Trial of Mr. Carlile," and in so doing republished the whole of the "Age of Reason " as a part of the proceedings at the trial. Held, that the privilege usually attaching to fair reports of judicial proceedings did not extend to such a colourable reproduction of a book adjudged to be blasphemous; and that it is unlawful to publish even a correct account of the proceedings in a Court of justice, if such an account contain matter of a scandalous, blasphemous, or indecent nature. R. v. Mary Carlile, (1819) 3 B. & Ald. 167. See also Steele v. Brannan, (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 261; 41 L. J. M. C. 85; 20 W. R. 607; 26 L. T. 509; post, p. 477. Richard Carlile was sentenced to pay a fine of 1,500l., to be imprisoned for three years, and to find sureties for his good behaviour for the term of his life. He was still in Dorchester Gaol in 1825. In the meantime the sale of heterodox books continued at his shop, and his shopmen were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In June, 1824, William Campion, John Clarke, William Maley, and Thomas Perry were sentenced to imprisonment in Newgate for three years, Richard Hassell for two years, and Thomas Jeffryes for a year and a half, for selling blasphemous publications. An information was filed against Jacob Ilive for publishing a profane and blasphemous libel, tending to vilify and subvert the Christian religion, and to blaspheme our Saviour Jesus Christ, to cause His Divinity to be denied, to represent Him as an impostor; to scandalise, ridicule, and bring into contempt His most holy life and doctrine; and to cause the truth of the Christian religion to be disbelieved and totally rejected, by representing the same as spurious and chimerical, and a piece of forgery and priestcraft. R. v. Ilive, (1756) Dig. L. L. 83. An information was exhibited against Peter Annet for a certain malignant, profane, and blasphemous libel, entitled "The Free Inquirer," tending to blaspheme Almighty God, and to ridicule, traduce, and discredit His Holy Scriptures, particularly the Pentateuch, and to represent, and to cause it to be believed, that the prophet Moses was an impostor, and that the sacred truths and miracles recorded and set forth in the Pentateuch were impositions and false inventions; and thereby to diffuse and propagate irreligious and diabolical opinions in the minds of his Majesty's subjects, and to shake the foundations of the Christian religion, and of the civil and ecclesiastical government established in this kingdom. To this information he pleaded guilty. "In consideration of which, and of his poverty, of his having confessed his errors in an affidavit, and of his being seventy years old, and some symptoms of wildness that appeared on his inspection in Court, the Court declared they had mitigated their intended sentence to the following, viz. to be imprisoned in Newgate for a month; to stand twice in the pillory, with a paper on his forehead, inscribed blasphemy; to be sent to the house of correction to hard labour for a year; to pay a fine of 68. 8d., and to find security, himself in 1007. and two sureties in 501. each, for his good behaviour during life." R. v. Peter Annet, (1763) 1 Wm. Bl. 395; 3 Burn, Eccl. Law, 9th ed. 386. An information was exhibited against John Wilkes for publishing an obscene and impious libel, tending to vitiate and corrupt the minds and manners of his Majesty's subjects; to introduce a total contempt of religion, modesty, and virtue; to blaspheme Almighty God; and to ridicule our Saviour and the Christian religion. R. v. Wilkes, (1768) 4 Burr. 2527; 2 Wils. 151. In 1817 Mr. Wright, of Liverpool, was prosecuted at common law for denying the existence of a future life; but the prosecution was abandoned. R. v. Wright, (1817) 3 Mer. 386, n. In the same year William Hone was tried on three successive days, December 18th, 19th, and 20th, 1817, for publishing three parodies on the Catechism, the Litany, and the Athanasian Creed, before Abbott, J., on the first day, and Lord Ellenborough, C.J., on the other two. He was on each occasion acquitted, the libels being political attacks on the Government, and not written with any intent of ridiculing the compositions parodied. "The Three Trials of William Hone," London, 1818. Reflections on the Old Testament may amount to blasphemy. R. v. Hetherington, (1841) 5 Jur. 529. Queen Mab was found by a jury in 1841 to be a blasphemous libel. But this prosecution was a purely vindictive one by Hetherington, and no sentence was ever passed. Blackburn, J., expresses his disapproval of this finding in R. v. Hicklin, (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 