The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 February 1871

LAW. PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS, FEBRUARY 18.

[FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT]

BLASPHEMY

(Before Mr. District Judge Simpson.)

Mr W. H. Wilkinson, Crown Prosecutor.

William Lorando Jones surrendered to his bail on a charge of blasphemy.

The following jurors were empanelled, viz.: William Byrnes, James Bell, John Booth, Edward Braddick, sen., W. H. Byrnes, Sydney J. Brown, James Benson, C. J. Byrnes, James Bergan, C. R. Brown, and William Henry Burgin.

This case had excited a great deal of interest, and the moment the doors of the Court were opened all available space was filled with hearers.

The defendant is a man advanced in years, who may be remembered as exhibiting specimens of statuary at the late Intercolonial Exhibition, held in Alfred Park, Sydney. Mr. D. Buchanan, instructed by Mr. Greer, appeared for the defence.

Before the jury were sworn, Mr. Buchanan asked the judge to allow him as a favour to challenge any of the jurors, whom his client might think held preconceived opinions in this matter. His Honor said he would give the defendant every chance, and would allow a challenge of any juror, provided evidence were given of the cause of challenge.

Two jurors, William Byrnes and William Henry Byrnes, were challenged, but both denied having had any preconceived opinions as to the merits of the case. The jury therefore remained intact.

The following indictment was then read:-“For that on the 22nd January last, at Parramatta, in the colony of New South Wales, William Lorando Jones, being a wicked and evil disposed person, and disregarding the laws and religion of the said colony, wickedly, profanely, devisedly, and intending to bring the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into disrepute and contempt among the people of the said colony, and to blaspheme God unlawfully and wickedly, and blasphemously in the presence and hearing of divers subjects of our lady the Queen, spoke and pronounced, and with a loud voice published the profane and blasphemous words to the effect - ie: ‘The Bible (meaning the Holy Bible) is the most immoral book that ever has been published; that it is a mass of immoralities and a lie; that it is not a fit book for any female to read; that it is corrupt and immoral; that Moses (meaning Moses who is mentioned in the Old Testament, called the Book of Exodus) was a cruel old wretch - a murderer of the deepest dye, without mercy; that the elect of God (meaning the children of Israel referred to in the 2nd Book of Exodus) murdered the Egyptians, and that the elect of God (meaning the said children of Israel and their descendants) burned every one who interfered with them, and that the barbarous wretches cut up the people with swords and arrows of iron and axes; that Moses (meaning the said Moses) was a robber; that the Israelites, called God’s elect, were robbers and murderers, and that they murdered the first born of the Egyptians; that Jethro, then high priest, killed the first born of the Egyptians; that Rachel held Bellah on Jacob’s knee while he made a child, respectively meaning Rachel, Billah, and Jacob, mentioned in the 30th chapter of the book of the Old Testament called Genesis; that Elisha made Jehu King, respectively meaning Elisha the prophet, Jehu, King of Israel, mentioned the book of the Old Testament, called the second Book of Kings, so that he might cut off the heads of seventy children, which he did, and put them in baskets; that he (meaning the said Elisha) murdered a number of priests of Baal by his God’s authority; that the God of the Israelites was a murdering God; that Moses (meaning the said Moses) saved 40,000 Midianitish women to make them prostitute to his soldiers to the high displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her Crown and Dignity.” The defendant pleaded “not guilty.”

The Crown Prosecutor proceeded to open the case. He enlarged upon the indictment, and gave expression to his opinion as to the words used by the defendant, as set forth in the indictment, and stated that he, as a thorough advocate of freedom of speech and honest inquiry, would be the last person to infringe upon the civil and religious liberties gained for us by our forefathers. Still, he could not for a moment defend the conduct of defendant, which went far beyond the bounds of propriety, and tended to violate public morality and decency. It would be proved by the evidence before the Court that defendant in a public place, and before a mixed crowd, had taken advantage of the opportunity to utter language of a most blasphemous nature. There were two things to regarded. 1st. Whether the character of the language used by defendant did not in itself betray an improper and illegal direction of motive. 2nd. That the arena chosen by defendant was not the one he should have selected for expounding his teachings. There was no doubt that this was an offence against Christianity, which was part and parcel of the law, as was proved by the oath the jurors had that day taken. While every officer of the Crown, from the Governor downwards, had to acknowledge the fundamental truths of Christianity, any attempt therefore to overthrow the established religion would not be tolerated. The way in which defendant had acted precluded him from all sympathy. No one could tell what amount of social misery has been occasioned by this and similar controversies. He then proceeded to call evidence as follows:

Senior-sergeant Kelly in charge of the Parramatta police deposed: That he knew defendant was in Parramatta Domain on 22nd January last between 3 and 5 o’clock: defendant was then addressing about 100 people; he said that the Bible was the most immoral book ever published, that it was a mass of immorality and a lie, that it was not a fit book for any female to read, it was corrupt and immoral, that Moses was a cruel old wretch and a murderer of the deepest dye, without mercy; that the elect of God stole golden ornaments; murdered the Egyptians, burned anybody that interfered with them and that the barbarous wretches cut up the people with harrows, swords, and axes of iron; that Jehu was appointed King of Israel for the purpose of committing barbarous atrocities; that 70 children were murdered, and their heads put into baskets; that thousands of women were murdered in cold blood; and 32,000 virgins were given to the soldiers for debauchery; that the Israelites were murderers, robbers, and thieves.

