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

R v Wolseley and Harrison (A)

State Trials Cited authorities 17 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date14 November 1822
Date14 November 1822
CourtState Trial Proceedings
31 Cha. 2. c. 2. The Habeas Corpus Act, 1679
1 Will. & M. c.18. The Toleration Act, 1689
53 Geo. 3. c.160. Doctrine of the Trinity
5 Geo. 4. c. 113. Slave Trade Act, 1824
THE KING against SAMUEL WADDINGTON. TRIAL OF SAMUEL WADDINGTON FOR PUBLISHING A BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL. JUDGMENT OF ABBOTT, C.J., BAYLEY, HOLROYD, AND BEST, J.J., ON NOVEMBER 14, 1822, ON A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. (Reported in 1 B. & C. 26.) The defendant published a pamphlet in which Jesus Christ was referred to as an " impostor " and " a murdeter in principle." The Attorney General filed against the defendant a criminal information for publishing a blasphemous libel. Abbott, C..) ., directed the jury that the publication was a blasphemous libel ; and the jury found the defendant guilty. Blasphemous libel. ()le motion for a new trial Held by Abbott, C.J., Bayley, Holroyd, and Best, J.J. To describe Jesus Christ as an impostor and a murderer in principle is a blasphemous libel. The Act 58 Geo. 8. c. 160., while relieving from penalties those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, made no change in the Common Law as to blasphemous libels. This was an information by the Attorney General against the defendant for a blasphemous libel. The defendant was tried at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity Term (1822), and convicted. [The following was the first count of the information :- Of Easter Term in the Third Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth. Middlesex (to wit) Re it remembered that Sir Robert Gifford Knight Attorney-General of our Lord the King who for our said Lord the King prosecuteth in this behalf in his own proper person cometh here into the Court of our said Lord the Sing before the King himself at Westminster on Wednesday next after five weeks from the feast day of Easter in the same Term and for our said Lord the King Fiveth the Court here to understand and be Informed that Samuel Waddington late of the parish of Saint Clement Danes in the county of Middlesex bookseller being an evil disposed and wicked person and disregarding the laws and religion of this realm and impiously and profanely devising and intending to bring the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion into disbelief and contempt among the liege subjects of our said Lord the King on the fourth day of May in the third 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 King Defender of the Faith at the parish of Saint Clement Danes in the county of Middlesex unlawfully and wickedly did publish and cause to be published acertain scandalous impious blasphemous and profane Libel of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and. the Christian religion containing therein among 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) " Moses and Mabomet governed their followers with a rod of iron and a military despotism. They were savage and ferocious men, crafty and Intriguing, and they knew how to subject to their will the stupid lit unfortunate followers who were devoted to their views. If Jesus (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) was more mild, benevolent, and temperate, it was because he had less power, and because his disposition was less cruel and resentful. His followers when clothed with power have not paid a very high compliment to their Master, for the history of their conduct evinces the most malignant design, and the earth hasbeen drenched in blood to defend that system of religion of which the meek and lowly Jesus (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) is reputed to be the author. The Christian religion is a compound and combination of all the theological writings of the followers of Moses and Jesus (meaning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ). We have no evidence that either of these men wrote any part either of the Old or New Testament. From Genesis to the Apocalypse of St. John a vast variety of fact, fable, principle, wickedness, and error s exhibited to view. The book (meaning the Holy Bible), though 1341] Trial of Samuel Waddington, 1822. [1342 bound together, appears to be in many respects discordant. The historical part has no accurate connexion. The moral part is distorted, deficient, or wicked. The doctrinal parts are either unintelligible or contrary to moral or philosophical truth." And in another part thereof according to the tenor and effect following (that is to say) " The last resort of the believer most be to the authority and command of His Majesty, who has kindly interfered for the purpose of rendering divine and holy a book (meaning the Holy Bible) whose indecency and immorality shocks all common sense and common honesty" To the high displeasure of Almighty God to the great scandal of the Christian Religion to the evil example of all others and against the peace of