his political sentiments, So true it is, that one man may steal a goose, while another must not ruffle his feathers. The publisher of Lord Byron's Poem was the conductor of the Examiner, a journal which has been devoted to the popular party. Malice, and a desire of revenge, were both gratified in fining and imprisoning a man who scorned to imitate the disgraceful example of the renegade Laureat; but, true to his principles, preserved a consistent and honourable character. Here, then, is an instance, in which the danger of discretionary authority is apparent. Er uno disce omnes. Let no man imagine that we desire the punishment of Dr. Southey, or that we should be. satisfied with entrusting a Whig censorship with the management of the press. We have just as low an opinion of one party as of the other. Give us securities against bad government: let the laws be so framed that no Minister, however black his heart, or fruitful his invention, shall have it in his power to act in opposition to the general will. If the securities against misrule are so strong, that honesty becomes the best policy, public interests will be sufficiently guarded; if not, we are left at the mercy of frail fallible beings, and the laws become mere cobwebs, which catch the feeble, but suffer the powerful to escape.

The arguments adduced in the present section against drawing a distinction between free and forbidden discussion, appear to warrant the following conclusions,

First, since every member of a Protestant country is entitled to exercise the rights of private judgment in matters of religion, it is utterly impracticable to appoint any umpires, whose decisions shall be universally acknowledged as just and impartial. For, as every sect is in its own opinion orthodox, it involves a contradiction of ideas to suppose, that any class of religionists would acknowledge the decrees, or submit to the authority of any council, convocation, or assembly, the dominant members of which belonged to a persuasion differing from their own,

Secondly, that the trial by jury does not afford a fair or impartial trial to a Dissenter, because the Judge is always, and the panel, most frequently, of the Established Church.

Thirdly, that the prohibitions of books, on account of their immoral or irreligious tendency, must always create considerable alarm and discontent; for, if the system were impartially acted upon, it would destroy the works

of some of the ablest writers, which are at present in the libraries of every man of education, not excepting the clergy. And if the alleged grievances were only partially removed, those who were selected for punishment, would have just grounds of complaint. Upon these three grounds we maintain, that in a Protestant country, it is highly inexpedient to attempt to controul the freedom of inquiry, by erecting a standard of orthodoxy, and drawing a line between free and forbidden discussion.

CHAPTER III.

THE

INUTILITY OF PROSECUTIONS

FOR RELI

GIUOS OPINION, PROVED FROM HISTORY.

In the present chapter we propose to enquire how far the utility of prosecutions for religious opinions is sanctioned by experience: for which purpose, we shall exhibit a succinct historical account of the most remarkable prosecutions which have taken place in those countries which have embraced the Christian religion. In the execution of this plan, it will be difficult to satisfy all classes of readers those who are intimately acquainted with history, may think the details unnecessarily long; while, on the other hand, some may consider them abrupt and insufficient. But as these observations are principally addressed to the superficially informed section of the community, it appears more consistent with the object of the work, to run the risk of being tedious, rather than incur the blame of being obscure.

It has been seriously debated by the more intrepid freethinkers, whether the practical effects of Christianity have been productive of

greater happiness or misery to the human race. From remarking the difference between profession and practice, the sceptic is emboldened to argue, either that the doctrines of Christ are not adapted to the condition of mankind, or that the great majority of his worshippers are hypocrites. A single instance will illustrate the argument. Christianity is a divine revelation, containing certain precepts which Christ has commanded his followers to observe.

One

of these precepts is, "thou shalt not kill."

In direct opposition to this positive command, which is delivered in language too plain to be controverted, Governments, professing Christianity, do not scruple to murder their fellowcreatures by thousands, in order to gratify the ambition of a king, or avenge the insulted honour of a flag. The very individuals who issue declarations of war, in open violation of the injunctions of Christ, profess to believe that they can only be saved through the mediation of him whose orders they have violated; knowing at the time the sinfulness of their conduct.

In the present condition of European polity, when any nation makes an aggression on another, satisfaction is demanded for the injury sustained. If this is refused, hostilities are denounced. Under such circumstances, the members of the cabinet, all of whom must be