THE LAW RELATING TO BLASPHEMY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6695, 2 October 1882, Page 4

THE LAW RELATING TO BLASPHEMY.

Under, the influence of more zeal than discretion an old obsolete statute, that makes blasphemy a penal offence, has been unearthed in England, and put in operation against a publication known as “the Freethinker.” This action has been widely criticised by the British Press, and, excepting Church papers, the consensus of public opinion has declared against it. We quote below a moderate article from the “ London Times,” July 19, as a sample:—The propriety of putting in operation the Common Law as to blasphemy, even against publications which shock all right-minded men, is not always clear. That law was constructed long ago, and it is not surprising that it fails to be in accordance with modern notions. It is terribly comprehensive and sweeping. It is somewhat too dangerous a weapon for general use. It cannot be handled by every one with safety. When a novice rushes to the Mansion House and asks for a summons in order to put this law in force against some notable heretic, it is for all the world like a child taking down an old blunderbuss which has long hung over the fire and levelling it without much caring to know whether it is loaded. Inoffensive bystanders in both cases are not unlikely to suffer. To waken the sleeping terrors of this half obsolete part of our law is to expose the community to the risk of ill-judged and, indeed, mischievous prosecutions. It is alarming to consider the possibility of setting in motion the powers which slumber in the Statute-book or in the Common Law, To call in question the formularies of the Church of England may be blasphemy. To speak anything in derogation of the Book of Common Prayer is an offence which may be punishable in a layman, on the third occasion, by imprisonment for life. It serves no good purpose to drag from their obscurity such old-world laws. They are not of our time. They are the echoes of the voices of stem, convinced men, troubled with no doubts. They speak a language which is almost dead and unintelligible. Every one, too, will own that the recollection of prosecutions forblasphemy in modem days is not calculated to lead to their revival. Our fathers prosecuted Garble with such effect that a hero naturally not particularly attractive became known, even among those who had no liking for his opinions, as “ the martyr of irreligion.” Perhaps the last prosecution for blasphemy was that of Pooley, a half-crazy well-sinker in Cornwall. He had persistently scribbled on a gate foul and blasphemous words. For this he was tried before the late Mr Justice Coleridge at Bodmin Assizes. He was found guilty and sentenced, to imprisonment for twenty-one months. Symptoms of insanity unmistakably declared themselves after he was confined, and he was pardoned. The trial attracted much attention. The late Mr John Stuart Mill and Mr Buckle made it the text ,of angry comments and inveighed against the sentence as a cruel anachronism. The latter threw himself with more zeal than knowledge, with more of the fury of the pamphleteer than the calmness of the philosopher, into the controversy, and, owing to his declamatory inaccuracies, exposed himself to - a telling retort from the present Lord Chief Justice, But the trial left inmost minds an impres-. sion that the prosecution was ill-advised and ought not to be imitated. When we look still further back, the bulk of similar proceedings is seen to have been of doubtful policy. It was no gain to anyone that “ Queen Mab ” was found by a jury to be a blasphemous libel. It was not a victory for public morals to put men in prison for selling Paine’s “ Age of Reason,” or to send them to the pillory for speaking disrespectfully of the Hebrew prophets. The aversion to such prosecutions springs not merely from experience of their failure to promote the objects which good men have at heart. While people are prepared to burn, behead, imprison for life those who hold heretical opinions, laws directed against them are, if not justifiable, certainly not absurd. They, at least, do not shock the conscience of the community. But most of us have long ceased to believe that it is right to punish men for their convictions, however mistaken. Whether from growth of charity, or indifference, or perplexity, or experience of the mischievousness of persecution, 1 most ’men are not inclined to put in prison the apostles of the views which they most detest, and they are rather at a loss what to do with persecuting laws which remain unrepealed. Yet it is not at all necessary .to deprecate every prosecution for blasphemy. A man may show by his conduct that he intends to insult and outrage the feelings of He may be even leas desirous of proselytising than giving offence to tender consciences. Such a person cannot fairly appeal to ; the principle of toleration if he be ' summarily put down as a public nuisance. It is no interference with liberty, rightly understood, to prevent him noisily and offensively vending his publications in such a manner as to annoy needlessly those who regard as sacred the subjects at which he scoffs. He would be the first, we may be sure, to complain if the meetings of his own sect were disturbed by the'protests of a member of the Salvation Army. This consideration suggests a rough test of the circumstances in which such prosecutions are at all expedient or justifiable. They may be reluctantly employed against a well-known publication which wantonly insults and wounds the most cherished sentiments of multitudes. But their policy is always doubtful, their utility always uncertain, when they are the means of making known to the public the very literature which they are employed to put down. They have, on the whole, done so little good hitherto that every new proceeding of the kind must be a cause of anxiety to thoughtful men.