On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    respect , in which it is , at the same time , in the eye of the law , a crime . " An opinion contrary to this has , however , " been sustained bv

    considerable authority , and particularly by Blackstone , who says , " that the crime of noii-conformitv is bv do means abrogated . " Baron Perrott , in Evans ' s case , in opposition to all the other judges , contended , that the toleration act amounted to nothing more than

    an exemption from the peualties of certain laws then particularly mentioned ; an opinion which has been most extraordinarily revived by the present . Lord Chancellor , and expressed in the same words , only a few clays ago , in the case of the Attorney Genera ] , on the relation of Maunder

    v . Pearson , reported in your July Number . But this opinion has never been adopted in practice , and , on the contrary , it has been repeatedly decided by the unanimous judgment of judges and parliament , " that the toleration act removed the crime , as well -js the penalty of n on-conformity . "

    The whole subject has been ably commented upon , and enforced by Dr . Furneaux , in his Letters to Blackstone . Under this head , then , there can be no doubt that , as Dissenters ,

    impugners of the doctrine of the Trinity stand , in common with the rest of their brethren , clear , not only of penalty , but of crime in the eye of the law , and protected as amply in the exercise of

    their worship as others ; and on this part of the subject it will , therefore , be manifest , not only that this class of Dissenters are unaffected by any common Jaw , or statute offence as

    nonconformists , but that if they are protected and their worship established under the provisions and restrictions of express statutes , as tiiey undoubtedly are , that circumstance will furnish strong additional ground to contend that the law , when it placed

    them in that situation and repealed all express enactment against them , could not mean to consider them as indictable at common law for the expression of opinions , in the free exercise of Vhich they are sanctioned and protected

    There are some other offences which are also to be classed under this head , created by statutes still in force for

    Untitled Article

    the protection of the worship of the Established Church , particularly the 1 Eliz . c . 2 , which prohibits railing attacks on the Common Prayer Book : to

    which protection ( when the point of an establishment of a particular religion and form of worship is conceded ) , there does not seem much objection , and it appears to me , therefore , that Blackstone has not at all merited the

    censure that has been lavished upon him for his defence of this statute . 3 . We come to the head of Offences against God and Religion in

    general , which are the only offences indictable at common law , and under which head , therefore , as we have seen , must be included the impugning the doc-trine of the Trinity , if it is to be consiuered as an offence at common

    law . In the first place , it will be expedient to look at the description or definition of this offence , as given by our text writers , in order to ascertain as well as we can , some principle on which this branch of common law

    jurisdiction proceeds . vve shall then investigate the different cases on the subject , to discover how far they establish it , and from thence our way will be clear to see whether the simple impugning of the doctrine of the Trinity comes within that principle , and the cases on which it is founded .

    It may be proper first , however , to observe , that this branch of the common law , although depending on a very ancient principle of interference , viz . the breach of the peace , is of

    comparatively modern date in practice : and on the subject , our old law books are therefore perfectly silentthe cognizance of the offence having , in fact , till of late resided in the ecclesiastical courts onlv , to which , as far

    as regarded the expression of opinion on religious subjects , it undoubtedly exclusively belonged ; and we shall accordingly find , that when the common law jurisdiction began to be enforced , the ground on which the temporal courts took up the offence , was

    much debated , and the boundary of their authority laid down with considerable- precision . Hawkins { Pleas of the * Yown , cli . 5 ) , thus enumerates the offences of this kind . 1 . " All blasphemies against God , as denying his being or providence , and all contumelious reproaches of Jeaus Christ /'

    Untitled Article

    On Religious Offences indictable at Common Law . 541

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1817, page 541, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2468/page/29/