THE KING against CARLILE. TRIAL OF MARY NN CARLILE FOR A BLAsprmmous LIBEL BEFORE M.R. JUSTICE BEST AND A SPECIAL JURY IN THE COURT OF KINGS BENCH, GUILDHALL, ON JULY 24, 1821. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL (BEFORE ABBOTT, C.J., AND BAYLEY, Ho", ROYD, AND BEST, J.J.) ON NOVEMRER 12, 1821. The defendant sold a pamphlet in which the morality of the Old Testament and New Testament was contrasted, and in which it was alleged that the former was "full of contradictions and. wiekeduess." She was indicted for publishing a blasphemous libel. Verdict, guilty. 1. Blasphemous Libel. Ruled (by Best, J.), (1) that any writing which has a tendency to vilify the Cliristiadreligion or the books of the Old and New Testament is a blasphemous libel ; and that the question for the jury, when publication was proved, was, whether the alleged libel was a temperate discussion of the truth of the Christian religion, or an attempt to vilify and degrade it, to excite prejudice, and not to convince. (See Reg. v. Bradlaugh and others, 15 Cox C.C. 217 ; Reg. v. Ramsay and Foote, 15 Cox C.C. 231.) 2, Scandalous Defence. The fact that the judge refused to permit the defendant to proceed with a written defence from which she declined to omit matter appearing to him to be scandalous, held to be no ground for a new trial. Guildhall, July 24, 1321. Before BEST, J., and a Special Jury. Counsel for the Crown : Gurney (a) and 11/an-pat. The following jurymen were sworn: David Price, of Upper Thames Street ; John Stacey, of Smithfield ; John Cattley, of Queenhithe ; James Thompson, of Dunstan Court; William King, of Cloak Line; Thomas Brown, of College Hill; Charles In gall, of Thames Street; Thomas Conway, of Maids Lane ; Thomas Edmonds, of Coleman Street ; Henry Houghton, of Kings Arms Yard; Newman Smith, of Queen Street ; Edmond Brooker, of Budge Row. .21/arryat was about to open the pleadings, when- -The Defendant handed a paper to the judge, requesting his Lordship to ask the jury whether any of them were members of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. BEST, J., did not think the fact would be a ground for challenge. His Lordship, however, put the question. The jury all replied in the negative. (a) Afterwards a Baron of the Exchequer. Gurney said that no such gentleman would have been put upon the jury. The Defendant said that there was a gentleman upon the jury who was a member of the Constitutional Society.(a) BEST, J.: This is not the Constitutional Society prosecution ; it is the ncxt.(b) Defendant : 1 do not. think a member of the Consti utional Association fit to serve on any jury that is to try me. BEST, J., did not think that the fact, if it existed, would be any ground of objection; but, if there was any gentleman upon the jury belonging to the Association, he would request him to retire. (a) This society was founded on De. umber 12, 1820, for the purpose of suppress.. in, seditious and blasphemous publications. The subject of the nature of the society was brought before the House of Commons ; and Broughton, Lushington, and other members questioned its legality. Hansard, 5 N.S. 1046, 1114, 1181, 1484 ; Annual Register, 1821, 60, 482 ; 1822, 216 ; Prentices Historical Sketches of Manchester, 237; Papers ou Grand Juries by Sir J. E. IV ilmot, 39; and see below, p. (b) The defendant was tried the same day at Guildhall for publishing a seditious libel entitled " A New Years Address to the Reformers of Great Britain." The jury disagreed. 1035] Trial of Mary Ann Carlile, 1821. [1036 Defendant : Mr. Houghton is a member. Houghton begged to contradict that statement. He belonged to no such society. Defendant : The name of Houghton, is on the list. Houghton: Then it is the name of some other person. Marryat opened the indictment, the first count of which was as follows : LONDON To wit The jurors upon their oath present that Mary Ann Carlile late of London bookseller being an evil disposed and wicked person and disregarding the laws and religion of this realm and wickedly and profanely devising and intending to bring the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into disbelief and contempt among the people of this kingdom on the third day of March in the second year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Fourth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Ring Defender of the Faith at London (that is to say) at the parish of Saint Dunstan in the West in the Ward of Farringdon Without in London aforesaid unlawfully and wickedly did sell utter and publish and caused to be sold uttered and published a certain scandalous impious blasphemous and profane Libel of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion containing therein amongst other things divers scandalous impious blasphemous and profane matters