Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v Hetherington

State Trials Cited authorities 7 Cited in 9 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date20 January 1841
Date20 January 1841
CourtState Trial Proceedings
6 & 7 Vict. c. 96. The Libel Act, 1843 (Lord Campbell”s Act)
51 & 52 Vict. c. 46. Criminal Law : Declaration, Oath
THE QUEEN against HETHERINGTON. TRIAL OF HENRY HETHERINGTON FOR PUBLISHING A BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL, BEFORE LORD DENMAN, L.C.J., AND A SPECIAL JURY, IN THE COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH AT WESTMINSTER, DECEMBER 8, 1840. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, BEFORE LORD DENMAN, L.C.J., LITTLEDALE, COLERIDGE, AND PATTESON, JJ., JANUARY 20, 1841. (Reported in 5 Jur. 529.) Haslam”s " Letters to the Clergy of all Denominations " were sold at the defendant”s shop in the Strand, and his name appeared on the title page of each Letter as one of the publishers. In Letter 8 the Old Testament was referred to as " wretched stuff," and " a disgrace to ourang outangs," and its author described as a " random idiot." Indictment for blasphemous libel. Verdict, Guilty. 1. Blasphemous Libel Test of Criminality. Ruled by Lord Denman, L.C.J., that the question in prosecutions for blasphemy is not altogether a matter of opinion, but in a great degree, of tone, and style, and spirit. A difference of opinion may subsist, not only as between different sects of Christians, but also with regard to the great doctrines of Christianity itself, and discussions upon that subject, if they be conducted in a sober, and temperate, and decent style, may be tolerated, and may take place without criminality attaching to them ; but if the tone and spirit is that of offence and ridicule, which leaves the judgment really not free to act, and therefore cannot be truly called an appeal to the judgment, but an appeal to the wild and improper feelings of the human mind, more particularly in the younger part of the community, in suph a case the jury would hardly feel it possible to say that such opinions so expressed did not deserve the character affixed to them in the indictment. 2. Indictment for Blasphemous Libel Evidence of Publication. On an indictment for publishing a blasphemous libel, evidence that the libel was sold in the defendant”s shop, and that his name appeared on the title page as one of the publishers, is evidence of publication.(a) 3. Attacks on the Old Testatizent. Held by the Court on motion for a new trial It is indictable at common law to publish a blasphemous libel of and concerning the Old Testament. (a) But see Emmens v. Pottle, 16 Q.B.D. 354, and direction of Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Rey. v. Bradlaugh, 15 Cox, C.C. 227, that the provision in Lord Campbell”s Libel Act (6 & 7 Viet. c. 96.), s. 7, as to allowing exculpatory evidence in answer to a prima facie case of liability for publication applies to a prosecution for publishing a blasphemous libel. As to section 7, see further Reg. v. Holbrook, 3 Q.B.D. 60, and 4 Q.B.D. 42. COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH. December 8, 1840. Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Lord DENMAN, L.C.J., and a Middlesex Special Jury. This was a prosecution instituted by the Attorney General (Sir John Campbell) against Henry Hetherington,(a) bookseller, (a) For Hetherington see article by Mr. G. J. Holyoake in the Dictionary of National Bioof 126, Strand, for the publication of a blasphemous libel. A I,rue bill was found by a Middlesex grand jury in the Court of Queen”s Bench at Westminster, April 28, 1840. On the names of the gentlemen summoned as special jurymen being called over, only five answered to their names. graphy ; also " Life and Character of Henry Hetherington," by the same author. London, 1849. 565] The Queen against Hetherington, 1840. [566 The Attorney General prayed a tales, when the following were sworn :- The Jury. Special :- Robert Savage, Esq., 11, Montagu Place, Bloomsbury. James Arboine, merchant, 3, Brunswick Square. William Fechney Black, merchant, Wilton Place. Charles Frederick Barnwell, Esq., 44, Woburn Place. Robert Eglinton, merchant, 29, Woburn Square. Common jurors :- Charles Ricketts, stove-maker, 5, Agar Street, West Strand. William Polden, licensed victualler, Villiers Street, Strand. John Osborne, confectioner, 401, Strand. .John Johnson Ruffell, painter, 24, Church Street, Soho. Thomas Reid, baker, 24, Old Compton Street, Soho. Charles Phillips, ivory brush-maker, 20, King Street, Soho. J. Mathew, baker, 34, Greek Street, Soho. Counsel for the Crown : The Attorney General (Sir John Campbell),(a) the Solicitor General (Sir Thomas Wilde),(h) Sir Frederic!: Pollocic,(c) Wightman,(d) and Butt. The defendant appeared in person. Butt opened the indictment, which was in the following form :- First count. Middlesex to wit : The jurors for our lady the Queen upon their oath present, that Henry Hetherington, late of Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, bookseller, being a wicked, impious, and ill-disposed person, and having no regard for the laws and religion of this realm, but most wickedly, blasphemously, impiously, and profanely devising and intending to asperse and vilify that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, on the third day of February, in the third year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did publish and cause to be published, a certain scandalous, impious, and blasphemous libel, of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, containing therein, amongst other things, divers scandalous, impious, and blasphemous matters of and concerning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, according to the tenor and effect following, that is to say, What wretched stuff this Bible (mean- (a) Afterwards Lord Chancellor. (6) 01 (c) Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. (d) #1 a Justice of the Queen”s Bench. ing that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament) is, to be sure ! What a random idiot its author must have been ! