1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b8e9d3f9ad6c0689c10d578839ce1cf9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=az3afRtb8WATBGIgqv7pH%7EpPpJLgO4sRt3zuCtUiAna8wG9cfV6sTy%7ECsemZZW0jF9XbsEzouzNBS1dsCRjdhBmZg9DtX35jaEj2YGrX43o7evgoZUuXuECJk8gp5Z7CfCrZ5tOPfnNZb8lR0u6Ajix2ojI-4R-UTMXx1pqBmJjJzzpozGEP5jxWtoZwS59wdbouj3D6qRAnPhPj-rzZwvqVkDugfXOxdovF1TA0rJSSkyW0fhqs29NATMkEMinXpx8nVHxUPqLSFwhI7OmkWhsIRWT%7EjKfpFRNtphinGIQHN7SBbpay6LnkNlUjoVFsH3CId1AEKJ1FbUWfHKrPmA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cc87f78fe51b8ba5bdef926c869a3a1e
PDF Text
Text
6$yw auJIIcLp-' fov'. (iax
0\
Issued by the Committee for the Repeal
of the Blasphemy Laws, South Place
Institute, Finsbury, London, E.C.
Ube (prime fllMnister anb tbe
3BIaspbein^ Xaws.
VERBATIM REPORT OF THE SPEECHES
AT THE RECENT DEPUTATION.
A deputation waited upon the Right Hon. Herbert
Asquith, M.P. (Prime Minister and First Lord of the
Treasury), at io Downing Street, on Thursday, March 26,
for the purpose of explaining the case for the repeal of the
Blasphemy Laws, and to ask the Government to provide
facilities for the passing of Mr. Holt’s Bill which is now
before the House of Commons. The Prime Minister was
accompanied by the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna
(Secretary of State for the Home Department) and the
Right Hon. Sir John Simon (Attorney-General).
The deputation, which was introduced by Mr. R. D.
Holt, M.P., consisted of Mr. William Archer, Mrs. H.
Bradlaugh Bonner, Mr. J. F. L. Brunner, M.P., Mr. Herbert
Burrows, Sir William Byles, M.P., Mr. H. G. Chancellor,
M.P., the Hon. John Collier, Mr. F. M. Cornford, Mr.
G. Lowes Dickinson, Mr. Silas K. Hocking, Mr. A. Lynch,
M.P., Dr. J. Ellis McTaggart, Mr. G. H. Radford, M.P.,
Mr. F. W. Read, Mr. Athelstan Rendall, M.P., Mr. S. H.
Swinny, Mr. A. A. Tayler, Mr. Percy Vaughan, Mr. B. W.
Warwick, Mr. Charles A. Watts, and Mr. Robert Young.
Mr. Asquith : I apologise, ladies and gentlemen, for
being so late.
Mr. Holt : Mr. Asquith, the honour of presenting this
deputation has been entrusted to me, and I should like first
of all, in the name of the whole deputation, to thank you
most warmly for your kindness in receiving us. (Hear,
hear.) We appreciate very highly the fact that you have
�2
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA Ik'S
received us at a time when you are naturally so busy, and I
hope we shall be able to show our gratitude by our brevity,
which I imagine will be the most acceptable form in which
we can exhibit it.
We come here to-day representing the signatories to a
document which was sent to you some time ago, and which
no doubt you have read. The signatories to that document
may, I think, be described as in the main persons carrying
a considerable amount of weight in the intellectual life of
the country. We desire to ask you to give the assistance of
the Government in removing from the Statute-book all laws
which in any form whatever put a penalty upon the holding
or the profession of opinion. We submit that, as matters
stand at present, that is not the case and that there are
actually on the Statute-book very distinct penalties upon
opinion which are in fact in certain cases enforced. I think
it can hardly be contended that there is not in practice a
penalty upon opinion, when we find that persons are punished
for certain offences only if they happen in connection there
with to have expressed heterodox opmions. It is not an
answer to a charge of religious persecution to say that the
object of that persecution is an unworthy person. I submit
that there is still religious persecution if the unworthy who
hold heterodox opinions are treated differently from the
unworthy who hold orthodox opinions.
