tenor and effect following (that is to say) "As to the New Testament," (meaning that part of the Holy Scriptures called the New Testament) if it be brought and tried by that standard, which, as Middleton wisely says, God has revealed to our senses of his almighty power and wisdom in the creation and government of the visible universe, it will be found equally as false, paltry, aud absurd as the Old," (meaning that part of the Holy Scriptures called the Old Testament)-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 diguity. Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King, who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecuteth for our said Lord the King, prayeth the consideration of the Court here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against him the said Richard Carlile in this behalf, to inake him answer to our said Lord the King, touching and con cerning the premises aforesaid.

The Counts being now read,

Mr. Carlile observed, I will dispense, my Lord, with the further reading of the passages charged as libellous.

The Chief Justice nodded assent; and after a short pause,

Mr. Carlile rose, and spoke to the following effect:

Gentlemen of the Jury,

I rise in my own defence, and I stand before you with a deep impression of the importance of the question now under your consideration; that question is of no less importance, than, whether the doctrines or creeds of any

man

or sect of persons shall be deemed infallible and screened from investigation, or whether we shall in this country, where toleration and the liberty of the press are so much boasted of, be placed under the continual fear of being harassed with prosecution and ruinous expense, similar to this under which I am now struggling, for a fair, candid, honest, calm, and argumentative enquiry into the origin of the religious establishments of this and other countries. It is a question of the first magnitude; it is a question that requires the most extensive research and examination; it is a question that requires open and unrestrained discussion; it is a question, that, on your part, requires the most mature deliberation. I feel an imperative necessity in examining it in all its bearings; and the justification of defending not only my intentions as a publisher of the Age of Reason, but the intentions of its author also, presuming that we were actuated by similar motives; which motives, Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall make appear to you were good, and not wicked and

blasphemous as the Information falsely sets forth: I have therefore, Gentlemen of the Jury, to entreat your patience to a full investigation of the real merits of this publication, and that you will not think the time (however long) mis-spent, when the eyes of the whole country are anxiously turned towards you, with a hope that you will not hesitate to give a verdict according to your consciences and the evidence adduced before you.

Gentlemen of the Jury, I have said the eyes of the whole country are turned towards you; it is a question in which all feel interested, for amongst the immense number of communications I have received from various parts of the country, some with congratulations and some for condolence, on the subject of the prosecutions, I have found many avowing their belief in the Christian doctrines and the validity of the books called the Old and New Testament, and yet deprecating the prosecution of any person for enquiring into them. I am satisfied that all the reasonable and unprejudiced part of the community will sympathize with me, and hail with pleasure the verdict of Not Guilty. But they who would call for a verdict of guilty are persons of like dispositions to those who formerly kindled the flames in Smithfield, and have sanctioned all the massacre and torture that have been predominant since the origin of Christianity: I have no hesitation in saying, that where the disposition has been intolerant, depraved, and oppressive, Christianity has had no restraint on it, but has been a cloak for its vices.

Before I go further into the argument, I will make some few observations on what has fallen from Mr. Attorney-General.

The Learned Gentleman has opened his speech with the usual cant, yes, cant I may call it, which all AttorniesGeneral and prosecutors have used for many years, about the liberty of the press and the importance of free discussion. But I do not think he has evinced much of the spirit of either in the observations he has just addressed to you. He calls upon you to stop both in their progress, and his whole charge amounts to no more than has often been made before, and made in very nearly the same terms. His whole speech is no more than a parody on the speeches of former Attornies-General. He talks of the liberty and the licentiousness of the Press, but how has he attempted to define it? There is no novelty in the arguments he has used, nor no difficulty in refuting them. He states, Gentlemen, that the eyes of the country are upon you, and I say so too

and I hope to make it appear to you, that I am not the person described by that Learned Gentleman. He has said, that the Christian religion proceeds from God, that the Christian religion teaches mildness and forbearance: then why does he bring me here? Because his ideas differ from mine as regards the Deity-that Deity who does not need the Attorney-General to protect him. The Learned Gentleman says, there is a law applicable to this case, but he went no further than asserting it. And if there really be a law applicable to the case, I am sure he will have no hesitation to admit that the thirty-nine Articles are part and parcel of the law. Now, the first of these articles, entitled, "Of Faith in the Holy Trinity," sets out, that

"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot therefore be denied by the Attorney-General--or if it be denied, he does not admit the divinity of what is called Christianity. The Learned Gentleman has quoted, with others, the case of Eaton, which was the last case of the kind, with the exception of Mr. Hone's case, where the charge was the same, although the charged was different; but subsequent to that case an Act of Parliament was passed for the especial relief of those who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, how will be be able to reconcile this? The first of the thirty-nine Articles says one thing, and the Act of Parliament says another-they contradict each other, in point of fact, and yet such are the things represented by the Learned Gentleman as part and parcel of the law of the land. I hold in my hand, Gentlemen, the Act of the 53d of the King, which I shall read to you, an Act expressly passed for the relief of the Unitarians, and all other persons who disbelieve the doctrine of the 'l'rinity:

An Act to relieve persons who impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity from certain penalties. 21st July, 1813.