our said Lord the King his crown and dignity. The second count set out a passage in which Jesus Christ was described as " nothing more than an illegitimate Jew." The third count set out a passage, referring to the " debauchery and blood which now constitute so . considerable a portion of this holy and divine system." The fourth count set out passages in which it was said of " Moses, Mahomet, and Jesus," " they were all of them impostors, two of them notorious murderers in practice, and the other a murderer in principle." The fifth and sixth counts repeated portions of the above-mentioned passages.] Before the verdict was pronounced, one of the jurymen asked the Lord Chief Justice, whether a work which denied the divinity of our Saviour was a libel. The Lord Chief Justice answered that a work speaking of Jesus Christ in the language used in the publication in question was a libel ; Christianity being a part of the law of the land. November 14, 1822. The defendant in person now moved for a new trial, and urged that the Lord Chief Justice had misdirected the jury by stating that any publication in which the divinity of Jesus Christ was denied was an unlawful libel ; and he argued that, since the 53 Geo. 3. o. 160. was passed, the denying one of the persons of the Trinity to be God was no offence, and, consequently, that a publication in support of such a position was not a libel. ABBOTT, C.J. : I told the jury that any publication in which our Saviour was spoken of in the language used in the publication for which the defendant was prosecuted was a libel. I have no doubt whatever that it is a libel to publish that our Saviour was an impostor and a murderer in principle. BLYLEY, J.: It appears to me that the direction of my Lord Chief Justice was perfectly right. The 53 Geo. 3. c. 160.removed the penalties imposed by certain statutes refen.ed to in the Act, and leaves the Common Law as it stood before. There cannct be any doubt that a work which does not merely deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, but which states him to be an impostor and a murderer in principle was at Common Law, and still is, a libel. HOLROYD, J.: I have no doubt whatever that any publication in which our Saviour is spoken of in the language used in the work which was the subject of this prosecution is a libel. The direction of the Lord Chief Justice was therefore right in point of law, and there is no ground for a new trial. BEST, J.: My Lord Chief Justice reports to us that ho told the jury that it was an indictable offence to speak of Jesus Christ in the manner in which he is spoken of in the publication for which this defendant is indicted. It cannot admit of the least doubt that this direction was correct. The 53 Geo. 3. c. 160. has made no alteration in the Common Law relative to libel. If, previous to the passing of that statute, it would have been a libel to deny in any printed book the divinity of the second person in the Trinity, the same publication would be a libel now. The 53 Geo. 3. c. 160., as its title expresses, is an Act to relieve persons who impugn the doctrine of the Trinity from certain penalties. If we look at the body of the Act to see from what penalties such perso-as are relieved, we find that they are the penalties from which the 1 W. & M. sees. 1. e. 18. exempted all Protestant Dissenters, except such as denied the Trinity, and the penalties or disabilities which the 9 & 10 W. 3. imposed on those who denied the Trinity. The 1 W. & M. seas. 1. c. 18. is, as it has been usually called, an Act of toleration, or one which allows Dissenters to worship God in the mode that is agreeable to their religious opinions, and exempts them from punishment for non-attendance at the Established Church and nonconformity to its rites. The Legislature, in passing that Act, only thought of easing the consciences of Dissenters, and not of allowing them to attempt to weaken the faith of the members of the Church. The 9 & 10 Wil. 3. c. 32. was to give security to the Government by rendering men incapable of office who entertained opinions hostile to the established religion. The only penalty imposed by that statute is exclusion from office ; and that penalty is incurred by any manifestations of the d ingerous opinion, without proof of intention in the person entertaining it either to induce others to be of that opinion, or in any manner to 1343] Trial of Samuel Waddington, 1822. [1344 disturb persons of a different persuasion. This statute rested on the principle of the test laws, and did not .interfere with the Common Law relative to blasphemous libels. It is not necessary for me to say whether it be libellous to argue from the Scriptures against the divinity of Christ ; i that is not what the defendant professes to do. He argues against the divinity of Christ by denying the truth of the Scriptures. A work containing such statements. published maliciously (which the jury have in this case found) is by the Common Law a libel ; and the Legislature has never altered...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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