First Trial, Prosecution Arguments

Tried in Guildhall, London, on Thursday, December 18, 1817, at the
London Sittings after Michaelmas Term.

The Trial of this issue excited considerable interest. So early as eight o'clock the avenues leading to the Court became crowded; the doors were thrown open shortly after, and the Court immediately filled. About twenty minutes after nine o'clock, Mr. Hone entered, attended by a youth, his brother, who placed on the table of the Court several parcels of books and papers, which nearly covered the table. About half-past nine o'clock Mr. Justice Abbott took his seat on the Bench, and the following Special Jury were immediately sworn:

John Godwin Bowring, Leadenhall- street
William Syme, Fenchurch-buildings
John Woollett, Gould-Square
John O'Brien, Broad-street-buildings
William Noakes, Little Eastcheap, South-side, wine merchant

John Gardiner, Old Broad-street
Nicholas Hilton, Ironmonger-lane
Samuel Brook, Old Jewry
James Hunter, Barge-yard
William Thompson, Queen-street
Thomas Lewis, Queen-street
Thomas Edwards, Coleman-street.

Mr. Shepherd (son to the Attorney-General) stated, that this was an information filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the defendant, for printing and publishing a certain impious, profane, and scandalous libel on that part of our church service called the Catechism, with intent to excite impiety and irreligion in the minds of his Majesty's liege subjects, to ridicule and scandalize the Christian religion, and to bring into contempt the Catechism.

My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury,—You have understood from my young friend the nature of this cause. It is an information filed by me, as Attorney-General, against the defendant, William Hone, for printing and publishing an impious and profane libel, upon The Catechism, The Lord's Prayer, and The Ten Command-

ments, and thereby bringing into contempt the Christian Religion. I won't occupy your time long, Gentlemen, in shewing this to be the effect of the publication, for it seems impossible for me to hear it read without feeling one's-self compelled to apply to it this language. It is charged, and, as I think, justly charged, with being a profane, blasphemous, and impious libel. It has nothing of a political tendency about it, but it is avowedly set off against the religion and worship of the Church of England, as established by Act of Parliament. It has been over and over again said by the most eminent Judges, and particularly by one who was the most learned man that ever adorned the bench—the most even man that ever blessed domestic life—the most eminent man that ever advanced the progress of science—and also one of the best and most purely religious men that ever lived. I speak of Sir Matthew Hale. It was by him in one sentence said, that "the Christian Religion is parcel of the Common Law of England." The service of the Church of England is also part of the statute law of England; for in the reign of Charles the Second, for securing uniformity of public prayer in the Church of England, a book, commonly called The Book of Common Prayer, was not composed, but collected, and annexed to an Act of Parliament then framed, as part of the enacted form of the Liturgy of the Church of England. If to revile that—if to bring it into contempt be not a libel, then Christianity no longer is what Sir Matthew Hale described it—"parcel of the Common Law of England," nor this Sacred Book a part of the Statute Law of the land, because in such an event the law must declare its inability to support its own provisions. In that book there is a Catechism, the object of which is most important, because it is that part which is peculiarly destined for forming in the minds of the younger classes of the community that proper foundation for religious belief which is to influence their future conduct. It is that part which the Ministers of the Church of England are peculiarly bound to teach to those between the infant and adult state at certain periods of time; it is that part [in] which all who are initiated into Christianity through baptism must be confirmed before they come to their pastor in an adult state. To procure this important object, it consists of three parts:—1st, The Service of the Church of England; 2nd, The Apostles Creed (which is professed by every class of Christians, no matter what be their particular form of worship); and 3d, The Ten Commandments, which were of divine origin from the mouth of God through Moses to the Jews. These form the foundation of all our religious and moral duties; they are those which, if men would but obey, there would be an end to strife; nothing but peace and happiness could then be found in human society. This Book (The Book of Common Prayer) has also the Lord's Prayer, as in his sacred and blessed Sermon on the Mount. If these works be not what ought to be held sacred from ridicule, what is there which can be called so in the mind of a Christian? I take [t]his to be a proposition of law, that he who attempts to parody these three sacred parts of Christian belief, and presents them to the mind in a ridiculous shape, does that which is calculated to bring them into contempt, and is therefore, by the law of the land, guilty of a libel.

