To The Editor Of The Time...
;.tr,-A stranger to London, I accented an invitation this morn- Ing to the Old kailey New Court for tbe pursose of hearing the trial of one of the famous (er as some men say infainous) Carlile's shop. nen. Thie defendant availed himself of the professional services of a 'Ur. French. On his extraordinary address to the jury, I propose tO offer a few remarks. I am Fufficientl' aware of the valuc of every line of your journal, and shaU therefore be as brief as possible. Mleanrhile it may not be amiss to observe, that the signature which I shall tttacls to thi letter, will (when connected with its subejet) sufficiently explain the cause of my addressing you. Had I entertained the leastldea that the crime for which these poor wretches stand charged had that degree of connexion with Unitari. anism which the learned gentleman's address wonld import, I should (I am sure) be among the last to comnlain, not co much ot his introductioa of the subject as of the tnanner in which he abused it. Before the learned Counsel began his address, I speculated on what line of defence would be adopted; and when I surveyed the haggard unmeaning countenance of the accused, it oe-rrred to me that his only probable means of succecs would be in adyancing to thejury the extreme ignorance of his client, and his utter want of comprehension as regards the subject of the publica- tion alleged to be blasphemous. Bet how astonished was I when Mr. Frencb commenced (what I wannot help tnering) the most violent invective against a particular class of dissenters (the Unitarians) that I eccr heard delivered. tJutll to.day, Sir, I gloried that I lved in a liberal age. I thought I might now entertain my own opinions either on politi- cal or tneological subjects, and that no man who valued himself would venttre to asperse or abuse those opinions: but I find myself mistaken. It waswith the mest painfulfeelings thatI heard a barrister, a member of the English bar, publicly, in the fsrst cri- minal court of the first city in the world, term the religious deno. mination to which I belong, " a set of cantinghypocritcs "'-" in- sidious-.diabolical.blasphemers"! ! and our places of worship,";he high nest of inildelity"--" theinfernal nests of serpents." Gracious Heaven ! And this is 1824, the boasted age of chanty and liberality! But this is not all. Sir. French was not content with this. No; a charge is next brought forward that we are (or at teast many mem- bers of our body) guilty of the foulest perjury; that many of us have attained high offices in the sta c that to attain them, we have sub- scribed to the most solemn oatbs, the matter of which we neither be- lieve, or care one tittle about! But here comes out4the secret! Hi- therto I hbd been at a loFs to comprehend the motives of the orator. H ere, however, we are infornned: MUr. French intimates he is of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and artfully dwells upon the hardship' of the political disabilities of that class of persons and then roceeds to contrast their conduct with the.Unitarians. "'Will the Catholic (says he,) the conscientious Catholic, subscribe to an 0atb or creea which comtradicts the tundamentalgrodnds of his belief? No: but the Unitarian, the respectable Unitarian (ironically), the systematic, the licensed blasphemner-does he hefstate No! ! I" Really, iMr. Editor, language like this, uttered by a Catholic Ad- vocate, publicly in an English Court of Justice, involves the most serious topics. I :sk wbat effect must sichan address have on the minds of the auditors ? I am, Sir, a ftiend to Catholic emancipation. I wish the meastre carried. I hail with pleasure the increase of a more favourable feeling on the part of Protestants towards Catholics. But I would seriously ask, is such an harwogue as this calculated to increase that feeling? Will not such an ad- dress as tius furnish ground for your ldons and your Peels, when they assert that the disposition of the Catholics is not yet sufficiently racid or charitable to allow the proposed concesaiona to be granted ? hat other inference, Sir, can we draw ? There are mnany other weigh1ty and importanteomalderations which occur to my mind on this occasion, but I feel I hive already drawn largely on your limits: I shall therefore conclude. To MIr. French personalyll.have nothing to say, excepttoremindhim, thatalthough he has amost exhauste the English vocabulary of invective, in alluding to the professors of Unitarianism, I believe hr will look far_very far_before he finds the mon amongst us who will return "railing for raihmg." No; " Charity suffereti long, and is kind." We might, it wYe chose, indulge in the samze weapon of which Mlr. French has so liberally availed hims-lf, but we forbeaf I would say to h French, in -the language of Chritian meekness anti sim- pbcity.-" Go, and .in nso more." -I :m ai. ..Ar. A - qNT"IAN ; jansey, June I. TO TilE EDITOR OF THB TIMfES.