The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose, and spoke in aggravation as follows: In this case, my Lords, and on the present

occasion, I thought that on the mere statement of the libel, upon which it appears to me that the Jury have clearly come to
a right verdict, that I should not have had the trouble to address the Court but very shortly on the subject of punishment;
but as the defendant has thought proper to state that which he cannot conceive himself to be true, namelythat he has
been tried for the free and sober discussions of the truths [42] of the Christian religionit therefore becomes necessary
that I should bring to your attention and consideration the circumstances under which this Prosecution has been
instituted, and also draw your attention to the law, as laid down by our ancestors, as regarded this offence. No person
could suppose for a moment, and, least of all, the defendant himself, that for the sober and earnest discussion of truth, he
stood on the floor of the Court that day. If he (the defendant) had not thought, proper to wander from fair and sober
discussion, and to assert by blasphemous and wicked jests, and sarcasms, that the truths of the Christian religion were
fables, and that all its professors knew them to be so; the gentleman might have gone on, for aught I know, soberly
stating the arguments, and giving his opinion. The law of the land recognized the religion of this country as part and
parcel of that law; and it claims no other protection on its behalf than it does for any other portion of the laws of the land.
Any person might, with decency and propriety, canvass and discuss the principles upon which the Government under
which we live is bottomed: but then he should confine himself within a proper limit; but if, instead of doing that, he
excites the minds of the unwary, and makes a jest of that. Government, then the law would step in, and that which was
allowed to be an investigation of truth, would then be visited with punishment. Again, a person was at liberty to canvass
and discuss the principles on which Were founded the administration of justice and the policy of our laws, and the
conduct of 'the individuals who administer them ; he may do all this within the bounds of propriety ; but if he goes
beyond that, and say that it was a system fabricated to enslave the multitude, and to throw insult and contumely on the
seats which your Lordships occupy, I ask any man whether he would not step forward, not with a view to crush the
individual, but to suppress the progress of the mischief by the protection which the common law of the land afforded?
The Gentleman (the defendant) very web knew that if he had not thought it proper to leave .the proper line of argument,
and, by wicked jests and sarcasms, endeavoured to catch and mislead the minds of the young and the unwary, where they
were sure to find a place, he would have found that he might have gone on to, his ninety-third Oration, as he called it,
without any interference. But he knows that sober argument would not answer his purpose, as his audience would not
have remained long with him, for every one of ,them who were able to conceive his arguments must have known that
they had been used often before, and refuted over and over again. But it was with wicked jests, vulgar, and familiar
allusions and illustrations, that he treated his topics of argument. Those who were not able to understand them took, all
this for an entertainment. Besides, he does thingsthings which I will not disgust your Lordships by reading to you : it
was enough that they were on the record. I now come to the law, as it bears on this offence. From the time of Charles the
Second, down to the present time, there was not a conflicting opinion as to the question that, this was an offence at law.