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got. Such a book is actually a disgrace to ourang outangs, much less to men. I would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know we believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our intellects ? What must they think of our incredible foolery ? And we not only believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word of God, as a production of infinite wisdom. Was insanity ever more complete ? I for one, however, renounce the book ; I renounce it as a vile compound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense, as a fraud and a cheat, and as an insult to God,"(a) to the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal, infamy, and contempt of that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity. The second count set out the following passage, with the same inuendoes: " One great question between you and me is, Is the Bible (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament) the word of God, or is it not. I assert that it is not the word of God, and you assert that it is ; and I not only assert that it is not the word of God, but that it is a book containing more blunders, more ignorance, and more nonsense than any book to be found in the universe."(b) The third count set out the following passages, with the same innendoes "My object, and I fearlessly state it, is to expose this book (meaning that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament) in such a manner that the children of the Stockport Sunday School will reject it Atith contempt " ; and "Such a book ought to he rejected by every one. The human race have been too long gulled with such trash. Moses was the inventor of this grand cheat ; and although it may have done some little towards frightening people into what is called morality, the purpose for which Moses invented it is now out of date.(c) SPEECH FOR THE CROWN. Attorney General: May it please your Lordships, Gentlemen of the Jury, This is an indictment found by the Grand Jury for the county of Middlesex against the defendant for having published certain blasphemous libels. Till I am acquainted with the line of defence which is to be attempted, I shall address you very briefly. If I prove according to my instructions that the defendant is the publisher of the books (a) Letter 3, p. 12. (b) Letter 5, p. 3. (c) Letter 13, p. 4. 567] The Queen against which are the subject of this prosecution, 1 humbly apprehend that you cannot hesitate for a moment to find him guilty. You will not only be of opinion that he bas committed an offence for which he is liable to be prosecuted, but that it is also indispensably necessary to put the law in motion against him. I do not hesitate to confess that I have instituted the prosecution with the greatest reluctance; I am aware of the evils arising from such a discussion ; but I am convinced that greater evils would have arisen from further forbearance. The defendant has ostentatiously and obstinately persisted in a course which leaves me no choice but to bring him be.. fore a jury of his country that they may decide upon his conduct. ” I rejoice to think that every man in England may worship God according to his conscience, and with decency he may combat the religious opinions of others. The law fully recognises the right of all who take the holy Scriptures for their guide to impugn the peculiar doctrines of the Established Church. How far the attempt of an unfortunate and misguided man, by historical research and sincere reasoning, to question the truth of Christianity itself, could be defended in a court of justice it is unnecessary now to determine ; but I am sure that it would be inexpedient and improper to present such a man at the bar of a criminal court, and to pray against him sentence of fine and imprisonment. His book may be answered ; his errors exposed ; his sophisms may be refuted. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • R v Lemon R v Gay News Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • Invalid date
    ...(post, pp. 640F-641A, 645F-646B, 657E-658A, 664E-666A). Rex v. Dean of St. Asaph (1784) 21 St.Tr. 847; Reg. v. Hetherington (1841) 4 St.Tr.N.S. 563; Reg. v. Bradlaugh(1883) 15 Cox C.C. 217 and Reg. v. Ramsay and Foote (1883) 15 Cox C.C. 231 applied. Rex v. Aldred (1909) 22 Cox C.C. 1 consid......
  • R v Lemon
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 17 March 1978
    ...threat of a breach of the peace. One finds a reflection of this approach in the summing-up of Lord Denman, Chief Justice, to the jury in Hetherington's case, (1840) 4 State Trials (New Series) 563, at page 590-591. We quote the passage in full. 35 "Now, gentlemen, upon the question whether ......
  • R (Green) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 5 December 2007
    ...But by the nineteenth century, it became necessary to identify the second element separately. Lord Denman CJ's direction to the jury in R v Hetherington (1841) 4 St Tr NS 563 at 590 began to do so: "Because, a difference of opinion may subsist, not only as between different sects of Christi......
  • Whitehouse v Gay News Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 February 1979
    ...so long as such opinions were expressed in temperate language and not in terms of offence, insult or ridicule. R. v. Hetherington (1841) 4 St. Tr. N.S. 563. This introduces into the concept of the actus reus, in addition to the act of publication itself, the effect that the material publish......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Bearing a Constitutional Cross: Examining Blasphemy and the Judicial Role in Corway v. Independent Newspapers
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. III-2000, January 2000
    • 1 January 2000
    ...Mellor Press, forthcoming), at 56. 22 (1883) 15 Cox CC 230. 23 Ibid., at 235. This actus reus was first argued in R. v. Hetherington (1841) 4 St Tr (ns) 563; 5 Jur 529, but it is Ramsay and Foote which is the true turning point in the law since its ratio was followed in all subsequent prose......
  • Blasphemy: Religion Challenges Freedom of Speech
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 1-17, January 2017
    • 1 January 2017
    ...to the House of Commons on Jewish Emancipation, April 7 th , 1833. 11 Gathercole’s Case (1838) 168 E.R. 1140 12 R v Hetherington (1841) 4 St Tr (NS) 563 13 R v Lemon, R v Gay News (1979) 143 JP 315 [2017] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 1 17 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL The exact natur......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT