LON 
few fuccefsfi.il ones exhibited at Paris, the following was 
much noticed about this time.—The emperor Napoleon is 
reprefented as fitting at a table in the imperial nurfery, 
with a cup of coffee before him, into which he is fqueez- 
ing, with all his might, the crimfon juice of a beet-root. 
The young and hopeful king of Rome is feated by his 
daddy, and is feen fucking moll votacipufly one of the 
legs of the bind root; whilft the nurfe, who is fteadfaftly 
obferving the royal brat, is made to fay, “ Suck, dear, fuck ; 
your father fays it is fugar.” We doubt not but the in¬ 
genuity of the French may extract a few pounds of fweets 
out of an acre of beet-root ; but it will always be a poor 
fubftitute for the produce of the cane. This, however, 
was one of his plans for ruining Englifh commerce. 
On the 6th of March came on, in the court of King’s 
Bench, the remarkable trial of Daniel Il'aac Eaton, a book- 
feller, for blafpbemy.—It was on an information, filed ex- 
ojficio by the Attorney-general againft the defendant for 
the publication of a blafphemous and profane libel on the 
laoly fcriptures, being the Third Part of Thomas Paine’s 
Age of Reafon. After the pleadings had been opened by 
Mr. Abbott, the Attorney-general mentioned the motives 
which had induced him to file the information, and cha- 
rafteriffid the publication in queftion in terms of the 
greateft abhorrence. The libel, he faid, afferted that the 
holy fcriptures were, from beginning to end, a fable and 
«n impofture ; that the apoftles were liars and deceivers. 
The author denied the miracles, the refurreftion, the af- 
cenfion, of Jefus Chrift; nay, his very exiftence as the 
Son of God; and even as a man on earth. He afierts his 
whole hiftory to be nearly fabulous, and places it on a le¬ 
vel with the legends of the heathen mythology ; conclud¬ 
ing with taking upon himfelf to defcribe infidelity in 
thefe words, “ He that believes in the ftory of Chrilt is an 
infidel to God.” The attorney-general then enlarged on 
the mifchiefs that mull refult from dilfeminating fuch 
doftrines, which firuck at the foundation of all that was 
facred in Chriftian locieties, and all the lanclions of legal 
proceedings. He fhowed that blafphemy had always been 
confidered by the law of the land as one of the higheft of 
Kiifdemeanors, and adduced various cafes of decifions to 
this purpofe. He then noticed the plea which might be 
brought for the defendant, that he was only the publifher 
ef the libel ; and faid that, whoever was the author, it 
would be proved that the defendant was well acquainted 
with its contents, and had been at the pains of import¬ 
ing it from America, and had allured the purchafers that 
they might rely upon its being the genuine publication 
of Thomas Paine. After he had concluded his fpeech, 
the pafiages were read which were charged in the infor- 
ination. 
The defendant then began to read his defence, which 
contained a hiftory of his life and opinions; and alfo di- 
grefled to fuch free ftriftures on the books of fcripture 
and'their authors, that he was feveral times interrupted 
by lord Ellenborougli. At length his lord (hip faid, that, 
upon mature deliberation, he thought the public would 
be better ferved by letting him read every line he had 
written. When the defendant had finiflied his paper, he 
perfonally addreffed the jury, ftating that the work htfd 
been fix or feveti years in circulation in America, with¬ 
out being profecuted ; and mentioning the liardfhips he 
hiiqpfelf had undergone from fix former profecutions. 
Lord Ellenborough made a (liort addrefs to the jury, in 
which he faid that the defence from the beginning to the end 
had been a tifi’ue of opprobrious reviling of the hooks of 
the Old and New Teftament. He confirmed the law laid 
down by the attorney-general; and faid, that though it 
was competent for America, or any other independent 
Hate, to adminifter their laws as they pleafed, yet in this 
country the Chriftian religion was ftrongly fenced about 
by the laws of the land. He fliould leave it to the jury, as 
Chriftian men, fworn upon the Gofpel of Chrift, to fay 
whether the prefent was not an atrocious libel on the 
Chriftian religion. 
