemous Libel the divinity, the resurrection, and the ascension of our Saviour ; he contradicts his existence as the son of God ; he denies his having appeared on earth, even as a man; or, rather, he treats the whole of his history as fabulous similar to that of the heroes and deities whose names are handed down to ns in the heathen mythology ! And describing what infidelity, in his acceptation of the term is, he thus expresses himself " he that believes in the story of Christ is an infidel to God." The effect of such doctrines on society at large, on every individual who composes part of it the evil consequences which must inevitably be produced by them, if they were generally disseminated, and took root in the minds of those by whom they were perused, would be dreadful in the extreme ! I am now addressing some of you who are advanced in years who have been long bound together by those links which unite society I am addressing some of you who are parents ; but all of you have ties and connections in the world I would ask those of riper age, where they are, in the close of life, to look for consolation, except in the principles of religious belief ? If they have acted with unsullied integrity, where are they to seek for their reward, but in the accomplishment of those promises which the scriptures hold forth ? Or, if they have committed offences, to whom are they to look for forgiveness, if not to him whom this impious author denies to have ever existed ? Of you who have families, I would ask this question what is your most important object, as it is your most imperative duty, to inculcate and impress on the minds of your children ? Is itnot respect and veneration for the religion of our comrnon country, which all enlightened and virtuous men, who have studied, have firmly believed in ? Do you not build all your hopes of welfare here, and happiness hereafter, on that faith to which you give implicit credit? And what would be your feelings, if you found that publications of this description had been brought under the consideration of your dearest relatives, which, having corrupted their minds, had also, as must inevitably be the case, subverted and destroyed their morals ? To what are we to look for honesty in the conduct of our-domestics from what are we to expect a faithful and conscientious discharge of their duties, if not from that strong sense of morality which a belief in our holy religion creates ? On what tie can we depend for a just performance of that which they are required to do, if the great principle of religion be thrown aside ? These are temporal considerations ; but even in this view of the ease, can there be any doubt of the pernicious tendency of this blasphemous book, the great object of which is, to lay the axe to the root of religion to extirpate it entirely from our minds to persuade us that the whole of it is a fiction to bring into disrepute that by which we are to be guided, and by means (If which we hope finally to prevail in another and a better world ? VOL. XXXI,A. D. 1812. fimo What have we to expect, if those long-established feelings and principles be expelled from the minds and the hearts of men ? What reliance have I to receive from you, gentlemen of the jury, as I know I shall, an honest verdict on the evidence which will be laid before you ? On what were you sworn that you would aet conscientiously ? To what were you referred when you swore that you would return a true verdict, " so help you God ?" You swore on that holy work which the author of this impious pamphlet holds up as a falsehood and an imposture that holy work which, for ages, has been the object of veneration. What reason have you to believe that the witnesses will speak the truth, except from the operation of those religious principles which I have already described to you ? On what are they sworn ? Are they not also sworn on that sacred volume; which the author of this vile publication has designated as the wicked invention of men ? What hold have you or I (I speak it without the possibility of its being taken in any improper sense), what hold, I ask, have we, on the mind of his lordship, that he will administer the law with strict justice, uprightness and impartiality ? What security has the defendant himself that pure justice will be rendered to him on his trial, except the oath of his lordship, which binds him " to administer impartial justice between those who prosecute, and those whose conduct is brought before the Court ?" If I were asked whether I believed that there are greater ties on his lordship than his oath of office ? I would, without hesitation, answer, that there are ties on which I could fully rely, if he had never taken that oath; but why could I place this reliance on them ? Because, from our holy religion, his lordship has imbibed such pure sentiments of truth and justice, as would direct him, independent of the obligation of an oath, to administer the law with unbiassed equity. But what hold could I possibly have on his lordships mind, if I were not assured that he was fully convinced of the great truth of that religion which is now sought to be held up to the contempt of mankind ? These are advantages, which, in temporal affairs, we find to result from a due observance of religion ; but there are other consequences of still greater moment our civil and religious Constitutions are so closely interwoven together, that they cannot be separated the attempt to destroy either is fraught with ruin to the state. When any individual assumes a situation of trust or power in the government, the constitution prescribes an oath, which obligation at - once refers the party to certain religious duties, and binds him to the proper execution of those of a civil nature. It is evidently with areference to these religious duties, that he undertakes the performance of a civiroffice, that oath is on the holy gospels of God, that he will execute, truly and faithfully, the duties allotted to him, from this obligation not even the monarch is exempted. 0 931] 52 GEORGE III. Trial of Daniel Isaac Eaton W32 We are now proceeding against the defendant, by a prosecution which calls on him to answer criminally for the act which he has committed for an offence as serious to the wellbeing of society, as any that can possibly be imagined ; for it seems most evident, that if men lose the reverence which they owe to, and, I believe, with very few exceptions, all men in this country feel for, the established religion, no effectual tie, no controlling check on their conduct, remains. You have too much sense and too much experience in the ways of the world, not to know, that if you dismissed from human nature all fear except that of temporal punishment for any wicked act which is contemplated, bad men would be let loose on society, and the evils which must result would be more numerous and more dreadful than I can describe ? I am aware that the fear of punishment would operate in a certain degree but not so powerfully as that strong conviction, that we are answerable hereafter for the conduct we pursue here and that, in proportion as it is good and commendable, or base...