"Whereas, in the nineteenth year of his present Majesty an act was passed, intituled an act for the further relief of Protestant Dissenting ministers and schoolmasters; and it is expedient to enact as hereinafter provided: Be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Par

liament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That so much of an act passed in the first year of the reign of King Wil liam and Queen Mary, intituled an act for exempting his Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England, from the penalties of certain laws, as provides that that act or any thing therein coutained should not extend or be construed to extend to give any ease, benefit, or advantage to persons denying the Trinity as therein mentioned, he and the same is hereby repealed.

"II. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of another act passed in the ninth and tenth years of the reign of King William, intituled an act for the more effectual suppressing blasphemy and profaneness, so far as the same relate to persons denying as therein mentioned, respecting the Holy Trinity, be and the same are hereby repealed.

"III. And whereas it is expedient to repeal an act, passed in the Parliament of Scotland in the first Parliament of King Charles the Second, intituled an act against the crime of blasphemy; and another act, passed in the Parliament of Scotland in the first Parliament of King William, intituled act against blasphemy; which acts respectively ordain the punishment of death; be it therefore enacted, That the said acts and each of them shall be, and the same are and is hereby repealed."

Now, Gentlemen, I have no hesitation in asserting, that this act is a repeal of all former acts upon the subject of holding doctrines differing from those of the Trinity; it is, in short, a repeal of the first article of those thirty-nine, which are held to be divine by the great majority of those who call themselves Christians, and without a belief in which they cannot be considered what they profess themselves to be. The latter act, I should imagine, ought to have the first operation; and where two acts are made upon one subject, such as the 9th and 10th of William and Mary, and the 53d of the King, but the latter repealing the former, 1 should take the latest as the existing law upon the subject. And if that be the case, which cannot be denied, Deism is also a part and parcel of the law of the land. For myself, I believe the Deity to be single and without any appendages. As such I worship and revere him, and cannot imagine why the open avowal of my belief should call for the interference of this or any other court. The act before me tolerates the impugning of the Trinity-it relieves those who so impugn it, from all the penalties enforced or contained in all former acts upon the subject, and therefore most decidedly admits Deism, and should, to deal out justice, protect its professors from all punishment. I know of no law, or of any court of law that can properly take

cognizance of a charge of blasphemy, which consisting in speaking ill or irreverently of the Deity, is a matter between the person offending and the Deity offended. It is for him alone to deal as he thinks proper with a blasphemer. But this act which I have read, allows persons to disbelieve the Trinity, and so far to blaspheme or impugn that doctrine, on which Christianity rests for its support. It is difficult, however, to define the meaning of the word blasphemy. The Attorney-General says, the information against met is founded on the common law; but I think resort should never be had to the common law in preference to the statute law, and under the statute I have cited to you, I felt myself justified in publishing the Age of Reason by Mr. Paine. I am aware there is a statute called the 9th and 10th of Wil-` liam and Mary, entitled "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness."

"Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed and published many blasphemous and impious opinions, contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and may prove destructive to the peace and welfare of this kingdom: Wherefore, for the more effectual suppressing of the said detestable crimes, be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any person or persons, having heen educated in, or at any time having made profession of the Christian religion within this realm, shall by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity to be God, or shall assert or maintain there are more Gods than one, or shall deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of Divine authority, and shall upon indictment or information in any of his Majesty's courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, be thereof lawfully convicted by the oath of two or more credible witnesses; such person or persons for the first offence shall be adjudged incapable and disabled in law, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, to have or enjoy any office or offices, employment or employments, ecclesiastical, civil or military, or any part in them, or any profit and advantage appertaining to them, or any of them: And if any person or persons so convicted as aforesaid, shall at the time of his or their conviction, enjoy or possess any office, place or employment, such office, place or employment shall be void, and is hereby declared void: And if such person or persons shall be a second time lawfully convicted as aforesaid, of all or any the aforesaid crime or crimes, that then he or they shall from thenceforth be disabled to sue, prosecute, plead or use any action or information in any court of law or