Yob. XIII. No. 90 S. 
D O N. 313 
Thejury immediately found the defendant guilty; and, 
on the 30th of April, the attorney-general prayed the 
judgment of the court againft Eaton, who was brought 
up in cuftody. The defendant put in the affidavits of 
five refpeftable perfons, ftating that they had been ac¬ 
quainted with him feveral years, dqring which he had 
Condufted himfelf as a peaceable moral man, who never 
in converfation attempted to enforce his own particular 
opinions, either in politics or religion. He alfo put in an 
affidavit by himfelf, ftating that he publifhed the libel 
without any evil intention or delign to difturb the peace, 
or affeft the dilhonour of God, as charged; and mention¬ 
ing that the pamphlet in queftion contained many pafiages 
in which the perfections of the Deity were deduced, and 
praife was given to the morality of the gofpel—together 
with other allegations tending to excite the mercy of the 
court. 
Mr. Prince Smith then addrefl'ed the court at confider- 
able length in mitigation of punifhment. He faid he did 
not deny the exiftence or propriety of the law upon which 
the information was filed ; but all human laws were 
founded upon circumftances, and changed with the lapfe 
of time, and the charafter and manners of a people. He 
then proceeded to (how how the rigour of ancient into¬ 
lerance had been gradually foftened ; and that in the kilt 
century great latitude had been allowed to the difeuffion 
of religious doftrines. He contended for the right of this 
free difeuffion ; and adverted to the advantage which had 
accrued to the Chriftian religion by the attacks upon it, 
as having given rife to fo many excellent defences. Pie 
faid it would have been better to have anfiocred the pamphlet in 
quejlion than to have profecuted it ; face the latter proceeding 
might be thought to imply a necefity for ufing the firong arm of 
the law in its refutation. He underftood that the attorney- 
general had claimed fome merit for lenity, in not profe- 
cuting the defendant upon the ftatute of William III. If 
lie had done fo, their lordftiips would have had no dis¬ 
cretion in apportioning the punilliment; but, on the 
common-iaw profecution, they were open to every argu¬ 
ment of humanity and philofophy. The information 
charged, that this libel was publifhed againft the king’s 
erdwn and dignity; but that infidelity did not militate 
againft thefe was proved by the many millions in the Eali 
who were not Chriitians,and yet were fuch material additions 
to the,crown and dignity of the king of England. If deills 
were tolerated and formed into a left', would any injury 
enfue to thofe morals of which the court was guardian ? 
Many who had written with as much audacity, bur more 
artifice, had gone unpunilhed—this he inftanced in Hume, 
Gibbon, &c. He alio adverted to a new tranflation of 
Lucretius, ad vertifed with the name of the attorney-general 
as a fubferiber. 
The Attorney-general made a brief reply, in which he 
obferved that there was nothing in the pamphlet which 
was not drawn from the very dregs of infidelity, and which 
had not been anfwered again and again ; and that, where 
one perfon might be injured by the literary works alluded 
to, live hundred would be by one of this kind. It refted 
with the court to determine the defendant’s crime and 
puniffiment as the libel regarded the peace of the country; 
and, if there were no authorities on the fubjeft, reafon 
and principle mult decide that this was an offence againft 
that peace which it had a direct tendency to difturb. 
The defendant was then ordered to be remanded to cuf¬ 
tody ; and, on the 8th of May, his fentence was pronounced 
by Mr. Juftice Grofe, which was, “ imprifonment in New¬ 
gate for eighteen months, and to ftand in the pillory dur¬ 
ing the firlt of thofe months.” 
On the 18th of March died, aged 76, Mr. John Horne 
Tooke, a diftinguifiied political and literary charafter for 
a long feries of years. On the 25th of May died Mr. 
Malone, the celebrated commentator on Shakefpeare.—For 
particulars of the lives of thefe diftinguilhed perfons, fee 
Malone and Tooke. 
Oh the z6th of March, Mr. Henry Hafe, chief calhier 
4 L of 
