mine and distinguish the different degrees of credit to which persons are entitled, who speak to what they do know, in preference to those who speak only from what they do not know: and after duly weighing all these circumstances, you are to give your verdict accordingly.

If you believe that the defendant was actuated by honest and laudable motives, that he spoke neither the words contained in the indictment, nor any words capable of a similar construction; if you believe that what was said about force, applied not to a reform in parliament, and that the defendant did not recommend forcible means to obtain a reform, you must acquit him; but if, on the contrary, you think the words proved, in substance at least, and that their application was such as is stated in the indictment, you must give a verdict for the crown.

SUMMING UP

Mr. Justice Ashhurst.-Gentlemen of the Jury. The great length of time which has already been engaged in the present trial, will prevent me from troubling you with any observations, except such as I shall deem absolutely necessary, in the discharge of my duty, between the crown, and the defendant, who is the object of this prosecution.

I shall reserve whatever remarks I shall submit to your consideration, until I have repeated to you the evidence which has been adduced to support the charge; and also that which has been brought forward by the defendant.

[Here his lordship recapitulated the whole of the evidence.]

This, gentlemen, is the whole of the evidence. You are, in the first place, to consider, whether the words contained in the indictment were spoken by the defendant; and, in the next place, whether they were spoken with the intention there charged; that is, whether they had reference to the subjects contained in the indictment, or to those which have been urged in the defence-and this is a very important consideration.

In the first place, with respect to Corsica, the words in the indictment are, that "his majesty and his ministers are well convinced, that anuual parliaments and universal suffrage are most conducive to the happiness of the people, and have granted it to Corsica, though he has withheld that right from his natural subjects." Gentlemen, the words of the first witness, Joseph Mason Guest, are, that his majesty was aware that such were most conducive to the happiness of his people. The grammatical signification of these sentences, are not the same; and you, gentlemen, must consider what meaning they will bear, and exercise your judgment thereon. Benjamin Sutton, the other witness, says the words were, his majesty was aware that it was not inconsistent with the happiness of

his people-this is still wider from the indict ment, and is different from the evidence of Guest. On the other hand, the witnesses called by the defendant, deny that this was said of his majesty; but that he (John Binns) was convinced, and so forth. You, gentlemen, are to decide what degree of credit is to be given to these witnesses respectively; and on the whole, to determine whether this charge is substantiated. You have been told by the counsel for the prosecution, that these variations do not materially affect the sense; but on this you are to exercise your judgment, and thereby form your determination.

In the next place, with respect to the third count, the words in the indictment are,"our object is to obtain it by every peaceable means in our power, for it would be shocking to humanity to shed the blood of our fellowcreatures; but if they continue obstinate, and there should be a time when force is necessary to be used, I hope there is not a citizen in the room but would shed his last drop of blood, either in the field or on the scaffold." These words, or words of the same import, were positively sworn to by Joseph Mason Guest; but the other witness, Benjamin Sutton, does not swear to this; on the contrary, he says, he understood Mr. Binns, their object, namely, a reform in parliament, was to be brought about by legal and peaceable means. All the witnesses, for the defendant agree, that the latter part of these words were spoken, namely "that if there should be a time when force was necessary to be used, I hope there is not a citizen in the room," and so forth. These words, or words of exactly the same import; are admitted to have been spoken by the defendant's own witnesses; but they deny that these words referred to the obtaining a reform in parliament; and they explain it thus-that if there should come a time when ministers, or government should be daring enough to endeavour to wrest from us the right of trial by jury and the liberty of the press, and force should be necessary to be used for the preservation of those rights, that in such case he hoped there was not a citizen, &c. &c.

Gentlemen, you are here to consider what' degree of credit is due to one witness only (Guest) in opposition to six produced by the defendant; this, gentlemen, is the most important point for your consideration, for on this depend the merits of the case: if you think Mr. Binns only recommended force in case of a deprivation of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press, you will acquit him, for it is possible that cases may arise in which resistance would not only be lawful but commendable; but if you think he recommended forcible means for the purpose of obtaining a reform in parliament, you must convict him; for that would be highly criminal, and as inflammable language as could be made use of to come within the crime of sedition; and this you will do, though the words proved be not literally the same as those in the in

dictment, provided you think they had a seditious tendency, and were spoken by Mr. Binns with the intentions laid in the indict

ment.