The case of the King v. Taylor, and that of the King v. Woolaston, and the King v. Williams, and various other cases,
proved what the, law was in these cases. Therefore, the Court here would be free from the observations of the defendant,
that in pronouncing judgment against him you would be creating the law. No such thing; you will only, be acting upon
that which you find to be the law. It is not to be expected that I should follow the defendant through the discursive topics
of his discourse, or make any comment on them, were I even inclined so to do. I think his a crime which cries for
punishment, but which will not impede the course of free discussion. I think it his misfortune that he has renounced the
creed that he came professed; so far I am sorry for it. But he should have had the decencynay, the common honesty, to
give up the title of Reverend, and to put aside that garment, worn by those who belonged to the religion from which he
had become an apostate, and of whom he says they are all hypocrites. I hope that you will, pass such a sentence on the
defendant as, if it will not make him alter his own conduct, at least will deter others from following his example, one so
fraught with mischief.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT rose and said, I would not have been disposed to trespass on your Lordships' attention by any
observation in this case, was it not for two reasonsone as regards the situation that I had formerly the honour to hold,
and whilst in that situation to have conducted this prosecution. It has become erroneously the opinion of many ignorant
persons, who gain all their information from those historical periodical authorities, the newspapers. that this prosecution
was a public one, instituted by the Government. I beg, leave to correct that error, and to state that it was a [48] private
prosecution, instituted by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and that I and my Learned Friends only
appeared as Counsel for the prosecution, not officially, but only as advocates to further the ends of justice. I am aware
that many wise and learned men have differed as to the policy of prosecutions of this nature, and entertained great doubts
upon it; but it was not the province of a Counsel to exercise his judgment on the point, but only to do his duty, and that
according to law. The second reason was, the allusion of the defendant to what he supposed to have fallen from me at the
trial. As I am not in the habit of making my speeches beforehand, much less of printing them, it is impossible for me to
say that the defendant is correct or incorrect as to the expression I am supposed to have made use ofnamely, 'detestable
nuisance.' I did not apply that particularly to him; and, as regards the term, nest of vermin,' I alluded to the system
pursued by this gentleman, who, with others, had become possessed of a chapel, and employed persons to take money at
the doors from persons of all ages and sexesnot for the free, sober, and reasonable investigation of truth, but merely for
the purpose of theatrical exhibition, where, from the stage, the defendant declaimed, adorned with kid gloves and white
handkerchief edged with lace, which some persons conceived to be the essence of oratory, but which, I think, only the
characteristics of a fop, and can give no weight to argument. I am not one of these who think that persuasion flows from
his tongue, and conviction from his periods.(A laugh.) Nothing could be more futile and empty, in my opinion, than
the train of reasoning of the defendant, dressed out in all his foppery and theatrical exhibition to amuse women and catch
children. This is the dangerthis is the complaint against himthat he stands up in this chapel in the heart of the
metropolis, and, by this sort of discussion misleads the unwary and seduces youth. I am one of those who think that
human laws can or ought to fetter human opinion. The belief of every man in religion was a matter between him and his
God; but it did not follow that, because a man had a conscientious doubt as regarded the truths of the religion of the
country, and that he considered its doctrines false, he was to give offence and insult the belief of others, and detract from
that decent respect paid to it by the rest of mankind at least by his own countrymen. I conceive then that it became a
nuisance, that he should violate openly that respect which the rest of society held sacred and solemn. It is not necessary
to conviction or the progress of reason that such arts or sneers should be used towards men to agitate their feelings. I
have already compared this case to what I think it still resembles. Suppose this Gentleman formed an opinion that it was
contrary to the rights of nature and that it was quite unnatural that a man should go clothed, and that in consequence of
that opinion he divested himself of that. reverend dress which he supposes adorns his person; even if he was to throw off
those little ornaments, which were meant tone doubt captivate his female proselytes, and was to go stark naked through
the streets of the metropolis, he might be conscientiously convinced that he had a right so to do; but was that a sufficient
reason why the public decency of the society in which he lived was to be outraged by such an exhibition? There were
some sects which attached importance to the exact fashion of a button, and there were some minds who might extend that
to the, whole of the dress but world it be decent to address a congregation in. a state of nudity? This is an offence of the
same nature. We do not inquire into the truth or falsehood of this gentleman's doctrines ; but if they are put forth to sap
the morals of society, and outrage common decency, or are calculated to cast irreverence or slander On that which the
rest of mankind, at least)tis own countrymen, respect ; and if his doctrines tend to implant in the minds of the young, the
unwary, and the ignorant, a feeling of ridicule, general contempt, and even of horror, for those doctrines which their
parents, relations, and friends profess, he is guilty of a crime by the law of this lane and by that of the civilized world. I
ask any man if this is not a most grievous offence? or if there is any crime that strikes more at the roots of morality, from
which society derives her best interests? Is Mr. Taylor discussing those doubts in a learned manner which have been
entertained in all ages? Is he a Socrates, assembling and arguing with his disciples? No; he is the mountebank of a little
theatre, at a chapel which had been formerly a place of public worship: and where you may see him for aught I know,
trample the Bible under his feet; and that with a theatrical air, which he thinks gives grace and energy to his arguments.
