PRESENTATION OF ANOTHER PETITION FROM MR. CARLILE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BY MR. BROUGHAM, ON THURSDAY, THE 30TH of JUNE.

THE report of the presentation is copied from the Morning Chronicle, and the subjoined very applicable comment is from the same paper.— The Petition is copied from the Morning Herald, a paper that has shewn us more of true liberality, of late, than any other paper in London. The Petition was meant to shew that we mortal blasphemers of Christianity have not been dealt with according to the laws of this Christian Country, and not as a mere repetition of the case of the undersigned, the former presentation by Mr. BROUGHAM having rendered that unnecessary. The subjoined is the best report of Mr. BROUGHAM'S observations, but the reporters did not catch the spirit of the Petition, and some of them seem to have reported it as an application on my part for mercy: a notion that has never for a moment entered R. C. my head.

MR. CARLILE.

MR. BROUGHAM said, that he had now to present to the House a Petition from a person who would be considered as worthy of commiseration by every man in whom prejudice had not entirely obliterated the feelings of humanity. The unfortunate individual for whom he now presented the Petition, had been assailed for the vehemence of his sentiments, but, for his part, he viewed that vehemence, considering all its features, as a prof of the sincerity of the sentiments by which the Petitioner had been actuated. He would acknowledge that the Petitioner's vehemence had exceeded his prudence; the fact was, that the Petitioner had not acquired the orthodox prudence of making all sentiment and opinion bear upon certain worldly points. The Petitioner had been suffering an imprisonment of three years, with a fine of £1,500. The three years would expire upon the 16th of November next; be did hope that when that day arrived, his Majesty's Ministers would be induced to liberate this unhappy victim from his long and dreadful incarceration. He (Mr. Brougham) would take upon himself to say, that our laws, with all the opprobrium that had been cast upon them for merciless rigour, had never witnessed a case of such harsh and protracted coufinement for any libel, however atrocious. If the Go. vernment would continue to insist upon this unhappy man's remaining in ja f until he paid this enormous fine of £1,500, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the unfortunate prisoner would remain in his dungeon to the end of his life, were that life to extend to thrice the usual period of human existence, for a fine so utterly disproportioned to the means and circumstances of the offender no man existing had ever heard of.The very nature of a fine implied a ratio to the culprit's means of paying it, otherwise the word fine would be only a guilty means of accomplishing the most abominable objects of tyranny. In the present case, it was quite pre

posterous to consider for an instant the amount of fine in any possible relation to the prisoner's means of paying it. He did not at all concerà himself with the opinions of the Petitioner. Whatever those opinions were, The unhappy man had a right to the observances of humanity and justice, and before being under the pretence of a fine, sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, he had at least the right of being heard before the House. Mr. Carlile's Petition stated, that he had been entrapped into an offence which, fi om the obscure and equivocal nature of the laws, it was impossible for him to know was an offence. The Act of the 1813 protected that numerous class of persons that impugned the doctrines of the Trinity. Now Mr. Carlile, with thousands of others, imagined that the very essence of Christianity was the Trinity, and if the law allowed a man to impugn the one, he was of consequence permitted to deny the other. This construction had been put upon the Act of the fifty-third of the late King by thousands of the most zealous Christians, and by many persons of the profession of the law. Mr. Carlile had acted upon this generally received notion; yet his mistake of a law so equivocal, or at least so generally misunderstood, had exposed him to au imprisonment which was unexampled in this, and perhaps in any country of civilized Europe. Mr. Carlile had urged these arguments to the Court of Law from which he had received his extraordiDary sentence. He begged the House not to confound Mr. Carlile's opinions with the question now at issue. If Mr. Carlile's offence were enormous, in proportion to its enormity ought to be the precision of the law by which he was condemned, and in the same proportion ought to be the direct nature of the sentence. To impose a fine so enormous, that it was utterly impossible for the culprit to pay it, and to effect by such means the endless imprisonment of an individual, was to outrage the very name of justice. The Pelilioner went on to state, that the King's Bench had told him the offence of blasphemy was punishable at common law; he found the authority of Sir M. Hale to be in support of that opinion, whereas, on looking back to my Lord Coke, a more ancient, as well as a bigher, law authority, he found his Lordship to lay it down that blasphemy, heresy, and schism, were punishable by the ccclesiastical law, because such offences could not be taken cognizance of by the common law. The Petitioner said he had been misled by variance of opinion with respect to the law, and also by the 53d of the King; he added, that supposing himself to have been wrong, he had aircady been severely punished, both by a long imprisonment and by having the whole of his property taken from him; in addition to which he was likely to be imprisoned for three years longer unless he paid the fine imposed upon him-a thing he was totally nuable to do. He prayed the interference of the House. The Honourable and Learned Member wished to guard himself against the impression, that from what had fallen from him he had in the slightest degree expressed his approval of the principles of Mr. Carlile, or the manner in which those opinions had been promulgated. He thought it was the duty of every Member to present any Petition respectfully worded, without being deterred by a fear of being mixed up with the case or conduct of the Petitioner (hear!). It was no offence against the Law to entertain any set of opinions, either upon religious or political subjects; neither was it any to discuss them, provided they were discussed with decency and propriety. If a man was an Atheist or an Infidel, it was his misfortune, not his fault; but if he indecently and improperly published those opinions, then he was amenable to the laws of his country. He should look on an Atheist or an Infidel, if there were any such, with pity, not with blame; and be should consider him to be a rash man who would undertake to punish the free discussion of such subjects, provided that dis-、