It cannot be necessary to Christian minds to reason on the baneful effect of such a publication as the Defendant's. If any of you, Gentlemen, be fathers, and wish your children to hold in reverence the sacred subjects of Christian belief, read these publications of the Defendant, and say if you would put them into the hands of those children you love. If you would not put them into their hands, would you into those of the lower classes of society, which are not fit to cope with the sort of topics which are artfully raised for them? I ask you, if it be possible, that after such publications are thus cheaply thrown among this class of people, they can, with the same degree of reverence that becomes the subject, look at the contents of the Sacred Book of our belief? Nay, even in better cultivated minds, the firmness of moral rectitude is shaken, and it often becomes necessary to make great mental exertion to shake off the influence of these productions, and recal the mind to a true feeling towards sacred truths. They are inevitably calculated to weaken the reverence felt for the Christian faith. It may be said that the Defendant's object was not to produce this effect—I believe that he meant it, in one sense, as a political squib, but his responsibility is not the less, for he has parodied The Catechism in terms which it is impossible to believe can have any other effect than that of bringing it into contempt. The publication is called "A Catechism; that is to say an Instruction to be learned of every person before he be brought to be confirmed a Placeman or Pensioner by the Minister." The Jury will see these are the very words of the original in parody. Again, The Apostles Creed is also in complete parody. We say, "I believe in God," &c. &c.; here he says, "I believe in George, the Regent Almighty, Maker of New Streets, and Knights of the Bath; and in the present Ministry, his only choice, who were conceived of Toryism, brought forth of Wm. Pitt, suffered loss of place under Charles James Fox; were execrated, dead, and buried. In a few months they rose again from the Minority; they re-ascended the Treasury Benches, and sit at the right hand of a little man in a large wig; from whence they laugh at the petitions of the people who pray for Reform, and that the sweat of their brow may procure them bread." The Ten Commandments are also parodied, and divided precisely in the same manner as the rest of the publication, for the purpose of keeping the whole resemblance more complete. The child is supposed to be examined precisely as it is laid down in the 2d chapter of Exodus, of course parodied. He answers, as to the promise of belief his sponsors made for him—

"The same which the Minister for the time being always obliges all his creatures to swear. I, the Minister, am the Lord thy liege, who brought thee out of want and beggary into the House of Commons."

[Here an expression of feeling was manifested by some individuals of the crowd in the Hall of the Court.]

Mr. Justice Abbott—If there is any body present of so light a disposition as to think that a matter of this kind should be made a subject of laughter, at least he shall learn that he shall not come here to interrupt those who are of a graver disposition, and in the discharge of an important duty.

who can raise a smile at the reading of the Defendant's publication, it is the fullest proof of the baneful effect it has had, and with which I charge it. It is for that very reason I charge it as a libel on the Law of England. I am not sorry for the faint smile just uttered in Court. It establishes the baneful tendency of the work. If there be any here who are not Christians of some sect or other, God forbid that I should have their applauding support. Their approbation or disapprobation is alike indifferent to me. When I allude thus to Christians, let me be supposed as only alluding to those who have had the opportunity of having the light of Christianity shed upon them—God forbid I should be supposed to denounce those who had not had that opportunity. The next Commandment in this Parody is, 'Thou shalt have no other Patron but me.' At last comes that part where a young man is desired to recite the Lord's Prayer, and this is parodied in the same manner. I know, Gentlemen of the Jury, that by the Law of England, it is your province to decide on the matter of the libel, and to say if it be such or no. I am not sorry that this is the case, for I think it impossible that any twelve men who understand the Law of England, and the precepts of Christianity, which are part and parcel of that Law, can read this production of the Defendant's without being decidedly of opinion that it is impossible to read it without seeing that its necessary and obvious consequence must be to bring into contempt the Liturgy of the Church of England. I forbear, Gentlemen, from reading any more of this production, as it will shortly be read by the Clerk. I shall now go to prove the publication by the Defendant; it will be for you to take it fairly and fully under your investigation, and, according to the solemn obligation you have taken—that obligation of an oath which is founded on religion, or it is no oath at all—decide upon it; and so help you God.

The Attorney-General then called witnesses to prove the publication of the Parodies by the Defendant.

He held in his hand a pamphlet, called Wilkes's Catechism, which he bought on the 17th of February last, at Mr. Hone's shop, No. 55, Fleet-street. He bought it from a boy or a girl in this shop, which then had Mr. Hone's name over the door. The girl, he believed, said she was Mr. Hone's daughter. Two-pence was the price of it. He bought pamphlets afterwards at the same place, and marked them at the time. He observed bills in the window, that a publication by the name of this Catechism was sold there, but he could not recollect whether there were posting bills advertising it.

On the 7th of February last, he was the landlord of a shop, No. 55, Fleet street, and Mr. Hone, now in Court, was then his tenant, and up to Midsummer. He used to sell books and pamphlets. The parish was situate in St. Dunstan's in the West, and he believed in the City of London.

Was Clerk of the Inner Treasury at the King's Bench, and produced The Book of Common Prayer and the Seal. He pointed out

in the Book the Church Catechism, signed by the Commissioners, and exemplified by the Great Seal. It corresponded to the publication by the King's Printers and the Universities.

Mr. Justice Abbott.—It would be a highly penal offence to publish as from authority any other than the real authenticated form.

Here the printed Catechism, with the publication of which the Defendant stood charged, was put in, and read by the Clerk. It was as follows:—