Gentlemen, the fourth count relates to the soldiery. The words in the indictment are "if the soldiers were called upon to act against you, like the national guards, who were called upon to fire on the people in the outset of the revolution in France, they -would not dare to draw the trigger or push the bayonet against the preservers of their freedom and their liberty." Now, gentle men, these words are positively sworn to by the first witness (Guest) with the trifling variation of onset for outset. A great deal has been unnecessarily said about these words on the part of the crown to persuade you that that they are nearly synonimous-and on the part of the defendant to prove that they mean very different things. Gentlemen, you need not give yourselves any trouble on this point, for though the variation might seem to you trivial, and sufficient to confirm the testimony of the witness, and indeed, in this place, onset might be very well substituted for outset, without materially altering the sense; yet, in this case, this is not the point-the question is not, whether the words were spoken, for this is admitted by some of the witnesses for the defendant, but the question is, what application had they? Did they refer to a time when the people might be contending for the right of trial by jury, and for the liberty of the press, or rising in an illegal and rebellious manner, to enforce a parliamentary reform? for, as I have already told you, gentlemen, it would not only be commendable, but the bounden duty of every man to take arms, and resist the attempts of the executive power, if it strive to wrest from the people the liberty of the press, and trial by jury; so it would be highly criminal and rebellious to attempt a reform in parliament by forcible means, or to recommend forcible measures as a means to obtain it so that the question here is the same as in the third count, namely, in what case force was recommended as justifiable to be employed.

Now, to determine this question, it will be necessary to attend very minutely to the evidence. Mr. Guest says, peaceable means were to be employed to gain their ends, but if these failed, and their opponents continued obstinate, force was to be used; and being asked what their ends were? he said, univer sal suffrage and annual parliaments. You have been told that the word opponents, might not mean his majesty and his ministers. You will exercise your judgment on this. Mr.

Guest admits, in his cross-examination, that the parts of the speech were detached parts; and that they might have been spoken in a different order from what he has given them in evidence. The evidence of the other witness, Mr. Sutton, is not material; he does not swear positively to what was said about the soldiery, or force; but says the defendant recommended peaceable measures.

The witnesses for the defendant all uniformly agree in saying, that the words were not used as applicable to a parliamentary reform; and that Mr. Binns recommended no other than peaceable means to obtain this end. It appears, likewise, from these witnesses, that the subject of reform was more particularly treated of in the beginning of his speech, and the trial by jury, and the liberty of the press, at or near the end. It also appears, that the time in which he talked about force, and the soldiery, was near the conclusion, if you believe these witnesses. I have nothing particular to remark as to the credibility of the witnesses; there is, indeed, a remarkable coincidence in the evidence for the defendant, which the counsel for the crown has told you can only be the consequence of previous instruction. have also been told that the witness for the crown is perjured. On all these points you are to decide according to the best of your judgment.

You

Gentlemen, you have now the whole of the evidence.-I shall not detain you any longer. You have two questions only to consider, first, whether the defendant said that he himself, or that his majesty was well convinced that annual parliaments and universal suffrage were most conducive to the happiness of the people, and so forth; and, secondly, whether force was recommended as a means of obtaining a parliamentary reform.

If you are of opinion that it was, or that the defendant spoke the aforesaid words concerning his majesty, you must convict him; but if not, you must give a verdict accordingly.

Gentlemen, I recommend to you to retire from court, and take time for deliberation; and when you are agreed, you may bring your verdict to my chambers, where I shall be ready to receive it.

The court was adjourned at eight o'clock (having sat twelve hours); the jury having withdrawn to the grand jury room to consider their verdict, his lordship retired to his chambers, where he was followed in about three hours by the jury, who returned a verdict of Nor GUILTY.

INTRODUCTION,

THE Indictment was preferred by the Society for carrying into Effect his Majesty's Proclamation against Vice and Immorality. That proclamation called seriously on all ranks and descriptions of men to use their endeavours in suppressing and preventing profaneness and blasphemy, and in carrying into execution all laws in force for the punishing and suppressing of those and other vices. The subject of the prosecution is "The Age of Reason," parts the first and second;" which purports to be, " An investigation of True and Fabulous Theology."

The First Part made its appearance in the year 1794, and attracted little attention; but, in the latter end of 1795, the second part was published, and excited a general avidity to read the book, particularly among the middling and lower classes of life.

Soon after the publication it was mentioned to the Society, at several of their meetings, as a most dangerous work, and they determined to watch its progress. In the beginning of the year 1796, the very excellent Answer to it by a learned prelate, gave great hopes that the poison instilled into the minds of many of the readers would be converted to a wholesome and sober aliment, and the Society seemed to think the noisome work would of itself die away; but they were disappointed; for at the close of that year, they were informed by many. of their most intelligent members, who spoke from their own knowledge, that in several widely extended parts of the kingdom Cornwall, Nottingham, Leeds, and many other places-and even in Scotland, the work had been circulated

Now first published, from an authentia report, obligingly communicated to me, by lord Erskine.

with more than common industry, amongst considerable bodies of people, and was producing the most pernicious effects; and that new editions were preparing and about to be published in almost every part of the country, The Society then though themselves called upon to come forward to endeavour to suppress so dangerous a publication, and having their judgment sanctioned by the following opinion of Mr. Bayley*, they directed the prosecution to be commenced.

