fer on him the privilege of a minister of the gospel; and qualifies him for that office just as effectually as the bands of a lord bishop! His call to the ministry depends on those who have the right according to reason and scripture to choose their own teacher, and who are the only judges of his qualifications. Does the licensed teacher set at defiance the law of the land? No: he leaves that to the regular clergy, the major part of which had for a long course of years completely set at defiance one of the most important" laws of the land," that requiring residence on their livings. Nor does the licence afford to the man who follows any worldly business, any exemption from "serving or finding a substitute in the militia." The Wesleyan methodists who are supposed to be particularly levelled at in the above quotation, have endeavoured to guard against any occasional abuse of the Toleration act, by resolving that any of their members detected of applying for a licence for civil purposes merely, shall be expelled their society. As to the charge of "jesuitism," or using deceit as a cloak, let this foul-mouthed libeller know, that the proceedings of the various bodies of dissenters in their late noble resistance to intolerance, were openly published to the world. This thing was not done in a corner. For proof we refer to their various Resolutions.

The Annotator alluding to the late glorious and successful struggle to preserve the Toleration Act, mentions the instance brought forward by Lord Sidmouth, of a man applying for a licence who could neither write nor read, and then demands-" Is it for the preservation of such a priesthood that the Protestant Dissenters hold meetings to protest against the grievous infringement of the Toleration?" Why will this very weak priest be perpetually forcing a comparison of the quali

fications of the clergy with those of dissenting ministers? Is the character of one ignorant man to be held up as characteristic of the body of dissenters, or as a reason for violating the Toleration Act? If so, what measures do the numerous ignorant and vicious characters, and the multitude of pluralists and nonresidents in the established church demand! Must not such a church, if the principle of reasoning laid down by the author be just, be a public nuisance?—He adds—“have such men," that is the dissenters who have justly represented Lord Sidmouth's bill as of a persecuting tendency," Have such men no anticipation of a day of judgment, when all hearts will be opened and all secrets known!" That this writer after having published to the world such a farrago of misrepre sentation, malignity and falsehood, should venture to mention" the day of judgment," is a melancholy proof of the hardness of his heart, and of that awful state of delusion which is permitted to befall him. If he is not an infidel in disguise, as too many established priests have been, witness those of France in particular; if he really believes that the awful day is approaching in which all hearts will be opened, and every one shall be judged according to their works, let him read the following portions of sacred writ, and tremble: -Whoso slandereth his neighbour him will I cut off. . . . Revilers cannot inherit the kingdom of God. ... All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone! His own wretched pamphlet must afford him such a comment on these words, as we hope will strike him with remorse, and repentance, and produce reformation.

The pamphlet we have thus no ticed is anonymous, which circumstance we are willing to hope indicates that the author has not lost all sense of shame. We however

think it right to inform the public, that it is generally attributed to one Hook, a doctor of divinity, whose name stands in the list of chaplains to the Prince Regent. Where the doctor stately resides or what preferment he holds, we know not, but we find he has been, for several months past, casting about his fire brands, arrows, and death, at Ilfracombe, in Devonshire, It is right that the Prince Regent should have a copy of this pamphlet laid before him, and we shall deem it our duty to endeavour that his royal highness shall be made acquainted with the opinions of one of his chaplains, and which no one can hold in greater abhorrence, than the prince, who on the subject of Toleration, Religious liberty, and the universal in struction of the children of the low er classes, has uniformly expressed opinions the most liberal and enlightened.

Case of Peter Finnerty, including a full Report of all the proceedings which took place in the Court of King's Bench upon the subject ; and of which but an imperfect sketch has appeared in the newspapers, with Notes and a preface comprehending an Essay upon the law of Libel, and some Remarks on Mr. Finnerty's case; to which is annexed an abstract of the case of Colonel Draper, upon which precedent Mr. Finnerty professed to act. -5s. Jones.

Imperfect as was the sketch of Mr. Finnerty's trial inserted in the newspapers, and in various periodical publications, there was sufficient evidence of the importance of the case, and of the spirit and intrepidity of the defendant: the whole of this pamphlet, of which the title may be considered as a table of contents, is yery interesting, and we most sincerely hope that the public will espouse the cause of Mr. Finnerty, (as well as of another patrio

tic sufferer, Mr. Drakard of Stamford) so far as fully to indemnify them for the heavy expences incurred in defending themselves, and during their long imprisonment. The revived doctrine of " truth being a libel," is here brought forth into practice. Mr. F. having moved for a rule for putting off his trial, on account of his not being able to procure in time some material wit nesses to prove the truth of his char ges brought against Lord Castlereagh; the lord chief justice of the court of King's bench as a reason for refusing the rule stated as fol lows:

"Lord ELLEN BOROUGH. What, are we at this time of day to dispute about truth being a justification of a libel? lumnious intention may be evident, inThe libel is independent of facts. A cadependently of facts. You admit that the defendant charged Lord Castlereagh with abusing the powers of his high office for the gratification of his private malice. That requires no facts, and therefore no witnesses to the facts, for

nothing can be more calumnious! Why wait for witnesses which if forth coming we should not allow to be examined."

