On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
pat in another affidavit , stating " , that the pamphlet had been very little circulated , and that its arguments'were not new , but mig-htbe bought in every bookseller ' s shop , in the works of Voltaire and others , for 13 * . which was the price oiEcce Homo . The defendant also put in the affidavit of Mr . Joseph Webb , which stated that the pamphlet was printed here in 1797 , &c .
The Attorney-General—As long" as the Judges were sworn to execute their office upon that gospel which the defendant had libelled , as long- as our legal and other proceedings required the sanction of an oath , as long as the Christian religion was that in the belief of which we built all our
consolations here and our hopes hereafter , it would be unnecessary to urge the justice of the present prosecution . The question for the Court was ^ what is the character and quality of the defendant ' s offence ? And if the Attorney-General were disposed to present it in the most unfavourable light , he should make use of the defendant ' s own
affidavits . It appeared by the affidavit on the part of the prosecution , that the defendant was in possession of the only copy of this pamphlet , and was applied to by Eaton to furnish him with the instrument of mischief , and to prepare it for the press , hy making it as little objectionable as possible , without altering its character , and to
incorporate with it new materials furnished by himself 5 and for the loan of Eaton ' s name as publisher , the defendant and the printer were to give him 601 . per cent , and afterwards divide the profits between them ; and that the defendant had acknowledged
himselt to the printer as the author of the work , had sent in an introduction to it in his own hand-writing , had paid the printer money for executing his task , and had said that he had before published the work in Scotland . As to the statement which the
defendant had made that the work had been but little advertised , there was a very good reason for that , for the proprietors of newspapers hud had notice that if they published advertisements of such publication , they would be liable to prosecution . But part after part of the work was in fact
advertised , although the proprietors of newspapers knew that Eaton was in prison ; and the Attornev-General warned all those who might be in possession of copies of this work now , that if they disposed of them , lie should rile as many informations as there might be such dispositions made .
Mr . Brougham— " After the passages of the book in question have been read , the criminality of which is admitted by suffering judgment to pass by default , and after 1
the general feelingwhich has accompanied that perusal , it may appear rather adventurous to attempt to say any thing even in mitigation of the defendant ' s punishment . Nevertheless , upon the circumstances of the present case , aiu ! referring to what passed
Untitled Article
before the Court when Mr . Eaton wa « brought up for punishment for publishing the present libel , I do feel confident that the case of this defendant is entitled to your Lordships' favourable consideration . The late Mr . Eaton appeared as a mis - guided enthusiast , who had then been guilty of no positive act of dishonesty , and
he came before the Court in a state which rendered his surviving for the next three months extremely problematical . He was then actuated by fear , and said he was made the tool of the present defendant who was the real author of the publication . To call this a dishonest act is to give it a slight name : and although he admitted he
was guilty of being * concerned in the publication , yet upon this statement the compassion of the Court was moved , and he was allowed to depart free . Now all I ask for this defendant is , that your Lordships will view his case with the same eyes with which you saw Eaton's , when , labouring under the misinformation you received
from him , you allowed him to go free . What are the facts of the present case ? Is the defendant the instrument of Eaton;—is he the main plotter , who made Eaton the tool ? This is the first question for your Lordships to consider ; and then how far you will view this man as you viewed Eaton . It appears from the affidavits , that Eaton took in the defendant more than the
defendant deceived Eaton . As to the affidavit of Mineham , the printer , he is not a disinterested witness , —a man who by his own confession is equally culpable with Eaton , namely , as an accessary , but who is not brought up here for judgment to-day , he having made his peace , by what means I sliali not inquire : he is not here in his
own person—he is spared , but by affidavit , in whioh he seeks to screen himself by throwing the guilt upon another . Have your Lordships no evidence but what is liable to suspicion ? There is the affidavit of Mr . Webb , in distinct contradiction to the statement of Mineham and Eaton , in
two material points , —firstly , to the Attorney-General ' s assumption , that but for the defendant , Eaton would have had no copy of the pamphlet 5 for it states that Mr . Webb himself had a copy . Then as to which was the tool of the oilier . Eaton told the defendant that he was retolvcd , at all hazards , to publish the work , and only
wanted somebody to revise it . By his own admission , Eaton , ( a fanatical infidel , if you please ) , an enthusiast , if you will , against religion , resolved , if there was a type to be found in England ( to use his own ex pression ) , to print this work , and in "is defendant
frame of mind he applied to the It further appears ( for it is not contradicted by Mincham ' s affidavit ) , that the work was originally written in French many y <* ago . But Mtincliam stated , ( as far ftS couM collect from hearingr «»* affiuavi
Untitled Article
124 Intelligence . — Tlih King against Houston for Blasphemy .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1815, page 124, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1757/page/60/
-