This is what the authorities of the city of London thought they ought not to allow. He (the defendant) may disgrace the
gown he wears, by what authority I know not ; but this I know, that if he had conducted [44] his discussions with decency
and propriety, he never would have heard of this indictment. This, therefore, was not a case of levity; but their Lordships
would see that this was a case which called for severe animadversion. The defendant, to show his reason, says that no
man has any but himself ; and, to show his charity, he says, that if your Lordships pronounce a judgment against him, it
will show that you are the tools of his persecutors. He commenced by saying, and telling your Lordships, .that all
Christians are bad men. Surely he has not learned those doctrines or arguments from the religion he has apostatised; nor
has he told us from what sect, whether Hindoo or Mahomedan, he has drawn his code of morality, which he says is better
than that of the religion of the nations of. Christendom. I cannot say that. I entertain much compassion for the defendant,
but much contempt for his species of reasoning indulged in to-day, the same as on the occasion of the trial. No man is
bound at the trial to bring forward proofs of the truths of the Christian Religion. If every person who heard Mr. Taylor
were as competent to judge of his empty and flimsy arguments as the present audience, his discourses would have ended,
in tedium. Under all the circumstances of this prosecution, this is a case which I think calls for exemplary punishment.
The RECORDER followed on the same side, and, after citing numerous cases to show that the defendant's offence was a
punishable offence at Common Law, he observed that he had to say nothing in vindication of the City Authorities who
instituted this prosecution ; they were conscious that they had only done their bounden duty, and for doing which every
honest, moral, and religious man must bestow upon them that credit and praise to which they were entitled.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, in passing sentence, addressed Mr. Taylor in the following terms:Robert Taylor, it is my duty to
pass upon you the sentence of this Court. You have been convicted, and, to my mind, rightly convicted; you say not upon
the testimony of an eye-witness only, but upon the testimony of a witness who was speaking to what had passed in the
presence of a hundred and fifty or two hundred persons, and therefore, if he did not makes true representation of that
which passed, it would have been easy for you to have some one of the persons who were there, in order to have
controlled the judgment of the Jury, and to have prevented them giving that verdict of Guilty which they did. Taking the
verdict to be right, it seems to me that, this is a prosecution rightly instituted for a crime of a most serious description.
There has been language, I regret, used by you to-day against those persons by whom the prosecution was instituted, as if
they were actuated by a principle of persecution, as if they had angry feelings of their own to satiate, and very strong and
powerful language has been applied to their conduct. In my mind, considering the nature of this case they had a bounden
duty to discharge, not for the purpose of bringing down punishment, but of preserving from contamination those persons
upon whom au attempt wickedly to contaminate them might have been made, and to preserve in the minds of the young
and thoughtless and those incapable of judging for themselves, those influences, those useful guards, for the prevention
of crime, which a sense of some kind of religion or other is calculated to produce. No man can doubt that some religion
is necessary; it is your own doctrine. You are for reverence to GOD; you are also for the practice of moral righteousness ;
but unless we have our religion sanctioned, as it is, by the perfect conviction of reward or punishment hereafterunless
we have the comfort which the hope of forgiveness is calculated to produce, what feeling can we have, and what is the
condition of society? Remove the influence of religion, and what is man? In the origin, prone to sin, requiring controul
from time to time; and that controul is one of the best influences of religion upon the mind. The object of punishment is
not to bring down weight upon the individual to whom it is applied, but to guard others against the commission of like
crime, and to prevent the mischief which such crime is calculated to produce. The law of this land I take to be liberal in
principle in this respect, beyond the example of all other countries. It suffers every man, freely and soberly, to enter into
the discussion of the most sacred and awful truths, and to judge for himself whether they he true or not. Not, as in some
countries, is the book kept from the eyes of the public at large, but every individual has the power of having it in his own
