He

cinating and insiduous? Why is there not some high sounding name given to the systematic blasphemies of the Unitarians? Why are they not indicted and brought to the bar, by those who are prosecuting the ignorant and the poor? Why were they not upon the same footing as his client? His client was equally as respectable, but with this difference that the one had the misfortune to be a defendant at that bar, and the others were suffered to go free. They were allowed to profess publicly their doctrines; they were supported by persons high in station, who believed in their doctrines, nay, who openly protected and upheld them. was standing before them, not as a Catholic, a Protestant, or a member of any other sect, but as a general Christian; and he would scorn to mix up his political or religious opinions on such a topic, or such a theme; he would scorn the man who did so. Could they sit in that box aud feel sentiments of indignation against that poor ignorant man, when the systematic blasphemer - the Unitarian-should be exempt from punishment, and who should be at that bar, if law did as it ought? was not this shameful partiality of the laws which made them the gaze and stare of the whole world, when the Unitarians were looked upon as a respectable, a moral, and a religious sect?-these titles were given to them, but they were denied to other blasphemers. If a Roman Catholic aspires to any dignity in the state, he is not allowed, because he differs from the established religion. Although he is as virtuous, as moral, and as good a citizen as the Protestant, still he is proscribed. It was not for him to comment or call in question the wisdom of the Legislature; but it was abominable to see that the Catholic could not rise to any great dignity in the Army or Navy, or even obtain a silk gown, while the Unitarians were eligible, and possessed posts of the highest honour and distinction in the state. If a place in the state was offered to a Catholic, and that the usual oath was proposed to him, he would refuse the proffered dignity-which shows the strict regard of the Catholic for his religious principles; but if such an oath was proposed to an Unitarian, he would take it, with this mental reservation, that I believe this book to be the Bible, and I believe Christ to be not God, but human. The laws of justice require every man to be treated alike. If there exists a law, which says that the denying of the divinity of Christ is blasphemy, and such a law existed time immemorial-and he called upon the learned Judge to contradict bim if he stated any thing wrong-this being the case, why

are not those who blasphemed brought to this bar? Should they be prosecuted, and the great mass of Unitarians be allowed to remain unprosecuted? If a man stood at that bar for murder, and that he pleaded as an excuse for the crime, that other murderers were at large unpunished, this would not be a good argument, because the crime was a natural crime, and not a positive one. He was sure that the remedy of all this evil and partiality was to be found in the thinking, reflecting, and conscientious minds of a British Jury. He had often been tempted by some of his Learned Friends, to go and hear, as they said, the learned and eloquent discourses at the Unitarian Chapels, although his curiosity and the charms of eloquence would have induced him; but his scruples of conscience to be present at the proclaiming of blasphemy always recalled him to his duty, and he desisted. This metropolis contained in the Unitarians a collection of serpents, who he predicted would one day bring this country to infidelity. It was an admirable answer which our late revered Sovereign gave to the Queen and Princesses when they supplicated his Majesty for Dr. Dodd to remit. his sentence, which, although his crime deserved his fate, still it excited our sympathy, considering the former character of the man. "If," said his Majesty, "I forgive Dr. Dodd, I have murdered the Perreaus." Therefore, Gentlemen, are you to murder that man at the bar, and allow the Unitarians to go unpunished. It was preposterous to suppose that there was justice in punishing a poor illiterate man, who was obliged to do something for the support of his family. He did not wish that the Unitarians should be persecuted for their opinions, but that they should keep such dangerous opinions locked up in their own bosoms. The great question in this case was, did his client know that the book contained a blasphemous libel? Although at first the witness staggered him a little when he said that the defendant told him that the work was prohibited-but it was by his master that they were prohibited-when the Bow Street officers were prowling about like roaring lions, seeking whom they could devour. How did he know it to be a libel? He is an ignorant and an unlettered man, he went there for his - bread. There were books of all sorts there, how was he to know the difference of what was, or was not, blasphemy? Was it defined by the law? and what he was now going to He was the counsel for a young man say was on record. of the name of Trust, who was brought up before the King's Bench for judgment in a case of this kind. Trust asked the