The rule was accordingly refused, and in consequence Mr. Finnerty, after having attended at the crown office to see the jury struck, and inquired about those whose names were upon the list, thought proper to decline going to trial and let judgment go by default.

The proceedings in the court of King's Bench when the defendant was brought up for judgment, are uncommonly interesting: although not permitted to prove the truth of the facts on trial, Mr. F. supposed he might prove them by affidavits of various respectable persons, in mitigation of punishment. Much altercation ensued, and many interruptions were given to Mr. F. who, however, to the last firmly protested his own innocence, and affirmed the truth of the charges brought against Lord Castlereagh. One quotation will shew to what a dilemma public

writers are reduced who may at any time dare to attack wickedness in high places.

"In consequence of your lordship's dictum, that truth was no justification of a libel, and that therefore I should not be allowed to prove the truth of my letter, I let judgment go by default : I did so, because I understood that on being brought up for judgment, I might produce the truth in mitigation. This, was no idle fancy of my own; it was built upon your precedents and practice. Since your law was against me, I have deferred to it; but nothing on earth shall induce me to make any submission to Lord Castlereagh. No, no, my lords, remember your own words in the case of Jones: You have thought fit to charge his lorship with acting in that high office from motives of personal ill-will towards a private individual, and with having made use of his authority and influence, as secretary of state, to harrass and oppress such individual, in such a way, us, if true, would not only render him unfit to fill that high station in which he had been placed, but would prove him so base an individual, that no gentleman could associate with him.'-This was the language of your lordship, addressed to Mr. Jones, when pronouncing sentence upon him for a libel upon Lord Castlereagh, in consequence of my letter. Now I am ready to prove that Castlereagh does deserve the description, which your lordship charges me with applying to him, of being the basest of individuals. And will you then punnish me for censuring the conduct of such a man?

"The Court.-We cannot hear this. You may now utter fresh libels against Lord Castlereagh, which he can have no opportunity of rebutting.

"Mr. Finnerty. I thought I had fully obviated this objection about fresh libels.' But, in fact, Lord Castlereagh has an opportunity of rebutting my 'fresh libels,' as you term them; for he can, as was done in Draper's case, put in counter affidavits, if in his power to produce them. Nay, more; he will, by the admission of my affidavits, be afforded the opportunity, not only of repelling the charges cantained in these affidavits, but of punishing for perjury those by whom the charges are made, if such charges are unfounded. Thus, if you receive my affidavits, the

noble lord will have the means, not only of vindicating his own character, but of exhibiting his accusers to universal

infamy. Do, then, in justice to Castlereagh, as well as in justice to me, allow

these affidavits to be read. I have shown you, that if they are false, they can produce no evil but to those with whom they originate; and if they are true, I ask you, in the name of all that is sacred, how can you reconcile it to your conscience to send me to a jail for uttering the truth against such a man? Will you hear my affidavits?

"Court. No, not if they are of the same nature as those which you have offered. They cannot plead in mitiga

tion.

"Mr. Finnerty. According to that remark, I am curious to know what your lordships mean by mitigation. I have always heard, as I have already repeatedly said, that to prove the truth mitigation. I have understood that your of a libel was the mode of producing lordships were not disposed to inflict of truth as upon the writer of falsehood; the same punishment upon the writer upon the censor of a bad as upon the censor of a good character; your lorddence as I tender, to be admissible. ships have uniformly allowed such eviThe doctrine, indeed, of the greater the truth the greater the libel,' should impel you to admit evidence to the truth, in order that you should not punish truth and falsehood alike. How

the public, that the actors in them, and their defenders or apologists, if they have one particle of modesty

remaining will not dare to utter a syllable about French enormities!

Some of our readers may not know, that the plaintiff, in this cause, Lord Castlereagh, was once a reformer; the following curious document is inserted in proof of a fact so extraordinary.

"From the Belfast News-letter,*

June 4, 1790 (No. 5502)" "We are desired and authorized to inform the public, through the medium of this paper, that at the commencement of the election for the county of Down, on Saturday last, the following Test (which, with the signatures of the hon. Edward Ward and the hon. Robert Stewart, now Lord CASTLEREAGH is left at this office) was proposed by a very respectable gentleman to three of

the candidates: that the Hon. Edward

Ward and the Hon. Robert Stewart signed the same as underneath, and that Lord Hillsborough refused it :—

We will rigidly attend our duty in parliament, and be governed by the instructions of our constituents: we will, in and out of the house, with all our abilities and influence, promote the success of A Bill for amending the representation of the people :

A Bill for preventing pensioners from sitting in parliament, or such placemen as cannot sit in the British house of Commons;

'A Bill for limiting the number of placemen and pensioners, and the amount of pensions;

'A Bill for preventing revenue officers from voting at or interfering at elections;

'A Bill for rendering the servants of the crown of Ireland responsible for the expenditure of the public money;

A Bill to protect the personal safety of the subject against arbitrary and excessive bail, and against the stretching of the power of attachment beyond the limits of the constitution; and we will, as far as in us lies, prevent any renewal of the Police Act. (Signed

EDWARD WARD.

