MORMONISM IN ENGLAND.
PENALTY FOR DISTURBING THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
[From the London Times, September 14.]
Middlesex Sessions, September 13.
BEFORE MR. BODKIN AND A BENCH OF MAGISTRATES AT CLERKENWELL.
ANDREW HEPBURN, thirty-nine, a respectable-looking; man, described as well educated, was in-dicted for a misdemeanor, in having wilfully and maliciously disturbed a certain number of per-sons, who had assembled for the purpose of re-ligious worship in a place duly registered accord-ing to the statute.
Mr. PARRY appeared for the prosecution; Mr. PAYNE on behalf of the defendant.
The learned counsel, in opening the case, said he was instructed on the part of a congregation of persons calling themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, " and the prosecution was somewhat of importance. He trusted, what-ever the nature of the instructions his learned friend who appeared on behalf of the defendant might be, the proceedings would not be treated with any degree of levity. The charge against the defendant was that he had taken an active part—whether from conscientious motives or otherwise, it would be for the jury to decide—in disturbing a congregation of Mormons, who had assembled tor worship in a building certified for the purpose, situate at 41 Globe road, Stepney. They were aware of the struggles which, in former times, all denominations of Christians had under-gone to secure freedom and liberty in their forms of worship, the result of which battling with per-secution and intolerance had been, that they were now arrived at a time when every man was at liberty to worship God as his conscience dictated to him.
By the law of England, any man who chose to preach {…..} of religion could take a room of a shed, and, having obtained the license pre-scribed by the statute, could legally assemble a congregation of persons, who could there worship in any form they chose to adopt. The sect to which the prosecutor, Mr. Marsden, belonged, he believed, adopted the Bible as the basis of their faith, but whatever inferences they drew—whether they were or were not at variance with those drawn by other sects of Christians—that ques-tion, he apprehended, would have not the least to do with the present prosecution. The defendant, whatever his motives might have been, had no right to interfere with any body or community of persons who had assembled for the worship of their Creator, no matter how absurd or ridiculous the form of that worship might be.
James Marsden examined—I am a preacher and teacher of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-ter-Day Saints. There is a Book of Mormon. We have a licensed room, 41 Globe road, Step-ney. It is licensed in the name of Mr. Harrison. I know the defendant; he is a lecturer. There was public worship in the church on the 25th of August. The service consisted of prayers and a sermon. We believe in the sacredness of the Scripture and the divinity of Christ, but we draw certain inferences which are drawn by no other sect. While I was preaching on the 25th of Au-gust the defendant entered, and in a loud voice said: "What is the text?" He was requested to be quiet by Mr. Harrison, an elder, but he would not, and again called out, "What is the passage? What is the Scripture?" The defendant was standing. He came in alone, and had a book in his hand. When the police interposed and were about to remove him, several persons interfered in his behalf. I asked the deacon to call the po-lice, as I could not proceed with the discourse. We pay two guineas a quarter for the use of the room.
Mr. Parry, (reading from the Book of Mor-mon)—"We believe that Governments were in-stituted of God for the benefit of man, and that he holds man accountable for their acts in relation to them, either in making laws or administering them, for the good and safety of society. 2. We believe that no Government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." (To the witness)—Are these two cardinal points of your religion as to government?
Witness—Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. Parry—Is it part of your creed to interfere with the religious professions of other sects?
Witness—No, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr. Payne—We believe in the divinity of the Saviour, and also in the authen-ticity of the Scriptures. We believe equally in the inspiration and authenticity of the Book of Mormon—that it was a Divine revelation to Jo-seph Smith, and is equally as inspired as the Bi-ble, and as authentic as the Word of God.
Mr. Parry, interposing, said this court was not the proper arena for the discussion of questions of this kind; they had nothing to do with this charge.
Mr. Payne thought they had. The prosecutors had brought the case here, instead of quietly an-swering the question as to what the text was which was being preached from. They had sought a public inquiry, and these things must be looked into. (To witness)—Is not plurality of wives recognized by your religion?
Witness—Not in England.
Mr. Bodkin thought it would be better than this line of cross-examination should not be gone on with. Mr. Payne would show that it was quite rele-vant to the case. (To the witness)—Is it not stated in your books that further information may be had at all your religious meetings through-out the world?
Witness—Yes; but such information is to be had in preaching, not in noisy discussion. If there is no information to be gathered from preaching, then where is the use of preaching?
Mr. Parry—A very proper answer.
The witness, in cross examination—We be-lieve that the Almighty, through the instrument-ality of the elders of our church, effects miraculous cures. There was such a place as the Temple of Nauvoo. The head of the sect does not represent the Almighty Being, and go through the ceremo-ny of pretending to create a woman from the rib of a man. Brigham Young does not do this. Such things have been stated; but it was also stated that Christ was a blasphemer.
Mr. Payne—Do not the Latter-Day Saints de-clare, as part of their belief, that all other sects are corrupt, and teach false doctrine, and that a new revelation was necessary, which revelation was made to Joe Smith?
