"And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law: "For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us."--Acts vi, 10--14. And Stephen defending himself before the Council, boldly asks them, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; _of whom ye have_ BEEN NOW THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS. "When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. "And they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, "And cast him out of the city, and stoned him." Acts vii; 51, 52, 54,57,58. Now, Gentlemen, is it just or politic that the proclaimers of new truths, and new systems, should be treated in this manner? Would it not be far more rational to hear what a man has to say, and answer him, than to "gnash at him with the teeth," to "stop your ears," to "run at him with one accord," and to "stone him to death?" Can you, Gentlemen, by your verdict give your sanction to a course of proceeding similar to that which deprived Stephen of life? All persecution is the same in spirit--highly unjust and impolitic--whether it be exercised against the Apostle Stephen, or the humble individual who now addresses you. Gentlemen, the supporters of the established religion in the days of the Apostles, pursued the same course that the bigots of the present day are pursuing. They applied to the High Priest, or to the Attorney-General of that day, to prosecute Stephen for _blasphemy_, and stirred up the people. In the present case the Bishop of Exeter did not stir up the people, but he stirred up the Government. He sent a packet of papers to Lord Normanby, who handed them to the Attorney-General, and he appears to have considered it to be his duty to institute the present prosecution. The learned Attorney-General, as was the case with the priests and rulers of the Jews, would not allow any discussion to take place that was likely to change existing customs. I will do the Government the justice to say, however, that I do not believe they are disposed to put a stop to the full investigation of any subject, if conducted with decency. I readily admit that the passage in the eighth number of Mr. Haslam’s Letters is highly objectionable in phraseology--it is in very bad taste--but is that a reason for sending a bookseller to prison, because he has sold a book written in bad taste? It cannot be--all published works must be left to the fiat of public opinion to determine their merit.