cussion was conducted with decency, as ho considered that such discus, sions, instead of being injurious, would be beneficial to reĤigion.—The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Brougham did himself great honour, by the eloquent and manly manner in which, on presenting a Petition from Richard Carlile, he reprobated the sentence under which that individual had so long suffered. His arguments were a very apposite commentary on the beautiful passage in his inaugural discourse, at Glasgow, printed at the request of the Priucipal, Professors, and Students, of that University, and therefore adopted by that learned and highly respectable body :-"The great troth has finally gone forth to all the ends of the earth, THAT MAN SHALL NO MORE RENDER ACCOUNT TO MAN FOR HIS BELIEF, OVER WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF NO CONTROUL Ilenceforward, nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame any one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin, or the height of his stature." It is the more meritorious in Mr. Brougham, and the University of Glasgow, to adopt so liberal a principle, that the nation in general, is, we believe, far from being ripe for it. Wo are reproached even by the QUARTERLY REVIEW, in the last number, with being one of the most intolerant nations in Europe; a singular circumstance, when it is considered that the philosophy of Europe received its strongest impulse from the philosophers of England. The punishment awarded to Carlile is, no doubt, worse than death, and therefore we do not give the Judges who sentenced him credit for mercy, in not sen. tencing him to the stake. They might have done so with safety, for we firmly believe, that if Carlile had been sentenced to the flames they would have pleased a very great part of the population of England. Let us hope that kinder views will at length prevail,—that whatever men may think of any opinions, they will not wish to sentence those who enter. tain them to punishments as severe as any which can be inflicted by the Inquisition.

To shew the difference between punishment when awarded by dispas. sionato Legislation, and punishment awarded as in the case in question, we shall quote the enactments on the subject in the Prussian Code, drawn up during the reign of the present religious Monarch.

"§ 214. Whoever insults the religious bodies adopted by the State, by abuse in public discourses or writings, or by offensivo acts and gestures, shall be subject to an imprisonment of from four weeks to six months in a Prison or House of Correction.

"$217. Whoever by coarse invectives against God (blasphemy), pronounced publicly, gives occasion to general offence, shall be imprisoned for from two to six months, and then be instructed respecting his duties and the magnitude of his offence."

That the sentence was contrary to law, we do not for a moment doubt. Mr. BROUGHAM quotes Sir EDWARD COKE to shew that blasphemy was not an offence at Common Law. In the Ecclesiastical Code of every country of Europe, it ranks below heresy, and the law of England has left heresy, the heavier offence, entirely to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Our forefathers, rude as they were, punished heresy only with fire when the offender would not recant his errors.

In every age there is some offence against the punishment of which few men will dare to raise their voice. Woe to the unhappy victim if he falls into certain hands, for where public opinion affords no check mercy will seldom be known. But still, though the Judges who pronounced this awful punishment have nothing to dread from public opinion, while those who challenge them have, it is lamentable to think that men should be such

wild beasts to each other—that while the ass, whose will comes in contact with that of its owner, should be protected by a MARTIN and thousands of followers, there are none to raise their voice against the horrid punishment of an imprisonment for life for an unfortunate human being.

RICHARD CARLILE.

The following is a copy of the Petition presented last night by Mr. Brougham to the House of Commons:

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.

The Petition of Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester Gaol, sheweth, That, since the year 1818, your petitioner and about twenty other persons have been proscouted, at what has been called common law, for blas. phemy towards the Christian Religion.

