The Battle of The Press

Mr. Carlile: My wish is to defend my conduct from the imputation of malicious intention. In the course of their practice, these learned gentlemen quote precedents on all occasions; why then should not I quote Sir W. Drummond, a man of great talent and research?

The Chief Justice: His book has nothing to do with the case before the jury.

Mr. Carlile: The authority of Sir W. Drummond is as good as that of Lord Ellenborough.

The Chief Justice: You had better conduct yourself with propriety.

Mr. Carlile: In my mind, the authority of Sir W. Drummond possesses far greater weight.

The Chief Justice: Don't suppose, because great forbearance has been shown, that there may not come a time when forbearance must end.

Mr. Carlile: I don't want forbearance, I only want justice.

The Chief Justice: Justice you shall have, according to law; but to let you proceed contrary to law would not be justice. It is no justification for you to say that others have committed the same offence.

Mr. Carlile: I am not willing to take your lordship's-opinion that it is an offence.

The Chief Justice: I have said, all along, that the character of the publication would be ultimately left to the decision of the jury.

Mr. Carlile was proceeding, but the Solicitor-General again interposed.

The Chief Justice: I say it is no justification; but still I would not prevent the defendant from going on if the quotation be not offensive. I do not know that to be the work of Sir W. Drummond.

Mr. Carlile: It is his, for it has been answered by the Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is the best way to elicit truth. Sir W. Drummond's name is to it.

The Chief Justice: No matter by whom it is written. I cannot stay in this place and hear the doctrines of Christianity impugned.

Mr. Carlile: It is not yet proven that I have committed error.

The Chief Justice: I know that – I have stated so all along; but you must not revile and calumniate the Christian religion.

Mr. Carlile: I do not calumniate. I wish to enter on a fair examination.

The Chief Justice: You are not allowed, neither is any man, to read in this place matter calumniating the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Carlile: It is not calumniating.

The foreman of the jury now addressed his lordship. He said the gentlemen of the jury thought the defendant could not do himself any service by going on with such a defence

Mr. Carlile: Am I to understand that to be the sentiment of the jury?

Several Jurymen: Certainly.

After a short pause, Mr. Carlile proceeded. He at length came to a passage in which Sir W. Drummond stated that he did not believe God had ever spoken to Moses.

Mr. Gurney submitted that was the denial of the truth and divine origin of part of the Old Testament, and was punishable by the statute law. It could not therefore be tolerated in that Court.

Mr. Carlile: To what are we to appeal, if not to reason?

The Chief Justice: You are charged with publishing a calumny on the Christian religion; show that the book does not contain such calumny. You cannot prove that there is no calumny in it by reading works of a similar nature.

Mr. Carlile: There are passages in the Bible which I view with as much horror as your lordship does this book. I do not believe them – your lordship does, or you profess that you do. Now it is only by reading controversial disputes on the subject of religion that we can know what is right or what is wrong.

The Chief Justice: We are not here trying the verity of passages of Scripture. I cannot put it to the jury to say whether the Holy Scriptures contain the will of God. This cannot be done in a Christian country.

Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to read, in my defence, things that are disgusting to myself, and which I would not read if I were not compelled to do so.

The Chief Justice: You are not compelled. It can do you no service to read passages of a similar tendency with those which you are charged with having published.

Mr. Carlile: As there is no other passage in this book essential to my defence, I shall now go to the Bible. In reading that work, which the information charges me with calumniating, I can only express my own opinion, as a justification of what I have done. If that opinion is not satisfactory to the minds of the jury, still it would afford some ground for believing that I act from conviction. – [Here Mr. Carlile exhibited a large Bible, which was interleaved for the purpose of entering remarks on different passages.] – The Old Testament, like many other books, begins with giving an account of the creation. – [Mr. Carlile here read several verses from the book of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," etc.] – Now (continued he) I have to state to you that that part of society who believe in this book differ in their ideas of the account of the creation. Some believe it to be an allegory – others consider it a statement of a real transaction. Some of the greatest fathers of the Christian Church, one of whom was Origen, considered it an allegory. When we see persons, who call themselves Christians, and who rest all their future hopes on this book, differing on such a passage, I think an individual, whose mind is not made up on the subject, is at liberty to enquire into the reasons offered for one party believing it to be an allegory, and the other for taking it literally. Moses is stated to be the author of the book of Genesis, but I think it is proved by Paine that he did not write it. Whether it was written by him or not did not, however, invalidate the work. When you read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the philosopher naturally asks, what beginning? If it were said, from the beginning of time, then the world had existed through all eternity, for, to deny the eternity of time, is to deny the eternity of God. But this doctrine did not coincide with that of the Old Testament, although it was founded in reason.

