EXTRAORDINARY BLASPHEMY CASE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2525, 21 March 1871, Page 2

EXTRAORDINARY BLASPHEMY CASE.

The New South Wales Legislative As* eembly was occupied some hours on March 3 in considering the case of William Lorando Tones, convict d of blasphemy, which has excited a great deal of attention in Australia. Mr Jones, who is by profession a photographer, resides at the quiet town of Parramatta, about sixteen miles from Sydney, For some time past, it appeals, a, Mr Kingsi bury and a Mr Melville have been in thp habit of attending in the Parramatta Domain (in former days the Viceregal Park) every Sunday to preach. On one occasion in January Kingsbury threw out what was considered a challenge to all present to deny the truth contained in the Bible, holding up the copy of the Scriptures, which was in his hand. Jones, who was one of the crowd, accepted this challenge, and went into the Domain the next Sunday with a written discourse, which he read to the persons in atteudanca. In the course of the reading he described Moses as “a robber and a murderer,” and other characters of the Old Testament in similar terrng ; while expressing his belief in the existence of a God, he declared that his God “was not the God of the Hebrews —not a murdering God.” For this conduct a criminal in r qrmat : on was filed against Jones by the police sergeant of the town, and he was brought before the local bench and committed to take his trial for blasphemy. He was tried on the IBth inst. before Mr Judge Simpson and a, jury of twelve, the witnesses against Him being the two local preachers and the police sergeant. The jury, with something like an ostentiit'ous display of Christian virtue, returned a verdict of “ guilty, ” without leaving the box, and without a minute’s consultation. Thereupon the judge sentenced Jones to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor, and to pay a fine of LIOO ? “ Infidelity was too common in ,the world,” and the judge was determined “to put it down.”

Mr Wjlliam Forster moved for copies of all the papers in the case of Jones, and in making his motion took occasion to point out the danger of judges determining what constitutes a punishable expression of disbelief. Several other members took the same side, Mr Fitzpatrick, a Roman Catholic, declaring that he would never cease to raise his voice against such punishment and against the law that tolerated it; and Mr Stewart a Presbyt rian, pronounced his opinion that tlje judge ought to be removed from the benchl Sir James Martin, the Attorney-General, expressed his opinion that the prosecution never ought to have been instituted, although, when the papers in the case were submitted to him, he had no choice but to let the law take its course. He defined the crime of blasphemy as consisting, not so much in lan-

guage agunst the received religion ns 111 views of disbelief expressed in a way calculated to provoke disorder. He had no doubt but that the conviction was good in law, but he considered the sentence “excessively severe,” The whole case would be considered by the Kxccutivo in a few days. In the meantime a potition for the remission of the sentence on Jones has been numerously signed and will be presented to-day or tomorrow to the Earl of Belmorc. It seems to be the general belief that the prisoner will soon be released. Jones is A sculptor, and is said to be a Fellow of the Royal Academy. He appears to be unquestionably a person of some education, but his conduct in itself is condemned on all hands, as having been without justification or excuse.