374; 37 L. J. M. C. 89; 16 W. R. 803; 18 L. T. 395; 11 Cox, C. C. 19. Southwell was convicted of blasphemy in January, 1842, for publishing the "Oracle of Reason." Later in the same year Adams was tried before Mr. Justice Erskine at Gloucester Assizes for selling No. 25 of the said "Oracle of Reason," and convicted. At the same Assizes George Jacob Holyoake was tried before Mr. Justice Erskine for oral blasphemy. It appeared that he had been lecturing on emigration and the poor laws, and at the close a man, said to have been sent on purpose to entrap him, rose and said: "The lecturer has been speaking of our duty to man; he has nothing to tell us as to our duty to God?" Holyoake, being thus challenged, replied, "I do not believe there is such a thing as a God. . . . I would have the Deity served as they serve the subalterns-place him on halfpay." But Holyoake was known to be a friend of Southwell's, and a writer in the "Oracle of Reason," and he was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. See Trial of Holyoake, London, 1842. Father Vladimir Petcherini, a monk, was indicted in Ireland in 1855 for having contemptuously, irreverently, and blasphemously burnt a Bible in public with intent to bring the same into disregard, hatred, and contempt, and in other counts with intent to bring religion into discredit, and in other counts with having caused and procured it to be burnt with such intents. There was some evidence that a Bible had been burnt in the defendant's presence among a heap of other books and papers, but very little that he knew it or sanctioned it. Greene, B., directed the jury that if he sanctioned it, it would follow "as of course that the intention of the act could only be to bring into contempt the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures." The defendant was acquitted. R. v. Petcherini, (1855) 7 Cox, C. C. 79. A man called Pooley was indicted at the Bodmin Summer Assizes, July, 1857, before Coleridge, J., his son, afterwards Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., being counsel for the prosecution. The prisoner had scribbled on a gate some disgusting language concerning Jesus Christ, and was convicted of a blasphemous libel, but was subsequently discovered to be insane. R. v. Pooley, (1857) Digest of Criminal Law, 97. In November, 1868, John Thompson was committed for trial by the Southampton magistrates on the prosecution of the Rev. Arthur Bradley, the incumbent of a church there, for publishing the following blasphemous libel :---“I believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah at his first coming, as an antitypical Paschal Lamb who died for sins in allegory; and I believe John Cochran of Glasgow to be the Messiah at his second coming, and the antitypical High Priest who has taken away sin in reality." In March, 1869, the grand jury ignored the bill. Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp were indicted for blasphemous libels and pictures contained in the Christmas number of the Freethinker, Foote being the editor, Ramsey the registered proprietor, and Kemp the printer and publisher of that paper. On the first trial, March 1st, 1883, the jury could not agree, and were discharged. The prisoners were tried again on Monday, March 5th, 1883, and convicted and sentenced to twelve, nine, and three months' imprisonment respectively. North, J., directed the jury that any publication containing "contumelious reproach or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture and the Christian religion" was a blasphemous libel. R. v. Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp, Times, March 2nd and 6th, 1883. In the same year Ramsey and Foote were indicted for articles which had appeared in other numbers of the Freethinker, which were alleged to be blasphemous. The late Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., was at first included also in this indictment, but the case against him was tried separately, and he was acquitted on the ground that he was in no way responsible for the publication. See 15 Cox, C. C. 217; ante, p. 443. Ramsey and Foote were tried before Lord Coleridge, C.J., on April 24th, 1883; the jury could not agree upon a verdict; and on Tuesday, May 1st, the Attorney-General issued his fiat for a nolle prosequi. R. v. Ramsey and Foote, (1883) 48 L. T. 733; 15 Cox, C. C. 231; 1 C. & E. 126. For other cases of blasphemy at common law, see Traske's Case, (1618) Hobart, 236; post, p. 458. R. v. Atwood, (1618) Cro. Jac. 421; 2 Roll. Abr. 78; post, p. 459. R. v. Clendon, (1712), cited 2 Str. 789. R. v. Hall, (1721) 1 Str. 416. Paterson's Case, (1843) 1 Brown (Scotch), 629. Robinson's Case, (1843) ib. 643. In aid of the common law, many statutes have at different times been passed to punish particular species of blasphemy. Of these the following are still unrepealed :— "Whatsoever person or persons shall deprave, despise or contemn the most blessed Sacrament in contempt thereof by any contemptuous words or by any words of depraving, despising, or reviling, or what person or persons shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise, or revile the said most blessed Sacrament, shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies and make fine and ransom at the king's will and pleasure." (1 Edw. VI. c. 1, s. 1.) 