Mr. Carlile was then proceeding with an enquiry into the nature and probability of such a revelation as was mentioned in the Old Testament, but was interrupted by

The Attorney-General, who submitted that no such enquiry could be gone into.

The Chief Justice: It is a very difficult thing to stop a person on his defence, at the commencement of every sentence. I would wish to err on the side of forbearance rather than of severity. Of all cases that can be brought into a Court of Justice, this is the most painful to a Judge. It is not connected with the politics or property of the country, but with its religion. The person on the floor says I profess to be a believer in Christianity. I feel myself called on to say, that I am a firm believer in Christianity. It is most painful to me and to the gentlemen of the jury to hear the observations of the defendant, but still it is a nice and difficult point to stop him.

The Attorney-General said an enquiry into revelation could not be allowed.

Mr. Gurney: His lordship has declared it cannot be admitted.

The Chief Justice: I have said over and over again that we are not to enquire into the truth of the Christian religion; but I am unwilling to stop the defendant till his observations become offensive.

Mr. Carlile: The information charges that the book which I have published describes the Old Testament to contain obscene stories and voluptuous debaucheries, and to be a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind. Another account charges me with publishing a book in which the Bible is stated to be full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Now, how can I defend myself but by showing the truth of the book I have published? If I do prove its truth, I can plead that I published it with a good intention.

The Chief Justice: You cannot go into the truth of the Christian religion.

Mr. Carlile: It is a most improper question, I admit, to be brought before a Court of Justice.

The Chief Justice: Whatever you can state to the gentlemen of the jury, that is proper and relative to your case, shall be heard.

Mr. Carlile: But I must enquire into the truth of the Old Testament.

The Chief Justice: No, sir. As I have said before, it is the history of a sinful people, and of the divine vengeance. The gentlemen of the jury, I have no doubt, are well acquainted with it.

Mr. Carlile: You have not pointed out the divine origin of the Scriptures. I am not of opinion that it is divine; and I wish to state my reasons for holding that opinion.

The Chief Justice: Behave with decorum, and I will not interrupt you.

Mr. Carlile: I do not wish to offend any person. It is not my intention. But what I conceive to be truth, I will promulgate, be the consequence what it may.

The Chief Justice: I will take care that you shall not promulgate in this place anything that is improper.

Mr. Carlile: Your lordship has of course read the case of Galileo. He made a great discovery in astronomy, and was arraigned for his opinion before the ecclesiastical tribunals of his country. The alternative was allowed him either to die at the stake or to retract his opinions; to save his life he did change his opinions, though he was convinced of their truth. He however endeavored privately to disseminate those opinions, but was discovered, and the religious government of that country condemned him to three years' imprisonment. But, before the expiration of that time, the truth of his opinion, that the earth was not flat, but round, and that the sun did not move round the earth but the earth round the sun, were established and admitted by his persecutors. Who then will venture to stop human improvement? Who will say we have gone far enough? I believe, from conviction, having considered the subject, and got all the information I could connected with it, that the book which is called the revealed will of God, is a blasphemy of that God. [A murmur of indignation pervaded the Court.]

The Chief Justice: This is too much.

Mr. Carlile: I can state reason for my belief. I am supported by Sir W. Drummond, a man of the finest education, and who had made the most extensive enquiries the human mind could reach. I am deeply impressed with the impropriety of bringing such a subject before a Court of Justice, but I must either do that or go to a prison, from which perhaps I will never be liberated. The consequence is dreadful to me. I must either get the Attorney-General to withdraw the case from the Court, or enter on my defence in the way I think most likely to answer my purpose.