Witness—They believe that there was a de-parture from true apostolic doctrine, and from apostolic institutions, and therefore that a new religious organization was necessary. The new revelation was given to Joseph Smith, who was deliberately murdered in America.
Mr. Payne—Is it not part of your belief that the bishops of the English or Protestant Church must come to Joseph Smith's church, as the only true one, in order to be saved?
Witness—It is just as reasonable to believe that, as to believe that Joseph Smith's church must come over to the bishops in order that they may be saved. Mr. Parry said there were a great many ques-tions of faith in the Church of England itself; and if Dr. Pusey himself were in the witness-box, no doubt a smile could be elicited from his cross-ex-amination. A man, as far as he could see, might be just as able to preach religion, even if he had not been educated at Oxford or Cambridge, as if he had.
Witness in continuation—The defendant is a lecturer, and a Protestant clergyman has presided at his lectures—to my great surprise, however. I have heard of a book called "An Exposure of the Proceedings and Improprieties of the Mor-mons."
Reëxamined—Those are the calumnies of those who assail our religion. Joseph Smith was cru-elly and barbarously murdered in America be-cause of the religion he professed.
By Mr. Bodkin—We consider ourselves Prot-estant dissenters.
James Harrison—I belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called Mormons. I was present for religious worship at the room in the Globe road on the 25th of Au-gust, at half past eight. I saw the defendant come in. He stood and asked, "What is the passage?" He asked more than once, and sufficiently loud to disturb the proceedings. His manner was ex-cited. There were about one hundred and fifty persons there. The meeting was peaceable until it was disturbed by the defendant. I called in the police, but repeatedly requested the defendant to be quiet before doing so. Mr. Marsden was preaching, and was interrupted. I am the minis-ter of the place. Mr. Marsden sent for the police. They came, and removed the defendant. I saw him there the previous week. On that occasion he interrupted the meeting. The meeting was broken up, and he was removed by the police. He then threatened that he would annoy the Mor-mons whenever and wherever he could, and it was then stated that he would be there on the following Friday, the 25th, to annoy the meeting. He did come, with the result I have mentioned.
Cross-examined—It was on a Friday evening, and the congregation comprise young, old, and middle-aged. Young persons of nine and ten years are admitted to the fellowship of the church. Outside the room it was written up, "Latter-Day Saints' Lecture Hall." They never had any dis-cussion there.
Edward Sheridan, 236 K, deposed, he was sent by his inspector to protect this body of persons at worship. He saw the defendant go in. He had a book and a written document in his hand. He was talking, and the clamor was very great. His voice was much the loudest. He was requested to remove him, and asked him to be quiet, and not interrupt the meeting. He answered that he had proofs in his hand of what he was to do, and wit-ness asked him what proofs he had of his right to disturb the congregation. He persisted, and wit-ness told him he must take him into custody. Two other officers came up, and he was secured. He struggled violently, and several persons who were acting with him inside said they (the police) should not lay hands on him.
Cross-examined—He was not told at the time that the defendant had a dislocated shoulder, but the defendant had told him so since.
Joseph Buckingham stated that he was a clerk in the office of the registry of the diocese of Lon-don. A room at 41 Globe road was duly licensed as a place for meeting of Protestant dissenters. The certificate was dated 7th of June, 1850. It was granted to a Mr. Powell, and was signed by the deputy registrar. (It was produced.)
Cross-examined—Could not say whether there was any preliminary investigation as to the re-ligious tenets of the congregations to assemble in the places proposed to be licensed. A discussion here took place upon a clause in the act 52d George III., cap. 155, with reference to these licenses for places of religious worship. The clause required a return of a license being granted to be made to the quarter sessions from the bishop’s court when parties went there [……] proceeding [….] in this case […..] been made from the registry of the diocese, and Mr. Payne contended that such return was a con-dition precedent, while Mr. Parry, on the other hand, argued that the legal rights of the parties obtaining the certificate could not be affected by any negligence on the part of the bishop or his deputies, they having taken all the steps the law required them to do; and that it was sufficient for them if they had the certificate. This, the latter gentleman observed, was a most important ques-tion, affecting all bodies of dissenters; and if the bishop, or those under him, did not perform the duty required of them, it must be looked to.
Mr. Bodkin said he felt the force of Mr. Parry's remarks, and he should not stop the case upon the point raised.