Chief Justice to define blasphemy? The Chief Justice said he did not sit there to define blasphemy. If he was to ask the worthy Dr. Cotton, the chaplain of Newgate what Popery was, he would say it consisted of mild doctrines and true wisdom; but if he had to ask one of his predecessors, he meant Dr. Coetlegan the same question, he could anticipate his answer: for his answer to a similar question some years since was on record, when he pronounced Popery to be a horrid and blasphemous doctrine, and only fit for the meridian of hell. All Protestants did not entertain such sentiments; but there were some who were still prejudiced, and within the last two years there were Bishops who presented works to the throne, therein saying that Catholicity was blasphemous. But he would here pay that compliment to his present excellent Majesty, who was so distinguished for his liberality and his generous feelings, for he wished to see all his subject equally free and equally governed. He scorned to compliment Monarchy at the expense of his conscience; but with regard to his present Majesty, there could not be any compromise of his conscience in that respect. They were not told that the defendant had been some time about town seeking for a place to shelter his head under; they were not even told that he was not even acquainted with Carlile. But he was sure that a British Jury would consider, that a man who could not read, could not know that a book was blasphemous. If therefore they agreed with him in thinking the doctrines of that favoured class the Unitarians, were blasphemous, let them say therefore that they would not concur in this most abominable injustice in bringing forward this small selected portion of blasphemers, and pass by the bulk of that class. He appealed to them if this was not a most appalling injustice. With these sentiments, which were the last he would address to a Court upon such a subject, he would leave it to their humanity and generous hearts to decide.

The Recorder then summed up, and complimented the Learned counsel upon his eloquent and ingenious defence; but, he said, he should tell the Jury that it did not, or could not bear upon the offence of the prisoner.

The Jury then turned round in their box to deliberate; when, after a few minutes, one of them told the Recorder, that there were some of the Jury who were not agreed upon the point of the defendant having a knowledge of the contents of the book when he sold it.

The Recorder-All that I can say is, that I have laid

you down the law; the question is a point of fact for you to decide upon.

Juryman-Perhaps, if your Lordship will read the law again, it may convince the other Gentlemen.

Another Juryman-We don't want to have the law read again.

The Recorder then told Jury that they had better retire, as they would then have an opportunity of discussing the subject.

They then retired, and returned in an hour, and found the defendant Guilty.

The Recorder then told the prisoner, that his case had not those aggravating circumstances which characterized some which had come before the court. Besides, he had the able support of his Counsel, which helped not a little to elucidate his case. Under these circumstances, the Court would mitigate his sentence to six months imprisonment in Newgate, and to find £100. security for his behaviour for life.

TRIAL OF THOMAS RILEY PERRY.

Old Bailey New Court, Monday July 19.

THOMAS RILEY PERRY, who had traversed from the last Sessions, was this morning put to the bar, charged with having, on the 31st of May, published a false, scandalous, blasphemous, and profane libel, of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion.

The Clerk of the Court, as usual, previous to the swearing the Jury, observed, that if the prisoner had any objection to make on the ground of challenge, now was the proper

time.

Defendant-I wish to be certified of the fact, if any of you, Gentlemen, have served on a case of this nature before, that is to say a case of blasphemy?

Each replied in the negative.

Mr. Barnard opened the pleadings. Mr. Bolland stated the case. The libel, he said, consisted of different passages contained in a work entitled "Palmer's Principles of Nature," which he should shew had been purchased from the prisoner. The Learned Gentlemen then

read the libel, which contained strictures on the character of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Moses, and other personages, designating them as impostors, either in fact or in principle, and in allusion to the conception of the Virgin Mary, stating that Jesus Christ was nothing more or less than an illegitimate Jew, &c. If he proved these facts, he should, under his Lordship's direction, be entitled to the verdict of the Jury.

The first witness called was William Wilson, who said, I am a Bow Street patrol; I know 84, Fleet Street; I went there on the morning of the 31st of May, and saw the prisoner in the shop; I went away and returned between twelve and one o'clock. I went into the shop, and asked the prisoner for "Palmer's Principles of Nature;" the prisoner said the price of it was a sovereign; I told him I understood the price of it was 4s. ; he said the regular price of it was 2s., but that they would not sell it for less, unless to Mr. Carlile's particular friends, or to those belonging to the concern, as there were so many Bow Street officers about; I said I hoped he did not think I was going to lay an information against him; he said he did not suppose I was; I told him it was a commission which I had from the country; he asked me what part of the country I came from? and I answered Lincolnshire; he said he had come from Spalding a few days before; I told him that I came from Market Rising; he then said, I suppose I must let you have this book, I suppose I must risk it; he took down the book, and I gave 2s.; he said, if an information be laid on this book it will raise its price to £5.; I wrote my name on the book before I parted with it; I am perfectly satisfied as to the prisoner's person; I can't be mistaken.

Cross-examined by Defeudant.

Defendant-Do you know the nature of an oath?
Witness-I do.

Defendant --Look at me well: Did you ever see me be

fore?

Witness-Never, until I say you in Carlile's shop on the 31st of May.

Defendant-Are you certain that I am the man?

Witness-Yes, quite certain.

Defendant-Do you know my brother?

Witness-I do not.

Defendant-You do not know my twin brother, who, in Lincolnshire, is not known separate from me?

Witness-No, I do not.