whether I made use of the sentiment; but it certainly impressed my mind, that it would be extremely dangerous if, after the jury had retired from the bar, a judge then in Court could receive and act upon any communication from them. I therefore was of opinion that the verdict must stand as the verdict of the jury. I wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating this occurrence to my Lord and my brothers.

Lord Ellenborough (after consulting with the other judges).

The Court cannot, according to the authorities and precedents of law, receive an affidavit from a juryman upon the subject of his verdict; and the reason why he is precluded from making the affidavit is, because, from the circumstances, it must have been intended that that verdict was given with his assent. In order to imply this assent, it must unquestionably appear that he heard what was propounded by the foreman on behalf of himself and his fellows; and the difficulty that occurs to my mind is, whether in this case there is sufficient evidence for the Court safely to act upon, that the jury did all hear what was propounded for them, and on their behalf, by the foreman. The jurymen were not all within the view of the judge, for it seems that a part of the jury were in the room behind. I say, therefore, that we have not in this case the ordinary means existing in others, for presuming that every one of the jury heard what was propounded by their foreman. If, indeed, they did not hear it, they were not furnished with any means of contradiction, or of signifying any dissent or qualification.

This fact supplies a distinction from all the cases that have usually come before the Court. A verdict is generally given, the jurors standing together in the presence of the judge; and they have full opportunity of hearing what is propounded by the foreman, and of expressing their dissent if they thought fit so to do. If it could be satisfactorily made out, from the position and nearness of the jury, or from the situation of the judge, that all the jury did hear, and that none of them dissented, it would perhaps be too much to disturb the verdict, and the Court could not receive any affidavit against it. But the perfect evidence of their hearing, and their means of assenting or dissenting, seem to be wanted here; and, therefore, I suggest, for the consideration of my brothers, whether in this case, under the uncertainty, (for any uncertainty is to be avoided, especially in a criminal proceeding,) it should not be allowed to the defendant to have the advantage of a new trial, if he should be disposed to desire it.

The Attorney - General. — It would ill become me to gainsay any thing that has fallen from the Court; but I apprehend, the utmost extent to which your Lordship has said the defendant shall be indulged, would be, that he might be permitted to show grounds for a new trial. I should apprehend, with great deference, that it cannot be granted in this case. The jury were certainly all called over, and they answered to their names. Lord Ellenborough.-We assume that.

the Litany. He was now brought up, on the motion of the Attorneygeneral, to receive judgment. The officer of the Court was about to read the information and the libel, when the defendant interposed, and said, that he did not wish the Court to be troubled by the repetition of the offensive matter. He then put in two affidavits by himself, in which he deposed, that he had been fifteen years in business, and had not, until now, been accused of the slightest infringement of the law: that he was entirely unconnected with and unknown to the original publisher of the libel in question, which he had reprinted at the request of a travelling dealer, without being at all aware of their dangerous tendency; for him he had struck off 250 copies, besides some that he had reserved for himself, the sale of which he stopped immediately when he learnt their profane and illegal nature, at the same time ordering the types to be dispersed. He had a wife and five children depending upon him for support.

Other affidavits from persons resident at Portsea were put in ; they gave the defendant an excellent character for general loyalty and propriety of demeanour.

The Attorney-general then addressed their Lordships for the prosecution. He was willing to give the defendant credit for that feeling of regret which induced him to save the Court the pain of hearing once more a libel which had too often already fallen under its observation every man who professed the slightest regard for the religion established in this country, must be shocked both at the form and tendency of the

publication; the defendant might have printed comparatively few copies, but the Attorney-general feared that the poison had been widely disseminated among those whose education and habits enabled them but ill to resist its baneful effects. The defendant united in himself the double capacity of printer and distributer; and what number of copies he had reserved for himself, after delivering the 250 to his itinerant employer, he had not ventured to state. The information justly charged it to be a scandalous, infamous, and impious libel, tending to bring into contempt and disgrace one of the noblest, most beautiful, and most affecting parts of the administration of divine service in this country. It was generally known that the ceremony, according to the church of England, usually termed the Liturgy, had been settled by the legislature in the reign of Charles II. from Parliament it derived its legal character, but for its sacred character it was indebted to a higher source, the principles of Christianity; which indeed might be said to be the very foundation of the law of the land. How important, then, was it that it should be protected from profanation by the punishment of those who were hardy enough to lay unhallowed hands upon it? The defendant had stated, that he was ignorant of the tendency of the libel, and of its injurious consequences; but the law presumed that a man who was guilty of the publication was guilty also of the purpose: that the libel was meant by him to produce that effect: it was impossible to imagine any thing more calculated to diminish,

if not to destroy, that reverential awe with which the less-informed ranks ought to approach their Creator than this blasphemous parody of the general supplication: to comment upon it further was wholly unnecessary; the mere perusal of the libel sufficiently stamped its character, and disclosed its consequences. He hoped that the defendant had not been aware of its dangerous tendency, yet it was scarcely possible to conceive that any man should be so blind and thoughtless. He admitted, that circumstances were mentioned in the affidavits which deserved attention, but the libel spoke for itself, and the printer and publisher being before the Court, their Lordships would award a punishment adequate to the high offence