By Mr. Buchanan: Some of the females present went away; could not say whether defendant’s whole discourse did or did not refer to the Old Testament.

By Crown Prosecutor: When defendant referred to God’s elect, I think he referred to the Jews; when he spoke of Moses I knew him to mean the Moses mentioned in the Bible.

By Mr. Buchanan: I spoke to Messrs. Melville and Kingsbury, but never compared notes with them; I know that Melville is not in holy orders; I know he is what is commonly called a “spouter.” Defendant’s manner was solemn and earnest. He was occasionally excited, but there was no levity; his speech was full of contradictions, but he maintained his solemnity throughout. Mr. Melville did not interrupt the defendant, but waited till he had done speaking; I was not there when defendant began his discourse; I never heard that he appeared there in answer to a challenge from Mr. Kingsbury; defendant said he believed in God, the Creator of the Universe - he believed in one God - that Jesus Christ was a good man, but not God; defendant’s whole manner shewed that he had great respect for this one God.

By Crown Prosecutor: Defendant said that Jesus Christ was a good man, that his teachings were good, and worthy of being followed, but that he was not God.

Ninian Melville, jun., deposed on affirmation that on the day mentioned by last witness heard defendant speaking; there were about 200 people present of all ages and sexes; defendant spoke loud, and said that Moses was a cruel-hearted old murderer; that the God of the Bible, the God of the Israelites, was not his (defendant’s) God, because He was a murdering God, as shown by the Israelites, who were called His elect people; defendant said Moses killed the first-born of the Egyptians; that Jethro killed the first-born of the Egyptians; that the Israelites killed the first-born of the Egyptians, and He robbed the Egyptians; that the last chapter of the 2nd Book of Chronicles, and the last two verses and the 1st chapter of the Book of Ezra, the first three verses were copied the one from the other; that Elisha made Jehu King of Israel to kill 70 children and put their heads in baskets, as also to kill 400 priests of Baal, whom he murdered, the act being approved of by his God; that Sarah held Hagar on Abraham’s knee whilst he put her with child; that Rachel held Bilhah on Jacob’s knee while he put her with child. Defendant afterwards corrected both these statements by saying that Rachel held Bilhah on her knee while Jacob put her with child; that Moses saved 40,000 Midianitish women to make prostitutes of the soldiers, in proof of which they (the soldiers) were told to wash themselves before they went in to the women, and what else did that prove but that these women were to be kept as prostitutes; that the Israelites were a cruel, murdering people, for they cut up people with harrows and saws of iron. In reply to a statement I made that I would warn all present to avoid and crush the opinions expressed by defendant as they would a black snake, he said: “There, now, if you are a Christian, and believe what Christianity teaches, I’ll bring a black snake and the poison, but you are not game to take it; that shews you don’t believe in Christianity, and it’s a lie.” Defendant also said that the Bible was an immoral book and contained statements unfit to be read or spoken in the hearing of females, and that he would oppose the Bible and its teachings on every opportunity; I understand that by the Bible defendant meant the Holy Bible, and by Moses, Jethro, Sara, Hagar, Abram, Rachel, Bilhah, Elisha and Jehu, the persons so named in the Holy Bible; by the Egyptians, the persons so named in the Holy Bible, and by Chronicles and Ezra, two books in the Bible.

By Mr. Buchanan: The Bible, as a historical narrative, contains some statements similar to those made by defendant; I have read Tom Paine’s “Age of Reason;” I have never read Volney; I have read Adam Clarke; the speech or lecture was not a critique upon the Bible and the treatment of the people named; it was a positive statement that such and such was in the Bible; I have seen a statement of historical facts recorded in the Bible contained in other works than the Bible itself; I am not a clergyman, but preach; I never applied to be a clergyman; I never applied to be a minister of the Independent or any other church; I have read portions of Josephus and a little of Volney; the latter wrote profane history, and I have seen a marvellous resemblance in his statements to the untruths uttered by defendant; I am a member of the Church of Christ called Christians; I never was a member of the Independent Church; I did apply to be a member, but would not comply with the terms required of me; defendant said he was quoting from the Bible; his discourse was confined to the Old Testament. I have had conversation with different persons as to this case, but not to the evidence. I spoke to Senior-sergeant Kelly about the excited state of defendant. I took one note at the time, but have not got it with me. My objects in coming to Parramatta were - first, to hear defendant, a reputed infidel, speak; and, secondly, to refute his statements. I never volunteered to come to Parramatta to give evidence. I have read the new Testament, and find it therein recorded that Jesus Christ called the scribes and pharisees “vipers”. These scribes and pharisees were, I believe, the descendants of God’s people. Nowhere in secular literature do I find more fearful denunciations of the people to whom Christ referred than in the New Testament. Defendant’s manner was at times earnest and solemn, at other times it displayed levity; he laughed sometimes. I never interrupted him, or had any words while he was speaking. I spoke when he was done. His statements occupied a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes in delivery.

