Page images
PDF
EPUB

hold, or those denominated Deistical-and if they will not suffice for Corruption's host, Mrs. Holmes shall take her

turn.

R. CARLILE.

[ocr errors]

TO MR. COMMON SERGEANT DENMAN,

On the first Specimen of his Judgeship in his new Field for Chivalry.

SIR,

Dorchester Gaol, May 30, 1822.I BEGIN to fear that my efforts to destroy superstition will be vain, since the doctrines of metamorphosis and metempsychosis have so striking and so powerful a support in your person and example. Whether you have caught the mantle or the spirit of the late Recorder, or the late Common Sergeant, or of both, or whether there be a contagion connected with the seat on which they sat, it is difficult for me to say or to believe, but that you seem ambitious of imitating them, you have taken the first opportunity to convince us, for the first judicial act with which your name has been coupled in the Public Papers was an act of childish folly and stupidity; the second an act of gross and corrupt villainy.

The first was a decision in the case of the Juryman who begged to be excused from serving on account of having a defect in the organs of one ear, although it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that the organs of the other were as perfect and useful as if both were perfect. A sort of doubt arose as to the propriety of excusing such a man from serving, but it was decided by your saying, that a Juryman ought to have an ear for both sides of the question, or one for the prisoner as well as one for the prosecutor. This has been trumpeted forth as a specimen of your legal wit and judicial impartiality, but the fact is, that the expression and the act was the reverse of both. A man who has a defect in the organs of one eye, or one ear, and has the other perfect, is as perfect in his intellect and comprehension, and as quick of discernment, as if both were perfect. You had every evidence before you, from the quick discernment of the man, that he was fully competent to act as a Juryman, if the reports of the Papers be true, therefore

your decision was neither wise nor just in excusing him from serving upon such grounds.

The second case is that of Humphrey Boyle, or according to the terms of his indictment, the man with name unknown, whom you have confessedly sentenced to a most severe imprisonment because he was honest, and because his object was the "amelioration of his fellow-creatures." I could scarcely believe the language imputed to you by "The Times" Newspaper did not the sentence corroborate it and put doubt out of the question. If your conduct be a specimen of what we are to expect from Whig Judges and Whig Ministers, then I, for one, will say, let us cherish those we have in preference to such a change.

As the full report of the trial will be published in a few days time, I must now confine myself to the report of "The Times" Newspaper, which, though brief, appears to me to exhibit a fair outline of the trial; and never was Judge made to appear more corrupt and more contemptible than you are made to appear by that Paper: and should I see it to be necessary, I shall take the liberty again to address you, after I have read an authentic report of the whole proceedings.

The first act of yours, which arrests my attention in reading the report from this Paper, is your acceding to the motion of Mr. Adolphus, THAT FEMALES AND BOYS SHOULD QUIT THE Court whilst PASSAGES WERE READING from THE HOLY BIBLE! Here you declared, in conjunction with the Counsel for the prosecution, that the Holy Bible was so very obscene a book, as to shock the feelings of females, and calculated to corrupt the minds of our youth! This was declared from the Bench by an English Judge, and, strange to say, in a case where a man's sole offence was a publication of that very fact which your conduct corroborated! If there was any thing like consistency or honesty of motive in the Members of the Vice Society, they would indict you and Adolphus for blaspheming the Holy Bible, for endeavouring to bring it into contempt, to the great scandal and profanation of the Christian religion, to the high displeasure of Almighty God, against the peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dignity, to the great danger of his Priests, their mitres, and heir-tithes, and to the evil example of all honest men in like case offending!

The defence made by the Defendant will best speak for itself when it appears, therefore it will be unnecessary for me to say any thing about it here: you, I understand, were

compelled to admit that it was both honest and bold, and, in your sentence of eighteen months imprisonment, you have given us a specimen of your taste for honesty and boldness; besides making the man find securities for five years against displaying any more honesty or boldness within that period. Some of the Papers have endeavoured to give the matter a turn by saying that it was the language of the Defendant that caused the Court to be cleared of women and boys; but this is a lie to help the Holy Bible. The Defendant was incapable of uttering an immoral or obscene expression but what he read for exposure from the Bible.