That, on the 16th day of November, 1819, your pctitioner was sentenced by the Court of King's Bench to three years imprisonment in Dorchester Gaol, and to fines of fifteen hundred pounds, as the consequence of this, prosecution.

That, your petitioner has never been able to sce, that he has been dealt with according to law, and is possessed of very strong arguments to show, that such has not been the case; but that having been deprived of all his property, by seizures for his fines, in addition to his continued imprisonment for near six years, he has never since possessed the means to proceed for justice by writ of error.

That there exists a Statute made in the year 1813, entitled "An act to relieve those persons who impugn the doctrine of the Holy Trinity."

That, this Statute plaiuly and expressly relieves those, who impugn the Trinity, from all pains and penalties.

That, the doctrine of the Trinity being the foundation of the Christian Religion, as it has ever previously been recognised by the law of England, to impugn that doctrine, is, according to your petitioner's judgment, to blaspheme the Christian Religion as previously established by law, and. that this statute was, as plain as words could make it, a repeal of all former power of the law to interfere with the religion of the country.

That your petitioner pleaded this law in the Court of King's Bench, as his justification, but was answered that the common law was paramount to it.

That your petitioner cannot understand, how two laws can justly existy in the same country, the one hostile to the other, and finds himself unwa rily entrapped into an alleged law, of the existence of which he had no knowledge, under the conclusion, that the latest made law repealed all prior opposition.

That it appears, by reports of public proceedings, that the highest law officer in the country bas alarmed a large body of the people, who thought themselves secure in the statute law, by the assertion that they are crimi nals in the eye of this alleged Common Law.

That the allegation, that Christianity was or is a part or parcel of the law of the land, and that to impugn it was or is an offence at Common Law, was first asserted by Sir Matthew Hale, without reference to any precedent or prior authority.

That but a few years before this unfair addition to the Common Law, Lord Chief Justice Coke, always considered as good an authority as Sir Matthew Hale, distinctly laid it down as law, in mentioning the case of

Caubrey, "that so in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual, as blasphemy, apostacy from Christianity, heresies, schisms, &c., THE CONUSANCE WHEREOF BELONGETH NOT TO THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND, the same are to be determined and decided by ecclesiastical judges, according to the King's Ecolesiastical Laws of this Realm;" and he gives, as a reason, that, "for as before it appeareth, the deciding of matters so many and of so great importance, are not within the conusance of the Common Laws."

That before the abolition of the Star Chamber, and the decay of the Ecclesiastical Courts, no cases of blasphemy towards the Christian Religion were known to the Common Law Courts.

That no Statute can be found, which has conferred authority on the Common Law Courts, to take conusance of a charge of blasphemy towards the Christian Religion, as assumed by Sir Matthew Hale.

That it therefore clearly appears, that that and the subsequent conusance of such cases by the Common Law Courts, has been an unjust usurpation of power, and an unlawful creation of law, contrary to the Common and Statute Laws of this Realm.

That later than the middle of the eighteenth century, Lord Mansfield decided, that the Common Law did not take conusance of matters of opinion. Whence it appears, by this and by the authority of Lord Coke, the immediate predecessor of Sir Matthew Hale, that the Judges are not unanimous upon this subject, and that Sir Matthew Hale evidently warped the Common Law to punish an individual, who bad not committed a real infringement of that or of any other law, and that such has been the conduct of the Judges in the case of your petitioner and others.

That as the Roman Catholic Sect of the Christian Religion was alone known to the Common Law, that, as no addition can have been justly made to the Common Law since the reformation from that Religion, that since the existing Statute Laws pronounce the religion of the Common Law to have been, and to be "idolatrous and damnable,” and since the passing of the act of 1813, which allows the doctrine of the Trinity to be impugned, to impugn, meaning the assertion of its falsehood, to speak evil of or to blaspheme, or to try to overthrow; it is clear, that the existing Religion of the Statute Law is not recognized nor recognizable by the Common Law of the country.

That upon these grounds and arguments, your petitioner feels, that he has not been dealt with according to law, and that he has been gricvously fined and imprisoned contrary to law, and be therefore prayeth that your Honourable House will give him relief by the investigation of his case, or by restoring to him the property of which he has been deprived on the pretence of seizing for his fines, to enable him to proceed by writ of

error.

Dorchester Gaol, June 24.

RICHARD CARLILE.

NOTE. It appears, that the Crown Lawyers were silent on the receipt of this petition by the House: neither of them said any thing because neither of them could find an argument to advance against it. Had I not been so scandalously robbed by the ministers, I should have certainly carried the question to the House of Lords.

R. C.