Mr. Buchanan, during the cross-examination of the witness, had several times to complain of the evasive manner in which witness gave his evidence, and his evident desire to place himself in impertinent opposition to the examining counsel.

Joseph Kingsbury affirmed that on the day in question he was in the Parramatta Domain, and heard the defendant addressing over 200 people of all ages and both sexes. (Witness here corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness Melville as to some of the statements made by the defendant.) Witness said to defendant, “Have you a wife, or daughters?” he said “Yes; but I would not allow them to read such an immoral book as the Bible.”

By Mr. Buchanan: About five weeks before the 22nd of January I was sent by the church of which I am a member, viz., the Church of Christ, to preach in the Parramatta Domain; never challenged any one to a discussion; my church never challenges; I might have said, holding up the Bible, - “I call upon any one here to produce a better light than is contained in this Book”; I always do hold up the book when preaching; the defendant might have been one of the audience; I will not affirm he was not there; the defendant’s manner was earnest and solemn; he spoke very loud; I say levity amongst the audience, and reproved them for it; this levity was aroused by the defendant’s excited manner.

The Bible, as a whole, was here put in as evidence by the Crown-Prosecutor.

Mr. Buchanan, before addressing the jury, submitted that there was no case to go to them. The defendant was charged with blasphemy; this, according to the highest authorities, was an offence consisting in an attack upon the established religion of the country. In England there was an established religion, which thus became part of the law of the land, and to speak against that religion was to speak against the law itself; at the same time, however, any person who choose to do so might criticise, or even libel, the religious belief of any other sect in England beside the Church of England, and might call into question the doctrines of the Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, Congregational, or other dissenting sect, with the utmost impunity. Here in Australia the case was different, for we have no established religion; therefore, as a logical sequence, as the religion established by law in England is not law in this country, to speak against that religion here could not be an infringement of the law.

His Honor considered that any one who, in a wholesale way, says that the Bible is not true, and denies the divinity of our Saviour, is amenable for blasphemy.

Mr. Buchanan still contended that any attacks, save upon an established religion, were not amenable to law.

His Honor admitted that Christianity was not established in this colony by Act of Parliament, but did not hesitate to say that it came to us as part and parcel of the common law of England necessarily incorporated in the Constitution of the colony as an offspring of the British nation.

At the request of Mr. Buchanan, however, his Honor reserved the point.

Mr. Buchanan, in a forcible and eloquent speech extending over two hours, upheld the right of the defendant as a free subject in a free country to express his opinions on matters of religious belief, either public or private, and contended that a jury who would convict a man as guilty of blasphemy when he had merely given utterance to the convictions of his soul for the benefit (as, he however, wrongly thought) of his fellow-creatures, were individually and collectively worthy of being held up to the utter scorn and contempt of the entire civilised globe. To punish such a man for expressing his honest belief would be to roll us back to those dark ages, when, as in the case of Galileo, pains and penalties were held over every man who dared to think for himself and publicly express his opinions.

At the conclusion of Mr. Buchanan’s speech, during the delivery of which the Court was crowded to excess by a most attentive audience, whilst the seats on the Bench were occupied by many of the leading magistrates, there were audible expressions of approval, which, however, were promptly suppressed by the police.

The Crown Prosecutor was about the rise in reply when Mr. Buchanan interposed, and stated that, in cases of misdemeanour, it was not usual for the Crown to exercise its prerogative, especially as no witnesses had been called for the defence.

His Honor intimated that it was entirely optional with the Crown Prosecutor, who thereupon rose, and after stating that in his experience the Crown had always replied in similar cases proceeded to expound the law and review the evidence.

His Honor summed up with great precision and discernment, and the jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of “Guilty”.

His Honor remarked that he considered the case one of an extremely grave nature, and would do his utmost by making an example of the defendant to prevent a repetition of such an offence. He therefore sentenced the defendant to two years’ imprisonment in Darlinghurst gaol, and inflicted a fine of 100 pounds, to be paid to her Majesty the Queen.