In summing up the case to the Jury you are first represented as defending the motives and conduct of the Constitutional Association, by saying, the Jury were not to consider whether or not the case formed part of a conspiracy to prosecute opinions, nor were they to consider the intention of the Publisher, but solely the tendency of the publication, since the Defendant had avowed the act of publishing it. This, you know, is a corrupt doctrine, and has uniformly been reprobated by honest men. The intention of the accused is always the object for the Jury to try; and if they find a malicious intention, or a verdict of Guilty, then it would be for the Judge to judge of the tendency of the act, and to punish according, upon his own responsibility. This is what, I believe, an honest lawyer (if there be such) would call the meaning of the Fuglish law in its purity. If, in the case of a person being killed by another, the Jury were to be confined to the tendency, they would merely have to find the fact, that the man was killed by the act of a certain person, to make every case of the kind a murder. The tendency of all opinions, if fairly and freely discussed, must inevitably be good; and if that free discussion existed, there would not be a hundredth part of the absurd and eviltending opinions put forth to the world that there now are. Free discussion is like free air, it disperses corruptions and renders us healthy both in body and mind. You very corruptly and wickedly told the Jury, that they were not to "consider whether the party writing these libels might intend some good at some distant period, but the tendency of the doctrines delivered must be considered, and the manner in which they were put forth to the public." The manner in which they were put forth to the public was the best manner possible. It was done in the face of day, sold to every person inclined to purchase, and given to none, whilst

there was a responsible publisher, and the writer signed his writing with his real name and address. There was nothing wrong in this part of the business, unless your judicial chivalry would lead you to think, that it would have been less offensive to have distributed the pamphlet clandestinely, and to have given them away like the rubbish is given called religious tracts. It is probable this may be your definition of good intention, and that a private circulation alters the tendency, in your judgment.

You seem to admit, that the party writing the libels intended a future good; then, I say, it is impossible there could have been an evil tendency connected with the act. Even if it could be shewn that a tendency to future good might produce a present evil, in a general point of view, which rather exceeds my philosophy, the tendency of the act ought to be regulated by the relative proportion of the future good to the present evil, and the intention calculated upon the same terms. My present imprisonment I consider a present evil, its tendency a future good; therefore, I balance the future against the present and consider, putting self out of the question, that even the evil of imprisonment relates to general good, but how even a present evil can be shewn with regard to the publication of such a pamphlet, or such opinions, I am at a loss to conceive, nor can I ceive any evil tendency in the matter, unless it be to spoil the robber, to moderate the fanatic, and to unmask the hypocrite. Perhaps, Mr. Denman, in his state of metamorphosis, may consider this to be an evil tendency, but I think it behoves the Electors of Nottingham to let him know that such is not a representation, of their opinions, and minds.

per

The question about the name of the defendant is, in my opinion, a question to be yet decided. I do not think there is the least precedent for indicting a man without a name. I am of opinion, that the strict letter of the law is, that a man is not bound to answer any call unless called by his right name. If he refuses to answer, it is for the counsel or the prosecutor to shew to the court that he is known by the name by which he has been cited, and then for the defendant to take the consequence of his refusal to answer. case appears to be an anomaly that has arisen for the first time in this instance, and was not the case a political one, I am of opinion our political judges would supersede the record and dismiss the man, by a Writ of Habeas Corpus bringing him before them. If the name be of no consequence,

This

then why is there so much fuss frequently made about the lack of one christian name, or about a false christian name, or a mis-spelling of the surname? Mrs. Carlile was the first brought up without a name, but she gave her name freely, and in the present case the withholding of the name has arisen more from amusement than any thing else. I have repeatedly published the name of the present defendant, as Humphrey Boyle, which is a proof that the withholding his name was no act or design of ours, although we were disposed to annoy and put the prosecutors to expence. have stated that he came from Leeds purposely to assist me, and have published several letters written by him. Therefore, the act of not indicting him by a name, is an act of the prosecutor and not of the defendant.

I now come to the sentence, the passing of which, with your preparatory observations, has covered you with an infamy that no future conduct can retrieve or wipe away. I look upon the sentence as much more severe than even that of Joseph Rhodes, because, it was expected that such a man as Knowlys would spit his venom and display his revenge; but for Mr. Denman, who has endeavoured to lay claim to liberality, to moderation of temper, and to being the advocate of a Reform in the whole system of government; for such a man to send another for acting upon the same principles, to a Gaol for eighteen months, and to make him find securities for five years that he will not act upon the same principles, is a species of conduct, of villany, that I confess myself at a loss for words to describe. Even Knowlys did not call upon the men to find other sureties than their own to prevent them from advocating the principles of Reform in future. If you think such conduct exhibits impartiality on your part, you are very much mistaken; it exhibits nothing but wantonness and villainy, and such, I am informed, is the general feeling in London, for I have already received letters from different individuals, who are not in the habit of indulging in censure, particularly on such men as are in the habit of making such professions as you were wont to make, and they express themselves surprized and even horrorstruck at your conduct.

The report of "The Times" Newspaper says, "The Common Sergeant regretted that the Court found itself absolutely called upon in consequence of the Defence the Prisoner had read, and the expressions which had now fallen from him, to pass a much more severe sentence than he would otherwise have received." This is the first time a

« PreviousContinue »