66 Any vicar or other minister whatsoever that shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving of the Book of Common Prayer, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof," shall on conviction for the first offence suffer forfeiture of one year's profit of benefices and six months' imprisonment, and for the second offence, one year's imprisonment and deprivation, and for the third offence, deprivation and imprisonment for life or, if not beneficed, for the first offence imprisonment for one year, and for the second offence, imprisonment for life. (2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, s. 2; 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 2.) Any person whatsoever, lay or clerical, who "shall in any interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words, declare or speak anything in the derogation, depraving, or despising of the same book, or of anything therein contained, or any part thereof," shall for the first offence. forfeit one hundred marks, for the second offence four hundred marks, and for the third offence shall forfeit all his goods and chattels to the king and be imprisoned for life. (2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 1, s. 3; and 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3.) These provisions are applied to our present Book of Common Prayer by the 14 Car. II. c. 4, s. 1. Every person ecclesiastical, who shall persist in maintaining or affirming any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the articles agreed on in the Convocation holden at London in 1562, shall be deprived of his living. (13 Eliz. c. 12, s. 2.) The statute 3 Jac. I. c. 21, against profanity in stageplays, was repealed in 1843 by the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68, s. 1. "If any person, having been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian religion within this realm, shall by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, assert or maintain that 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," he shall, on conviction by the oath of two or more credible witnesses, be deprived of all offices, civil, ecclesiastical, and military, unless he renounce his errors within four months from the date of his conviction; and for a second offence he shall be declared unable to sue in any Court of law or equity, to be a guardian, an executor or administrator, to take any legacy, or to hold any office, and shall also suffer imprisonment for three years. But information must be given on oath to a magistrate within four days after such words are spoken, and the prosecution must be commenced within three months after such information. (9 & 10 Will. III. c. 35 [c. 32 in the Statutes at Large], as amended by 53 Geo. III. c. 160.) But this statute does not affect or alter the common law (R. v. Carlile, 3 B. & Ald. 161; R. v. Williams, 26 Howell's St. Tr. 656); nor would its repeal. (R. v. Waddington, 1 B. & C. 26; 1 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1339; Att.-Gen. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. at pp. 399, 405, 407.) It appears to be directed rather against apostasy than blasphemy. So far as I am aware, there never has been a prosecution under it, possibly because the punishment for the first offence is so slight. Advised speaking" probably means words spoken deliberately, as opposed to "a casual expression dropped inadvertently." (See Heath v. Burder, 15 Moore, P. C. C. 80; Brodrick & Fremantle, at p. 234.) 66 By the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 41, s. 7), any person who shall at any burial under the Act, "under colour of any religious service or otherwise, in any churchyard or graveyard, wilfully endeavour to bring into contempt or obloquy the Christian religion, or the belief or worship of any church or denomination of Christians, or the members or any minister of any such church or denomination, or any other person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." |