ROBERT STEWART." "In the News-letter of same date is an advertisement,--To the Electors of

the County of Dowa, in which the following expressions are made use of: interesting and glorious cause than our

We are embarked in a much more

success as individuals-we are called forth as instruments in your hands to emancipate the country.

(Signed) "EDWARD WARD. "ROBERT STEWART." Lord Castlereagh however, soon afterwards got a place, and has taken due care ever since, not to be dependant on one set of men alone, but, to use his lordships' own language, to have two strings to his bow. We need scarcely add, that the whole political life of the noble lord ever since has afforded a striking commentary on his TEST, and most forcibly proves the absolute necessity of what his lordship once promised to use "all his abilities and influence to promote-A bill for amending the representation of the people."

The sensible, well written preface to this pamphlet contains various observations on the law of libels, and on the conduct of counsel, judges, and juries. The following extract we carnestly wish may be impressed on the mind and on the heart of every juryman who may be called to the important duty of determining in case of libel.

66

Really, the situation of a jury of conscientious men in a case of libel appears peculiarly perilous. They are called upon their oaths to decide, with out being allowed to inquire. It has often struck me with astonishment, that juries have not expressed to the bench their incapacity to decide, unless allowed to hear evidence as to the truth of the production laid before them, and still more the backwardness of jurors to interrogate witnesses as to the truth or falsehood of libels. Were I on a jury I should certainly feel it my duty to be assured of the truth of the libel, and particularly when a libel depended upon facts alleged. If prevented from putting questions to that effect I would return a special verdict, or acquit. I would presume innocence where guilt was not proved. For it is an old maxim,

that where there is any doubt, the jury should incline, to mercy. But I need not pursue this topic farther than to refer to the tract of Sir John Hawles, on the rights and duties of jurors, which has been recently published: and its publication at a rate so cheap, as to be placed within the reach of every man in the community, is among the many services rendered by this distinguished author to the cause of liberty and justice. This tract is in fact of such a nature, that it is the interest of every man in the empire to read it; and it is peculiarly the duty of every man liable to serve on juries to read it with marked attention. If juries will not study their duties, and assert their rights—if they will be contented merely to echo the opimon, to register the will of the judge, instead of consulting their own judgment, and deciding for themselves, as they are bound by their oaths, their of fice becomes superfluous and unnecssary. Sir Matthew Hale says, that if a judge's opinion must rule the verdict, the trial by jury would be useless,' In fact, the juror who returns a verdict, of the justice of which he is not fully assured, is PERJURED, in foro -conscientia!"

6

Bigotry and Intolerance defeated: Or an Account of the late Prosecution of Mr. John Gisburne, Unitarian Minister of Soham, Cambridgeshire: With an Exposure and Correction of the Defects and Mistakes of Mr. Andrew Fuller's Narrative of that affair: In Letters to John Christie, Esq. Treasurer of the Unitarian Fund. By Robert Aspland, Minister of the GravelPit Congregation, Hackney. P. 62. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Johnson and Co. Eaton, &c.

Although we do not deem the notice of theological opinions in themselves abstractedly considered,

as within our province, yet, when they are connected with the subject of civil and religious liberty, they not unfrequently are of considerable importance, as affecting the general interests of the community. The controversy which has taken place between Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Aspland, is not to be considered as applying merely to the disputes of the Dissenters at the village of Soham, in Cambridgeshire, but as relating to the grand subject of re ligious liberty, and involving in it the important questions-Whether any man ought to be persecuted for his theological opinions, and whether Protestant Dissenters more par. ticularly, ought not to be most anxiously careful to avoid the principles and practices of persons they uniformly profess to reprobate-of persecutors in matters of religion.

The origin of this dispute appears to have been the conduct of certain members of the church and congregation at Soham, in consequence of the alteration of sentiments of their pastor, Mr. Gisburne, who had left his Calvanistic or Arminian principles, (Mr. Fuller seems to have had his doubts which) for those of the Unitarians. The statement which

was first given in the Monthly Repository, (a theological publication we remark by the bye, which practices as well as professes, that very scarce virtue impartiality, in the selection of its articles)-the statement which has drawn forth Mr. Fuller's animadversions, is quoted by him as

follows: