EASTER TERM 1820; TUESDAY THE 9TH OF MAY. THE KING AGAINST ROBERT WEDDERBURN

The Defendant having been found guilty of uttering a blasphemous libel at the sittings after Hilary Term, appeared pursuant to a notice he had received from the Solicitors to the Treasury, to receive judgment.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE went through the notes he had taken on the Trial, recapitulating minutely the words of the libel as stated in the indictment, and as given in evidence by each of the witnesses William Plush and Matthew Matthewson

The Defendant was then asked if he had any affidavits to put in, to which he replied in the negative, but said he had something to say to the court, and proceeded to state:

That however long the counts of the indictment against him might be; and however strongly they had been sworn to, yet he did not think he had said so much, or at least in the manner precisely as stated by the evidence.

That in consequence of his being thrown into prison, his chapel was shut up and his congregation dispersed, which circumstances had prevented him from seeking from amongst them evidence to contradict or invalidate the testimony on the part of the Crown. As for himself his memory was extremely bad, and it was impossible for him to recollect all he might have said on the occasion. Every observation he made arose spontaneous on the spur of the moment; his sermons or speeches were never the result of previous contrivance, but he did certainly remember to have spoken upon the story of the Witch of Endor.

Back to top

His impression on this subject arose from the circumstance of seeing his aged grandmother, a poor black slave in the island of Jamaica, several times most cruelly flogged by order of her master, a white man and a christian, for being a WITCH; now as he, when a child, had frequently picked her pocket of sixpences and shillings, he was well convinced she could not possess the qualities and powers attributed to witches, or she must have detected his petty depredations. When he came to be a Christian, and read the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, with these impressions upon his mind, that witches must be bad people, he could never bring himself to believe that such characters could work miracles and raise the dead.

The Defendant was proceeding with similar illustrations to show the origin of his scepticism, respecting Balaam's ass speaking, but the court considered his language was of a nature which they could not tolerate.

He then said, it might save time and prevent him wounding the ears of the court, if the paper was read that he had in his pocket, which was in the nature of a motion in arrest of judgment. He then put in a brief, which was read by one of the officers of the court as follows.

May it please your Lordships. I am well aware that the gentlemen of the bar will smile, at what they will call the vanity and presumption of a humble individual like myself, in attempting to address the court on an occasion like the present. They are welcome to smile, but I will tell them that the most brilliant efforts which the ablest of them could make, were I capable of employing them, would, be equally as useless in this place, and on this subject, as what I am now going to offer.

Back to top

However humble I may be as a member of society, and whatever efforts may be made to degrade me and render me contemptible in the eyes of the world, I have nevertheless the pride, and the ambition, to flatter myself, that even my simple exertions will one day or other be of no mean importance to the cause I am embarked in, which is that of Religious Liberty and the Universal Right of Conscience.

If we would obtain the privileges to which we are entitled, neither death nor dungeons must terrify us; we must keep in mind the example of Christ and his apostles, of Penn and the primitive Quakers, who all promulgated what they considered was true and beneficial to mankind, without the slightest regard to the evil consequences which such, their bold, independent, and disinterested conduct might bring down upon themselves. What was the result? Christianity in the first instance, and Quakerism in the second, were established by the very opposition that they met with.

VOLTAIRE has justly observed, that `Martyrs are productive of proselytes;' and the history of every age proves the assertion. The execution of Jesus Christ, a mild and amiable man, between two abandoned characters, excited sympathy in the breasts of the people, and roused a spirit of enquiry as to what were the doctrines for which he was condemned.

The early Quakers were a stern and stubborn set of men, determined both to risk and to suffer persecution in the attainment of their object; and by this means they ultimately secured, and do still enjoy, greater religious liberties than any other sect without the pale of the state religion. Why then may not the numerous Latitudinarians of the present day hope, by zeal, industry, courage, and perseverance, to gain that toleration which is granted to others; or I should rather say, those rights to which by the law of nature they are entitled; for the very term toleration is a delusion; and as our GRAND PATRIARCH,' hath well said, `It is not the opposite of INTOLERANCE, but only its counterfeit'; and a very shrewd and acute writer 2 of modern times has remarked, that `The legislature might as well pass an act to tolerate and empower the Almighty to receive the worship of the Jew, the Turk &c. as to pretend to tolerate, or permit to suffer either of those characters to worship their respective gods according to their several and peculiar notions.'

Back to top

I feel firmly persuaded, that no effort, however humble, will ultimately be lost to the cause of Truth and Liberty; and that even my trifling productions may, perhaps, `Like bread cast on the waters, be seen after many days.' The progress of TRUTH IS Slow,' says HELVETIUS, `and may be compared to a stone thrown into a lake; the waters separate at the point in contact, and produce a circle; that circle is surrounded by another, and that by others still larger, and so on, until they break against the shore, and become mingled with the general mass.' It is by these slow degrees that all new truths are propagated, because they must necessarily meet with considerable opposition from the ignorant, the prejudiced, and above all, from those whose interests would be injured by the public adoption of these new truths.

Having made these general observations, I shall now proceed to offer some reasons, why judgment should not pass against me; but I must only be considered as doing it in the character of an advocate for religious liberty, and not as one asking for mercy, or fearing, or wishing to avert your sentence, however severe.

In the first place, I most solemnly protest against the authority of this, or any other court upon earth, to interfere with matters of conscience, and contend that they are superior to the controul of any human tribunal. Both the advocate on the part of the crown, and the learned judge who presided during my trial, evaded the main question, by stating, that I was not prosecuted for entertaining this, or that opinion; but for grossly reviling the religion established by law.

With all due deference to such high authorities, I humbly submit, that this is a sophism which will not stand the test of fair examination; because, of what use is the liberty of thinking, or the liberty of conscience, if we are not permitted to give vent to them. The celebrated politician MACHIAVELLI, has said, `Man has a right to think all things, speak all things, and write all things, but not to impose his opinions.' We have not however, to thank any human being, for acknowledging our right to think; as 'tis neither in their power, nor our own, to controul our thoughts; neither chains, nor dungeons, nor the terrors of being burnt alive, can prevent us from thinking freely; neither ought they to prevent us from speaking freely, writing freely, and publishing freely; if we think we can benefit mankind, by exposing falsehood and error.

Back to top

JUSTIN MARTYR, one of the earliest and most learned writers of the eastern church, being at Rome during the reign of Antoninus Plus, and finding that the Christians were grievously persecuted in some of the distant provinces, addressed two apologies to that emperor in their behalf, pointing out in a very able manner the impropriety and absurdity of religious persecution. In his second Apology he says, `Reason informs, and admonishes us, that true philosophers, and men of virtue, have in every age loved and honored the simple Truth, and have turned aside from following the ancients, whenever their opinions have been found erroneous and bad; and that the inquisitive searcher after truth should prefer it to his life, and should not be deterred by the fear of death, or the threats of torture, from speaking and acting according to justice.'

In consequence of these apologies, that Pagan emperor wrote to the states of Asia, not only forbidding the Christians to be persecuted, but enjoining, that `If any one hereafter shall go on to inform against this sort of men, purely because they are Christians, let the persons accused be discharged, although they are Christians, and let the informer himself undergo the punishment.'

It is of no use, my lords, to say we are tolerated to worship that power, or those powers, which the greater portion of mankind agree in placing above NATURE, if we are to be checked at every moment, and told we must not do it in this, or that manner; because instruction by preaching forms a part of most religious worship; and it must certainly happen, that when we are all assembled to worship our common Father, we shall be found mutually abusing each other, or, at least, the doctrines of each other.

How can the different priests, or teachers, warn their respective audiences against what they concieve to be erroneous, without endeavoring to place that error in the strongest light-to show that it is ridiculous-or absurd-or contradictory-or gross falsehood. Must not the Catholic enlarge upon the heresy of the Protestant; the Protestant upon the idolatry and superstition of the Catholic; the Dissenter upon the lukewarmness and formality of the church of England; the Unitarian upon the droll hypothesis of the Trinity; the Deist upon what he conceives to be the absurdities and inconsistences contained in that book which all the former revere as a divine revelation; and lastly, must not the Atheist (who has the same right with the rest,) when lecturing on his system, necessarily treat the whole as fables and fiction?

Back to top

How, I ask, can religious liberty exist, if this be not permitted? How could the teacher of Nazareth, and his zealous disciples, have preached upon the purity and simplicity of their monotheistic system, without contrasting it with the absurdities of polytheism? Was it possible to establish a Deistical religion, without proving that the fables of the Grecian and Roman gods, goddesses, and demigods were not only false, but puerile and ridiculous-and was not this openly reviling that religion which was identified with, and the foundation of all the administration of justice in those countries.

