§ Mr.Broughampresented a petition from RichardCarlile, and six other individuals. The petitioners stated, that they had been prosecuted, and were immured in different prisons of the country, for not being Christians, and for stating their reasons why they were not so. They prayed that the House would rescind the various sentences which had been passed against them, and admit them to the same toleration that was enjoyed by other Dissenters. No one who knew him (Mr. Brougham) would suppose that he was inclined to patronize any species of indecent ribaldry against the institutions of the country, He considered such ribaldry to be a crime in itself, and the very worst mode of propagating any kind of opinions. For, suppose the party who held such opinions to be right, and the rest of the country to be in the wrong, the expression of then in ribald or indecent language was calculated to affront the feelings of those whom he ought to conciliate rather than offend if he wished to make them proselytes. At the same time, he thought that the law ought not to press too heavily upon them, because they appeared to be, in certain degree, enthusiasts and fanatics and toleration, as well as expediency required that they should not be subjected to that degree of punishment which would entitle them to be considered a martyrs to the principles, such as the were, that they professed. if they, had 1016 taken a bad way to attack the religion of the country, it was incumbent upon us not to take a bad way to defend it; and the worst. of all possible ways would be to inflict severer punishment than their offences required. Having thus endeavoured to guard himself against misconstruction, he would say, that he could conceive no harm as likely to accrue to religion from fair and free discussion; and that until the mode of discussion became so offensive as to excite against it the feelings of almost every man in the country, prosecutions for blasphemy were among the very worst methods of defending religion. That was his deliberate and sincere opinion; for he could hardly conceive any instance in which toleration could be carried too far, either to the religion professed or to the persons professing it.
Mr. Secretary Peelagreed, that prosecutions should not be instituted on the score of religious opinions, so long as those opinions were expressed in fair and temperate language; but, he contended, that as soon as they vented themselves in scurrilous attacks on established institutions, they deserved the attention of the civil authorities. He maintained that the libels published by Carlile and his fellow, petitioners were revolting to the feelings of every moral man in the country, and were therefore properly selected for prosecution. He did not see how Carlile could be held up as an object of mercy. So far from expressing any contrition for the offence he had committed, he gloried in it, and not only boasted that he would continue to repeat it, but actually carried his boast into execution. To his sister, the mercy of the Crown had been extended; and she had shown herself not undeserving of it, by refusing to participate any further in the blasphemous publications of her brother.
§ Mr. Monckridiculed the idea of defending religion by prosecution. There was no law in America against blasphemy, and yet no country in the world was more free from blasphemous publications.
Sir F. Burdettcontended, that all prosecutions for religious opinions were inexpedient. It was agreed on all hands, that religious opinions ought to be tolerated so long as they were expressed in temperate language; but it was now argued, that as soon as those opinions were so expressed, as to disgust every honest mind, then they ought, to be visited with 1017 punishment. Now, it appeared to him that under such circumstances they ought not to be noticed; because if they were as poisonous as was represented, they carried along with them their own antidote. If M. Carlile had not been prosecuted by the government, he would at this moment have been totally unheard of; whereas, by prosecuting him, the government had given him a notoriety which he could not otherwise have acquired; and had got themselves into a scrape from which they found some difficulty in getting extricated. The infliction of great severity on any man for his opinions, no matter how offensive they might be, was the most certain way, not to wean him from, but to confirm him in, those obnoxious opinions.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that so far was the punishment inflicted on these petitioners from having put down publications of this obnoxious character, that they were now sold openly in all parts of the town [hear]. It had been said, that if the discussion of religious truths were calmly conducted, it ought to be permitted. A wonderful admission truly; Why, where would be the use of the discussion of religion, if the argument was to be all on one side? He then pointed out the glaring inconsistency of denying to the poor the right of reading any discussion upon the truths of Christianity, and of allowing to the rich the privilege of having in their libraries the works of Gibbon, and all such writers.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that this was the only country in Europe where individuals were imprisoned for religious opinions. If our prisons continued to be filled with individuals suffering for religious opinions, England would succeed to the vacant post of inquisitor-general for Europe.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, it was ridiculous to talk of the prisons of the country being filled with sufferers for religious opinions, when there were not more than eleven persons confined for blasphemous publications; and of that number five had been prosecuted since his accession to his present office.
The Attorney-Generalcontended, that the prosecutions had been effectual in suppressing blasphemous publications; and argued, that it was unfair to blame ministers for keeping these individuals in prison, when they were consigned to it by a sentence of the court of King's bench, arising out of those prosecutions. They were most of them imprisoned for 1018 selling "Palmer's Principles of Nature;" and he would say that a more horrible, blasphemous, and scurrilous libel had never issued from the press. The juries who had tried these petitioners were not more shocked by the work itself, than by the manner in which the parties had ventured to defend it.
§ Mr. Broughamdid not blame the law-officers for prosecuting these individuals, but rather for leaving them unprosecuted, until their offences had risen to such a height as to be thought fit ground for altering the old statute law of the country. He blamed them for bringing down six new acts upon the country, without trying the efficacy of those which were in existence. Long before those acts were passed, Benbow had kindly offered the throats of several individuals to the knife. Why had he escaped prosecution? If any man deserved prosecution, it was that individual, but the government abstained from indicting him, and others who were equally culpable with him, in order that they might repeat their offences, and so afford a pretext for innovating upon the constitution. It had been said, that prosecutions were not instituted because juries would not convict. He had always said, that, though juries might not be inclined to convict for libels against the government, they would be ready enough to convict for libels inciting to assassination. With regard to "Palmer's Principles of Nature" he would undertake to say, that it was not half so bad as any publication of Hume or Gibbon. Voltaire's works were full of ribaldry and indecency, and yet they had not been prosecuted for corrupting the morals of the ladies and gentlemen at the west end of the town. If works of this description were to be prosecuted, the prosecutions should be directed to the works read by the rich, instead of being confined to works read exclusively by the poor.
Ordered to lie on the table.