and things of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion in one part thereof according to the tenor and effect following (that is to say) " Archbishop Tillotson says "The difference between the style of the Old and New Testament is so very remarkable that one of the greatest sects in the primitive times did upon this very ground found their heresy of two Gods, the one, evil, fierce, and cruel, whom they called the God of the Old Testament. The other was good, kind, and merciful, whom they called the God of the New Testament. So great a difference is there between the representations that are given of God in the books of the Jewish and Christian religion as to give at least some colour and pretence to an imagination of two Gods. Thus far Tillotson. But the case was that, as the Church had picked out several passages from the Old Testament which she most absurdly and falsely calls prophecies of Jesus Christ (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), whereas there is no prophecy of any such person as any one may see by examining the passages and the cases to which they apply, she was under the necessity of keeping up the credit of the Old Testament, because if, that fell the other (meaning that part of the Holy Bible called the New Testament) would soon follow, and the Christian system of faith would soon be at an end. As a book of morals there are several parts of the New Testament that are good, but they are no other than what had been preached in the Eastern world several hundred years before Christ was born. Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, who died five hundred years before the timeof Christ (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), says, Acknowledge thy benefits by the return of benefits, but never revenge injuries. The clergy in Popish countries were cunning enough to know that if the Old Testament was made public, the fallacy of the New (meaning that part of the Holy Bible called the New Testament) with respect to Christ (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) would be detected, and they prohibited the use of it, and always took it away wherever they found it. The Deists, on the contrary, always encouraged the reading it, that people might see and judge for themselves that a hook (meaning that part of the Holy Bible called the Old Testament) so full of contradictions and wickedness could not he the word of God, and that we dishonour God by ascribing it to him." To the high displeasure of Almighty God to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion to the evil example of all other persons and against the peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity. [The second count set out the libel from " The Deists, on the contrary " to " ascribing it to him" with the same innuendoes as in the first count. Tho third count set out the libel from " The Clergy in Popish countries " to " ascribing it to him. "(a) The defendant pleaded not guilty. Gurney stated that the defendant stood indicted for selling a pamphlet entitled " An Appendix to the Theological Works of Thomas Paine." She was the sister of Richard Cathie, and after the conviction of that individual and of his wife,(b) carried on their business at the shop in Fleet Street. How long that shop, which was a disgrace to the magistracy of the City of London, would be allowed to remain open, he could not tell. But he trusted that the conviction of the present defendant would be one step made towards the removal of the nuisance. The effrontery with which arrangements were made for continuing the sale of Mr. Carliles libels would be best shown to the jury by an advertisement which appeared in the Republican of the 27th October, 1820. The paragraph was this :- " In consequence of the verdict of Guilty given against Mrs. Carlile for selling Sherwins Life of Paine and No. 9, vol. 1, of the Republican, she is now liable to banishment for serving in the shop, according to our glorious Constitu- (a) There was a fourth count, which, both in the indictment and the Crown Roll, is the same as the second. (h) See above, p. 296. Jane Carlile, the wife of Richard Carlile, was sentenced on February 3, 1821, to two years imprisonment for publishing a defence of tyrannicide. As to the prosecutions of Carlile and members of his family, see Life of Carlile by Hol)oake and article in Westminster lleview attributed to J. S. Mill, July 1824. (Lains Life of Mill, p. 23.) 1037] Trial of dliary Ann Carlile, 1821. [1038 tion ; the business will therefore be managed by Mary Anne Carlile, sister of it. Carte e, on the behalf of the infant children, or rather on behalf of the whole family. In case tie house, 55, Fleet Street, should again be exposed to the violence of the legal thieves, the business will be opened as near to...
