(From January 12th to August 21st, 1819, five indictments were prepared against Carlile for blasphemy, based on his publication of Paine’s and Palmer’s writings. On the second date, Carlile was arrested for sedition on account of his further letters to the Regent and Lord Sidmouth on the Manchester massacre. He spent six days in the Giltspur Street Compter, and was then released on bail, the magistrate intimating that if he undertook to withdraw from circulation his accounts of the Manchester massacre no further proceedings would be taken against him. Carlile did not comply with this request. Thus defied, the Government was unwilling to answer Carlile’s impeachment by further canvasing accounts of its tyranny by proceeding on the sedition charge. But it remembered that Carlile enjoyed his liberty, on bail, on the blasphemy charge. Hitherto it had shown no disposition to bring the indictments under this charge to a head. Now it proceeded with them in great haste.

Carlile’s trial lasted from Tuesday, October 12th, to Thursday, October 14th, inclusive. The prosecution and the court insisted that a man might, agreeably to the laws of England, doubt or disbelieve the divinity of the Christian religion. It was open to him to communicate these doubts or disbeliefs to others, always providing he did it privately, silently, and respectfully. The jury could see, therefore, that it was not a matter of the respective merits of two books that advocated different opinions. The truth or falsity of the ideas Carlile proclaimed did not matter. By publishing opinions publicly questioning the veracity of the Bible and Christianity, the defendant aimed at creating a breach of the peace. It was this quality that constituted the criminal matter or libel, which was an offense punishable under the rules and according to the usage of the common law of England.

This attitude of the court provided a convenient excuse for ruling out the whole of Carlile’s defense, on the ground that it was but a reiteration of the same sort of calumny against the law of the land and the Bible as that which was contained in the books for the publication of which he was called on to answer;

He urged that The Toleration Act, 53rd of George III., entitled——-

AN ACT TO RELIEVE THOSE PERSONS WHO IMPUGN THE HOLY TRINITY-—

made Deism the law of the land. This plea availed him nothing, since this act did not disestablish Christianity. Consequently, his publications aimed at destroying “the common people’s” respect for the “religious” portion of the Government.

Similarly, had he urged——as he might have done—that the Ancient Common Law knew nothing of such an offense as libel, and being more ancient than Christianity, could not possibly have provided for its maintenance and legal establishment——he would have been met with the statement that the Ancient Common Law did provide for breaches of the peace, and that was what he was charged with. True, when Pope Gregory sent Augustine with his forty associates to England in A.D. 597, Ethelbert assigned him an habitation in the Isle of Thanet, and welcomed him in these words:

"Your words and promises are fair, but because they are new and uncertain I cannot entirely yield to them and relinquish the principles which I and my ancestors have so long maintained. You are welcome, however, to remain here in peace, and as you have undertaken so long a journey solely, as it appears, for what you believe to be our advantage, I will supply you with all necessaries and permit you to deliver your doctrine to my subjects."

But then Ethelbert would not have “permitted” Augustine to preach Christianity had he thought it would lead to the breach of the peace. And the “Vice Society,” the judges, juries, statesmen, and clerics of Carlile’s time did not want the common people to be educated and emancipated from superstition. It could only lead to a “breach of the peace.” The ancient common law did not propound the principle of liberty, did not insist on economic equality without which for its basis, political equality cannot exist. It only preached up the right of the crown to practice toleration—if it wished. The ancient common law, like statute law, only availed the enemies of freedom, the upholders of class society. It offered no encouragement to the brave, to the rebels, or the pioneers. As Carlile himself said, in dealing with this subject :-—

"The origin of Parliaments in this country, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, was no more the effect of common law than statute law; it was only the effect of an opinion of its necessity formed in the bosom of a. man who had the power to enforce it; and experience teaches that there is no other means of obtaining beneficial charges in the political state of our country. As to penalties for misdemeanors, what has it to do with common law, or any other laws: it is a point of equity, resident in the bosom of the judge or a magistrate, and is as often guided by caprice and prudence as by the dictates of justice, particularly in the present day, when almost every judge and magistrate are partisans. Neither have judicial forms anything to do with the Common Law, as they change with the convenience of the court; and, as far as juries are concerned, they are packed on every occasion, where the Government and its party have any interest. With respect to the fundamental principles of the Constitution being supported by the Common Law, what is called the Constitution of England is a mere farce and byword; the fundamental principles of which are confined to the bosom or the breach of Lord Castlereagh. All lawyers will admit, that the definition of what is, and what is not, Common Law, is altogether confined to the bosoms of the judges, and each defines it, agreeable to his own disposition, view, and purpose. If we argue that a traditionary law existed in this country, before the use of letters, it appears that it should follow, as a matter of course, that the introduction of the use of letters, and consequently of statute and written law, should altogether supersede the necessity of an unwritten or Common Law, which is continually liable to be. perverted and abused by corrupt judges, of whom we are never deficient. . . . The Common Law in this country is merely retained as a trap for the unwary, when the Statute Law cannot be strained to answer the necessary political purposes of a corrupt system of Government."

In a word, Carlile’s experience was convincing him of the truth of Paine's dictum : “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.” . Certainly, the sentence passed on him on the present occasion warranted him coming to this opinion of his talented predecessor. He was committed to Dorchester jail for three years, and mulcted in fines to the tune of £1,500. As he refused to pay these fines, he was actually imprisoned six years, from November 16th, 1819, to November 1825, the further three years being exacted for his stubbornness.

The sentence having been passed, the prisoner was immediately handcuffed and hurried away to Dorchester jail in the dead: of the night-—-some 130 miles from London—without being allowed to take a change of linen or to see his wife and children.

Shocked at the natural depravity of the victim of this persecution, the Czar of Russia and his advisers, apprehensive of "the people’s morals," gave directions to the Russian police to prevent the introduction of all the English newspapers containing reports of Carlile's trial. The Czar probably appreciated the retrograde social tendencies of religion. In its name the Russian peasants were bidden to humbly obey the dictates of the Czar and his Grand Dukes, lest they were visited with the vengeance of Almighty God. These threats might only have become empty sounds had" the details, of Carlile's trial been brought to the ears of the vile masses.

This opinion was strengthened by the effect produced by the result of the trial in England. At home the spirit of revolt, had been aroused. Money and letters of encouragement began to pour in upon the prisoner in Dorchester Jail from all parts of the country. This did not please the authorities, who no sooner had Carlile safely locked-up in jail than they descended upon his shop in Fleet Street and, having seized the entire stock, closed it. The officers also took every penny out of the till, although none of the money thus stolen was allowed in mitigation of the fine.

Carlile’s room in prison was large, light, and airy. It had a sink, water-pipe, and complete lavatory attached, the necessary outfit being provided for hot or cold water at pleasure. A sofa was also supplied. Every other consideration was shown as regards the prisoner’s physical comfort. In this respect, Dorchester jail was far superior to most of our “reformed prisons” of to-day, even as regards provisions for the comfort of political prisoners. He was not allowed to V make the acquaintance of any other of the inmates of the prison. To this end, he was closely confined to his room, the solitude causing him to lose the power of speech for some time. But it did not impair the vigor of his mind, nor yet the fearlessness of his pen.