Mr. Humesaid, he had three Petitions to present to the House, praying that no man might be prosecuted on account of Religious Opinions. The first was from the inhabitants of Stockport; the second from Richard Carlile, who also complained of the hardship of his case, in being imprisoned for the expression of his opinions; and the third was from the Westminster branch of the National Union. He most fully concurred in the prayer of the Petitions. No man ought to be punished for the expression of his opinions on religious subjects. It was contrary to those principles of religious toleration which were fully recognized by the country.
§ Mr. Trevorwas as ready to admit the principle of religious toleration as any hon. Member; but he thought it a mistake to include within that principle the allowing men to publish the most gross and revolting blasphemies with impunity.
Mr. Humeasked, why did not the hon. Member carry his principle further, and again kindle the fires of Smithfield? for certainly, the principle which he avowed, of punishing any man who differed from him, and who expressed that difference in words or in writing, might extend so far. The hon. Member could not call that toleration which would induce him to fasten to the stake those who differed from him on religious opinions. The principle which he avowed would go that length.
§ Mr. Trevorrepeated, that he was not opposed to religious toleration, but he 896 could not extend it to a public denial of all religion accompanied with gross blasphemy. As to the hon. Member's inferences from his (Mr. Trevor's) opinions, he treated them with the contempt they merited.
§ Colonel Torrensasked the hon. Member whether Christianity did not rest on evidence, and could that evidence be made stronger by the infliction of punishment on those who denied it, or be weakened by the admission of free discussion?
§ Mr. Trevorthought that religion wanted no support but that of its own truth. He had, however, said, and he would repeat it, that the doctrines put forth by Mr. Taylor would be productive of the most injurious consequence to the lower classes.
§ Mr. Protheroesaid, he had some petitions to present on this subject. He was one of those who would not punish a man for his religious opinions; but, as the matter had been represented to him, Mr. Taylor had been guilty of the most indecent conduct, which the State had a right to take notice of. If these representations were true, he could only hope, for Mr. Taylor's own sake, that he had been out of his mind at the time he was guilty of such conduct. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the Society for the Suppression of Vice had not acted with judgment in their prosecutions, but had awakened in every instance the public sympathy in favour of the individuals against whom they directed their attacks.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if Mr. Taylor had been left to himself, he would long ago have ceased to excite any interest in the public mind. He wished that had been the case, and in order to attain that desirable end, he recommended the Government to adopt the course pursued by a late right hon. Secretary of State, who, when he found that the continued imprisonment of Mr. Carlile produced a degree of sympathy on his behalf and procured that individual large subscriptions, released him at once from the imprisonment that had operated so strongly in his favour with the public.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. member for Bristol was not very charitable, if he thought because a man might be mad he ought to be locked up in a dungeon. He (Mr. Hunt) had no doubt that the person in question would soon either become really insane, or die under such treatment.
Mr. Phillip Howardsaid, he thought Ministers had acted with a sound discretion with regard to this person; certainly it was not prudent to draw such people from obscurity unnecessarily, but there were particular cases, and this was one of them, where, blasphemy could not be overlooked.
Mr. Maberlysaid, it would be much more convenient if any hon. Member thought Ministers deserved censure for their conduct towards this man, to bring a specific motion before the House, when it could be properly dealt with, rather than raise continually these incidental discussions.
§ Mr. Ruthvensaid, a man ought not to be subjected to punishment for his opinions; but at the same time he thought the effect of these opinions required to be remedied by the law. Undoubtedly it was the duty of Government to protect both the religion and the morality of the country.
§ Petitions to lie on the Table.