Mr. Bayley's Opinion.

"There can be no doubt that the pamphlet

alluded to may be prosecuted at Common Law as a libel on the religion of the state. It was decided in Taylor's case, 1 Ventris 293, and 3 Keble 607, that blasphemy was not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, state, and government; and therefore, punishable by indictment: for to say religion is a cheat, is to dissolve all those obligations whereby civil societies are preserved; and to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law; and the defendant was sentenced to stand three times in the pillory, to pay a fine of one thousand marks, and to find sureties for his good behaviour for life. In the King against Curlt, Strange 789, the attorney-generalt lays it down. that every publication which reflects upon religion, that great basis of civil government and society, is punishable by indictment. And he mentions an instance of a man then in custody upon a conviction for writing against the Trinity. But the case of the King against Woolston, Fitzgibbon 64, and Strange 834, is decisive. He was indicted for publishing Discourses on the Miracles of our Sa

* Now (1819) Mr. Justice Bayley. + Antè Vol. 17, p. 154.

Yorke, afterwards Lord Hardwicke.

viour, in which he maintained that they were not to be taken in a literal sense, but that the whole relation of the life and miracles of our Lord Christ in the New Testament, is an allegory only. The Jury found him Guilty, and, a motion being made to arrest the judgment, the Court declared they would not suffer it to be debated whether to write against Christianity in general was not an offence; but desired to be understood that they laid stress upon the word general because they did not intend to include disputes upon controverted points, between learned inen. And lord Raymond said, Christianity in general, is parcel of the common law of England, and therefore to be protected by it. Now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to a dissolution of the civil government; so that to say an attempt to subvert the established religion is not punishable by those laws upon which it is established, is an absurdity. I would have it taken notice of, that we do not meddle about any differences in opinion, and that we interpose only where the very root of Christianity itself is struck at, as it plainly is, by this allegorical scheme: The New Testament, and the whole relation of the life and miracles of Christ being denied. Upon these authorities it is impossible to raise a question upon the pamphlet here referred to. It is a direct attack upon the whole Christian establishment; treats our Saviour as an impostor, and the prophecies and gospels as falsehoods, and the effects of priestcraft: I have, therefore, no difficulty in saying it may be indicted. But, whether it is prudent to indict it? Whether the prosecution may not make its circulation for the time more extensive? and, Whether it is not likely to die away of itself? are points upon which I can form no opinion: There can be no doubt that whatever steps will most effectually suppress the work, ought to be adopted. "Temple,

JOHN BAYLEY.

17th Dec. 1796. The Indictment was found in Hilary Term, 1797, and the defendant's attorney having threatened to insist on the whole of the pamphlet's being read in open court, for the purpose of re-publishing it in the ac

count of the Trial, the opinion of Mr. Bayley was again taken on this subject which opinion is as follows:

"Every publication which has a direct tendency to debauch the morals of the people, is punishable as a libel (and that this publication has that tendency no one of common understanding can doubt); and it is no excuse that it is an authentic account of what passed in a court of justice. A court of justice, for the sake of redressing the wrongs of individuals, must go through the painful task of learing what is unfit for the public ear; but, it by no means follows, that because it must be heard in a court of justice, it may, therefore, be published to all the world. Every blasphemous, every indecent, every seditious publication, if made the subject of prosecution, must be read at large in a court of justice, and if it were a sufficient defence for publishing the trial, that it was an accurate account of what passed, the prosecution would sanction the publication, instead of suppressing it."

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, JUNE 24, 1797.

Counsel for the Prosecution.-The honourable Thomas Erskine [afterwards Lord Chancellor Erskine]; William Garrow [afterwards Bayley [afterwards one of the Justices of the a Baron of the Court of Exchequer]; John Court of King's Bench].

Counsel for the Defendant.-Stewart Kyd.

INDICTMENT stated that Thomas Williams late of the parish of Saint Giles 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 vilify and ridicule that part of the Holy Bible which is called the Old Testament on the first day of January in the year of our Lord 1796 with force and arms at Westminster in the county of Middlesex did publish false impious and blasphemous libel containand cause to be published a certain wicked ing therein among other things as follows that is to say "Whenever we read the obscene "stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the "cruel and torturous executions, the unre"lenting vindictiveness, with which more "than half the Bible" (meaning that part of

High Treason in 1794, together with Hardy He was one of the persons indicted for and Horne Tooke. See Hardy's case, antè, Vol. 24, p. 199, and Tooke's case, Vol. 25, P. 745.