Mr. Robinson, on behalf of the defendant, trusted, that their Lordships would discover that there were not here aggravations beyond what the offence itself supplied. There was one circumstance connected with the libel, though foreign to the particular case, that especially forced itself upon his attention, and which he hoped would establish for the defendant some claim to merciful consideration it was, that the defendant was not the first offender, either in the order of time or in the order of criminality, though unfortunately the first to receive the punishment of the law. He did not urge this circumstance in the way of complaint. He was certain that it was undesigned on the part of the Attorney-general, and owing to circunstances over which he had no control. It was, never,

theless, most important to the individual on the floor, for the first blow always fell with the greatest weight. In the administration of penal justice, the first object was the effect of a sentence upon the public; the next, the justice and mercy due to the offender-for mercy and justice in the latter case were convertible terins. The principal offenders were always earliest made the subjects of prosecution they were first sought out, and upon their heads the vengeance of the law first fell: when they were duly punished, the mild and genial feeling, so grateful to the Court, succeeded, and sentences were sometimes passed even more merciful than the degree of delinquency, most severely considered, might appear to warrant. An honourable and a memorable instance of the kind had but recently occurred. If then it should be obvious, that there were behind, other offenders more deserving the indignant infliction of the law (though the defendant should unhappily, even by the effect of his own contrition, appear earlier before the Court), it would not think it necessary to make his punishment the precise standard to what was due to such crimes he had admitted judgment to go by default; he had done his utmost to acknowledge his offence, and to show his contrition, and his situation might well be contrasted with those who had added to their guilt by a daring and contumacious resistance to the forms of the law. He had not bid an audacious defiance to the Attorney-general, or thrown the gauntlet in the face of the

Court,

Court. A topic of mitigation might also be derived from the fact, that the defendant was merely a country printer. Those of that trade in London knew well that it was their duty to watch most carefully all the productions of their press; it was a part of the economy of their establishments; but country printers, whose types were engaged in catalogues, in cheap re-publications of popular works; or at most in a provincial newspaper, were not sufficiently upon their guard in this respect; and designing individuals might take advantage of their ignorance, and employ them to give to the world the most baneful libels: it was admitted that the parody in question had first appeared from a London press, and a man like the defendant might deem that circumstance alone some warrant for his conduct. It was sworn also that the defendant had not the remotest connexion with any of those who in the metropolis had spread these baneful productions. It was true that, in the eye of the law, a man who was guilty of the publication was presumed to be guilty of the. knowledge of its effects; but although this might warrant a judge in directing a verdict, it was a legal construction which would not be observed in all its strictness when the defendant was upon the floor to receive judgment: if, too, on the face of the libel, another object and purpose were more prominent than that charged, their lordships, in a case like the present, would be inclined to put the most lenient construction on the conduct of the defendant, The

learned counsel concluded by a few brief observations upon the contents of the affidavits.

The Attorney-general informed the Court, that there was a second information againt the defendant for a blasphemous parody upon the Creed of St. Athanasius. The officer was about to read it, when the defendant again interposed, observing that it was unnecessary.

The Attorney-general described this publication as quite as injurious as the preceding: although a fair and discreet discussion of the mysterious parts of the Liturgy might be warranted, irreverence and blasphemous ridicule of them could not be en. dured.

Mr. Topping, on the same side, felt called upon by what had fallen from Mr. Robinson, to say that it was impossible the defendant should not have known the wicked nature of these publications; he could not have derived his first information of it from the newspapers.

Mr. Robinson regretted that any thing that had fallen from hun should have raised any feeling of asperity: it was far from his intention to excite it: he only felt, in common with his client, sincere regret that he had been made the instrument of the wider circulation of these productions. He allowed that to parody the Creed of St. Athanasius was an offence meriting punishment, but he hoped the Court would not attribute to the defendant a criminality not charged, although it should appear on the face of the libel. All persons acquainted with the his

tory