Eusebius in his life of Constantine the Great, records the following direction given by that emperor: `Let those that are in error, enjoy the same peace and tranquility as the faithful; and restoration of intercourse may go far to reclaim them to the right way. Let none molest another; but let every one act as his conscience dictates. Let those who have a true opinion of the Deity, believe that such only as regulate their lives by the rule of his laws, lead a holy and upright life; but let those who conform not thereto, erect temples, (if they will,) and consecrate groves to vanity. And let no man in any point, of which he is ever so clearly convinced, offend in any wise, or endanger another; but when a man has discovered a truth, let him therein benefit his neighbour if possible, otherwise pass him by. For a man voluntarily to strive after immortality, is one thing; it is another to be compelled thereto by fear of punishment.'

I cannot help adding one more instance of princely liberality, worthy the imitation of modern potentates. It is from the annals of our own country: when Pope Gregory the First sent the monk Austin, and forty missionaries, to plant the gospel in Great Britain, that prince, though an idolater, went out to meet them with the greatest courtesy, sat in the open air to hear their leader preach; and after listening to them attentively, made the following handsome reply, which we have preserved by the venerable Bede. `Your proposals are noble, your promises are inviting, but I cannot resolve upon quitting the religion of my ancestors for one that appears to me supported only by the testimony of persons who are entire strangers to me. However, since as I perceive you have taken a long journey, on purpose to impart to us what you deem most important and valuable, you shall not be sent away without some satisfaction. I will take care that you are treated civilly, and supplied with all things necessary and convenient; and if any of my subjects, convinced by what you shall say to them, desire to embrace your religion, I shall not be against it.'

I shall now proceed to a second ground of argument, why judgment should not pass against me. It has no personal reference to myself; viz. the weak and narrow policy which dictated this prosecution; because those doctrines which would have been confined to my obscure chapel-to my small congregation,-are now by the fostering aid of my prosecutors, published to the whole world. They themselves are the means of widely disseminating that which they pretend to condemn. They have effectually advertized the very thing which they dislike. By preventing me from preaching, they have compelled me to become an author. They have dragged me from obscurity into public notice; and since they have made me a member of the Republic of Letters, I beg leave to recommend to their attention a critical, historical, and admonitory letter, which I have just published, `Addressed to the Right Reverend Father in God, his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, on the alarming Progress of Infidelity; and the means which ought immediately to be resorted to, to check its frightful career.'

Back to top

Lord Shaftsbury says, `It is a hard matter for a government to settle wit,' and the great Lord Chancellor Bacon observes, `The punishment of wits serves to enhance their authority; and a forbidden writing is thought to be a certain spark or truth, that flies up in the face of them who seek to tread it out.' And I appeal to the experience of all men, whether they have not uniformly perused a condemned libel with greater eagerness, and consequently received a stronger impression from it, than they would have if it had not been prohibited. My prosecutors evince great ignorance of human nature, if they think they can tell the world of the existence of a singular doctrine, or a curious book, without at the same time creating in them a strong desire to become acquainted with it. They should keep in mind the allegory of our great grandmother Eve, and the tree of knowledge. She was forbidden to taste its fruit, lest her eyes should be opened, but her curiosity could not resist the temptation to disobey, though the punishment attached was so great. Will my prosecutors admit that they are suppressing my opinions from the same motives, and that their ends are thwarted in a similar manner. I know I shall be told again, that 'tis not my doctrines, but my language, for which I am prosecuted. This I contend is contemptible sophistry. If I am a low, vulgar man, and incapable of delivering my sentiments in an elegant and polished manner, am I to be condemned, when I find two pages in the Bible most palpably contradicting each other, for asserting that one of them must be A LIE?-for stating the history of the Witch of Endor to be an idle tale, and old woman's story:-and for attempting to divest the simple Deistical and Republican system of Jesus, of those gaudy appendages, those trumpery additions, with which craft and ignorance combined, have conspired to corrupt its native purity, its original simplicity. If this is not permitted, if any system is to be considered infallible, a bar is put to all human improvement. They must look up the human understanding, (that most glorious ornament wherewith NATURE hath vouchsafed to embellish her creature man,) in the trammels of superstition. They must tell mankind that all other sciences may be improved with credit, honor, and reward, but that no new lights must be thrown on the science of theology, under the penalty of dungeons and death.

Many obstacles are cast in the way of improvement in the science of government, but I may call the game laws,-the right of primogeniture, and several others,-`Relics of feudal barbarism' unjust infringements of the law of nature;'-I may ridicule them and revile them, and you have no law to punish me; but if I comment upon what I conceive to be errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the Act of Parliament Religion, in a plain and intelligible manner, I am to be thrown into a prison.