possession, and of judging for himself. lie has the power of canvassing the foundation on which the religion of the
country is based, and of entertaining that belief which a careful examination of the subject is fitted to produce. I blame no
manthe law blames no manfor [45] not coming to the conclusion to which the Established Religion of the country
comes. It may be said that a man cannot control his own belief ; God alone may be able to influence him in that respect ;
but no man has a right (by that which was anticipated in prophecy would be the result of future times) by sarcasm and
sophistry to endeavour to shake the faith of others. Sober and careful discussion would choose its proper place and its
proper audience, who would be persons of talent, able to appreciate honest, fair, and legitimate discussion; but where you
push arguments beyond the level of the capacity of those to whom they are addressedin many instances, I do not say in
all, the offence is aggravated. There may be some men, grown up, who have examined the subject; but when I find from
the evidence there are children there, of ten, twelve, and fourteen years of age, women, and many other persons, are they,
I would ask, those to whom such discussion can with safety be addressed? Whoever chooses; for the price of one
shilling, is to be at liberty to enter, for the purpose of seeing a display, and hearing what they may suppose to be the
doctrine of a portion in a clerical garb, and may, by possibility, go there for the purpose of learning Christian truths
things of ultimate advantage to them here and hereafter; but, instead of that, they may find every good principle
precluded from arising in their minds for the future period of their lives by the manner in which a scoffer has treated the
subjectwhich persons of sober minds, and who conscientiously believe that there is an hereafter, and that they will be
punished according to their acts, would shudder to hear Now, it is stated, that this has been the ninety-second oration, as
it is called. This shows there has been a continuance of this conduct. Why, was it fit that the authorities of the city of
London, when they found this was going on for the ninety-second time, they should not interfere? It was their bounden
duty to have taken care that at least somebody should have gone to see the nature and character of the address made at
this place, and also what was the appearance of the persona who met there from time to time. I would ask; what are the
sanctions of human life? What makes a man free from vice? What makes him endeavour to be innocent, to control his
passions, and to do every thing calculated to prevent being mischievous to society, and wanting in his duty to his God?
It is his belief in religion. Destroy the Christian religion, and what is man? Destroy the principle which religion
inculcates, and every man is to make a religion for himself. In doing this you destroy all the bonds of society; you take
away from the weak the reverence which religion inspires; you expose the poor to the oppression of the rich; and
annihilate all that a due and proper sense of religion is calculated to afford. It is with that view, and that view only, that
punishment is inflicted. Consider for one moment, if Christianity be right; and that it isthat it has powerful arguments
to support it from prophecy, from miracles, also, but from prophecy certainly; from the lives of the persons who first
promulgated it, and from the precepts it inculcates, no man in his right mind can reasonably doubt: Its precepts are pure,
and calculated to advance and promote the interests of society; and that they are calculated to repress every thing that
would injure society, every man who has a Christian feeling must admit. The Court cannot but regret that it has a person
of education and of some degree of talent before it, and upon whom its sentence must be passed. He has, unfortunately,
either from the inclination of his own opinion, or from the persuasion of other men, become the instrument of doing that
which may have sapped. the faith of others. Consider for yourself, if that be so, for what a heavy weight have you to
answer. If the Christian religion be true (about which I entertain no doubt), and yon have in any one instance imposed on
the belief of a single person, and induced him to commit crimes and forfeit an influence which, but for the removal of the
restraints of religion, he never would have practiced, who is responsible for that? The sentence of this Court is, that you
be imprisoned in the gaol of Oakham, in the county of Rutland, for one year ; and that, at the expiration of that time, you
find sureties for your good behaviour for the space of five years, yourself in 500l., and two sufficient persons in 250l.,
each; and that in the mean time you be committed into the custody of the Marshal.