Mr. Payne, in addressing the jury, said he was one of those who greatly rejoiced at the amount of religious freedom and liberty of conscience en-joyed by the people of this country, but still he thought pernicious effects would result from a matter-of-course sort of registration of these places of worship, without a preliminary inquiry into the tenets and professions of those by whom such places were to be used. Now, the place in ques-tion—this 41 Globe road—was licensed as a place of meeting for Protestant dissenters; not a word was there about Mormonism or Latter-Day Saints in the bishop's certificate; and it was set forth in the indictment that the assemblage was one of Protestant dissenters, gathered together for the purpose of religious worship. He contended that the indictment was not borne out by the evidence in more respects than one. The first was this: Was the congregation in question a bona fide as-sembly of Protestant dissenters, for meetings of which alone the place was licensed? Baptists, Independents, and Wesleyans, were Protestant dissenters; they each had the Bible for the founda-tion of their faith, differing only as to certain in-ferences; they adopted the Scripture as divine inspiration, but differed not so much upon matters of doctrine as of discipline; but this party (the Mormons) had a Bible of their own. They be-lieved that a new revelation had been made to their prophet, Joe Smith, under circumstances of the most miraculous nature, and that their Bible was equal in divine inspiration and authenticity with our own. Were these persons, entertaining such doctrines, to be deemed Protestants, and could it be supposed that the Legislature ever contemplated such a sect when they threw a protection over Protestant dissenters, in the true sense of the term, in the exercise of their religious worship? The doctrine of the Mormons was decidedly anti-Christian, and the idea of their Bible being inspired reminded him of what the native Indian said of it. He said God made one Bible and the Devil another, but the Devil was so ashamed of his Bible that he went and buried it, and Joseph Smith afterwards found it.
Mr. Parry was surprised that his friend should introduce anything a native Indian had said on the subject. He could easily surmise what the Indians would say of him, and also what they would do with him if he was among them. [Loud laughter.]
Mr. Payne went on to say that plurality of wives was recognized by the Mormon religion, but not by the English law, and he argued that the law never could be construed to protect in worship those who entertained the abominable Mormonist doctrines. They had procured the bishop's certificate by a false pretense that they were Protestant dissenters—false pretense he re-iterated, for, though professing to be Protestant dissenters, they held the belief that their elders or the heads of the church had the power, through God, of working miracles, and that Protestant bishops must conform to their doctrines in order to be saved. Now, suppose, on the occasion in question the preacher was advocating these doc-trines, and he belonged to a sect which professed them, where was the crime in a man asking where he took the text from? He would say let every Protestant dissenter have every liberty of con-science, every freedom of religious worship, but let it not be tolerated that the professors of these poisonous and baneful doctrines should take ref-uge in the guise of Protestantism, a religion with which theirs could not be reconciled, and under that mask seek to avail themselves of a protection the law could not have intended them to partici-pate in. They were dealers in moral poison, and now wished to appear as good Protestants. He trusted the jury would not measure this matter with golden scales, that they would put a liberal construction upon the whole case, for such pro-ceedings as those of these Mormons were not to be endured by honest Englishmen, and that, for the honor of the country, of the true Protestant religion, for God's Word, and as good men, they would not convict the defendant on this charge of disturbing a "Protestant" congregation, and so subject him to a penalty of £40, which the court had no power to mitigate.
Mr. Bodkin, in summing up, said it had been truly observed that this court was not an arena for the discussion or consideration of questions of this kind; the absurdity or otherwise of any par-ticular doctrine had nothing whatever to do with the issue they had to try. Under the act of Par-liament certain preliminaries must take place be-fore public worship could be held, and there was a penality provided in case those preliminaries were not properly complied with. By one of the clauses such worship was prohibited taking place except with open doors, so that the proper au-thorities had the power of assuring themselves that such worship was carried on with decency and propriety, and of knowing what was going on. It could not, therefore, be permitted that any person should erect himself into a judge of what should and what should not be the form of pro-ceeding, and because he entertained different religious views should go to these places, which had complied with the requirements of the law, and interrupt and disturb peaceful and orderly proceedings. If this were to be allowed, what was to prevent an over-zealous Christian going and upsetting a Jewish synagogue—a persuasion that actually disbelieved the divinity of our Saviour? Where would it all end?
Error of doctrine was not to be eradicated by those means, and if such proceedings were toler-ated, there would be an end to that liberty of con-science and of religious worship which was at once the pride and boast of this country. The term "Protestantism" was general and large in its meaning, and he could not give the true defini-tion of it; but these persons had complied with what the law of the country required of them, and the bishop's certificate described and recognized them as Protestant dissenters, and if there was any evil arising therefrom, it was for the Legisla-ture to interpose and correct it. The parties themselves had complied with the law, and the jury would take it from him, independently of the question as to the non-transmission of the return to the sessions, that these persons were legally at religious worship, and they would say whether, upon the evidence, they were satisfied that, while so at worship, they were disturbed by the defend-ant.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Parry said, this course of annoyance had continued since last November, and the defend-ant pursued every congregation of Mormons that he could.
The defendant, in answer to the question if he had anything to say to the court, said: What I have done has been for the glory of God and the good of the whole human family. I am a Scotch-man. I had no education, but Almighty God has given me the abilities to prove to the whole world that these doctrines are inconsistent and contrary to His Holy Word.
Mr. Bodkin wished to know if he intended to annoy these persons again.
The defendant said he would never enter their place again, if that was what was required; but he should lecture as usual.
Mr. Bodkin said he could, no doubt, go on lec-turing, if he pleased; he had the same right to do that as these persons to follow their own worship. He must enter into a recognizance of £100, with two sureties of £20 each, to come up for judg-ment if called upon; and he would not be troubled if he confined himself to showing by argument what he considered their errors.
The sureties were given, and the defendant was discharged.