That excellent writer GORDON, in a work called Cato's Letters, says, `whoever would overturn the liberties of a nation, must begin by subverting the freedom of speech; but I have no fear that the REMAINING liberties of this country can be destroyed as long as there are people willing to suffer, and I am proud in reflecting that there are hundreds like myself, who aspire to the crown of martyrdom.

Back to top

My Lords, some persons in my situation would endeavour to press upon your consideration the jury's recommendation to mercy, and the long imprisonment I experienced before I was bailed out to prepare for my defence. But it is by no means my wish to obtrude these circumstances on the notice of your Lordships, as I am so extremely poor that a prison will be a home to me; and as I am so far advanced in life I shall esteem it an honor to die immured in a Dungeon for advocating THE CAUSE OF TRUTH, OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE.

ROBERT WEDDERBURN

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL briefly remarked, that the defendant had been recommended to mercy because the jury considered him to have erred through ignorance, and for want of parental care in his early years, but this could not be the case, if he was the author of that paper, which displayed considerable information. The Defendant likewise informs us, that we have compelled him to become an author, and made him a member of the Republic of Letters. He calls our attention to a letter he has just published, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury; how does this tally with his supposed ignorance, and incapability of writing? [He the defendant begged leave to state that it was true he could not write, but that he had caused his ideas to be committed to writing by another person]

At all events, continued the learned counsel, the defendant is a most dangerous character, because he certainly possesses considerable talents, and those too of a popular nature, and calculated to do much mischief amongst the class of people to whom he was in the habit of addressing himself. It must be recollected that his place of holding forth was a licensed chapel, and he himself a licensed preacher of the Unitarian persuasion. All these circumstances formed a protection for him, and he made use of it for the purpose of undermining and reviling the Religion of the Country.

He complains that this prosecution is the result of a persecuting spirit, of religious bigotry; but we can assure him it is not on the score of his opinions, however offensive, but for the open, scurrilous, gross, and violent manner in which he has attacked scandalised, and reviled, the Christian Religion. If he had but delivered his sentiments in a cautious, decent, and guarded manner, this prosecution would never have been instituted, but such language as his, addressed to the lower orders of the community, can never be tolerated.

MR JUSTICE BAILEY, in pronouncing the sentence of the court, addressed the defendant to the following effect:

You have been convicted by a jury of making use, in a certain discourse, of the blasphemous and profane words which have been detailed in the evidence already recapitulated-language calculated to distress the feelings of those who entertain a reverence for the sacred scriptures. It could not be tolerated, it did not show ignorance, but he was sorry to say a perverted and depraved talent.

Back to top

The book you so impiously revile is of great antiquity, and contains not only the religion of this country, but of many others, and of all civilised and enlightened nations. Much of it is held in esteem both by Jews and Gentiles, the Jews themselves being a monument of its truth, and the part which they venerate is not inferior to the other. It has received the sanction of ages, it is the foundation of all courts of justice, and consequently, whenever it has received any violent attack, this court has always shown the offenders that it was a great crime, and punished them accordingly.

The Christian religion wants not the arm of man or of the law to support it, but it is nevertheless the duty of those who have to protect the public tranquility, to prevent all attempts to destroy it. Those who have leisure to investigate its internal evidence, cannot be injured by such doctrines as these, for I am convinced no one can be an infidel, who will examine it with candour and impartiality. It contains nothing but good will towards man, it is calculated to render him more humble, more submissive, and every way a better member of society, and of course to advance the happiness of mankind.

Those persons who have an opportunity of calmly examining it want no protection, but there are a vast many who have ears to hear, but not leisure to study and reflect, and it is for their protection that this prosecution is instituted.

Back to top

This is a country, certainly of great freedom, but that freedom must not be suffered to launch into licentiousness. I regret, from the nature of what you offer, and the document put in, that the same disposition of hostility towards religion, which animated you when you committed the offence, still appears to influence your conduct.

When persons stand upon the floor of this court to answer for an offence, it is possible they may diminish the quantum of punishment, by proving that they have repented of their crime; but you still persist in justifying it, which is an aggravation of your offence. It is our duty then to remove you, at least for a time, from society, that you may be prevented doing it a further injury by the dissemination of your dangerous doctrines.

The Court do therefore sentence you to be imprisoned for two years in his majesty's jail at Dorchester, and at the expiration of that time, to enter into sureties, yourself in �50, and two other persons �25 each, for your good behaviour for three years more.

The End.

NOTES

1.                  The Philosopher of Ferney. Wedderburn is referring to Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778), the most famous deist philosophe, sometimes known as the philosopher of Ferney where his country estate was located on the French-Swiss frontier.

2.         Paine.