I do not propose to take up any more of your time, Sir.
I will ask Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner, who is an expert on the
subject, to put before you as briefly as possible the objects
of this deputation.
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : Mr. Asquith, Sir,—My
colleagues have asked me to represent them on this matter,
partly because I happen to be Chairman of the Committee
for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws, and partly also
because I have had, through my father, the late Charles
Bradlaugh, close personal contact with the application of
those laws. They have thought, therefore, that I may be
able to state certain aspects of our case in asking for the
assistance of the Government in procuring the repeal of
those laws.
I do not know how far I may assume that you are familiar
with the origin and development of those laws. I would
merely remind you that they have been in existence in some
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
3
form or other for upwards of five hundred years. The first
was passed at the instigation of Pope Gregory XI in order
to strengthen the hands of the Catholic Church in the
suppression of heretics. Later on, when Protestantism
became in the ascendant, the same laws, with considerable
additions, were used to suppress heresy against the Protes
tant faith. The blasphemy of the fourteenth century had
become the orthodoxy of the sixteenth, and the oppressed
in their turn became the oppressors.
Prosecutions for blasphemy are usually taken under the
common law. In the year 1676 the Lord Chief Justice,
Sir Matthew Hale, in trying a man for blasphemy, said that,
Christianity being parcel of the law of England, to speak in
reproach of the Christian religion was to speak in subver
sion of the law ; and this reading was rigidly adhered to for
upwards of two hundred years. Numbers of persons were
pilloried, were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment,
and were sentenced to heavy fines. Not only were persons
imprisoned, but books such as Lord Byron’s Cain and
Shelley’s Queen Mab were said to violate the law, and even
scientific works were condemned. A volume of Lectures on
Physiology, by an eminent member of the Royal College of
Surgeons, was declared illegal because it impugned the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Contracts for
letting halls for lectures against Christianity were broken
with impunity; and when in 1867 an action for breach
of contract was brought, and carried on appeal to the
Court of Exchequer, four judges justified the breach on
the ground that it was impossible to deliver such lectures
without committing the crime of blasphemy. Legacies for
the propagation of opinions contrary to Christianity have
been annulled over and over again, and so late as 1903 a
legacy left to the Oldham Secular Society was declared
invalid because the bequest was not consistent with Chris
tianity.
In so far as civil proceedings are concerned, therefore,
the law has remained unchanged. So far as prosecutions
are concerned, it would appear to have been modified by the
ruling of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in 1883. Lord
Chief Justice Coleridge, in April of that year, had two cases
before him for trial—two cases of blasphemous libel. In
•one of these my father, Mr. Bradlaugh, was a defendant,
�4
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA H'S
and was acquitted. In the other the defendants were
Messrs. Foote and Ramsey, who were already undergoing a
sentence of imprisonment for blasphemy passed in the
previous month by Mr. Justice North, who, with the
counsel for the prosecution, Sir Hardinge Giffard, defined
blasphemy on the old narrow lines of the law laid down by
Sir Matthew Hale. Lord Coleridge, in trying the case
before him only six weeks later, said it was no longer true
that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that,
if the decencies of controversy were observed, even the
fundamentals of religion might be attacked without blas
phemy. This view of the law was immediately traversed
by Mr. Justice Stephen, and later by Mr. Baron Huddleston
and Mr. Justice Manisty. It was not challenged in the
courts at the time, because for twenty-five years after Lord
Chief Justice Coleridge’s judgment there was no case of
blasphemy prosecution. The next case took place in 1908,
and in the six years since then—I would respectfully ask
your attention to this—in the last six years we have had
more prosecutions for blasphemy in this country than in the
previous sixty years. In those cases the ruling of the late
Lord Coleridge has been accepted, and extended, by five
judges in succession.
I would, however, like to point out that in November
last, in Melbourne, in a libel case involving an accusation of
blasphemy, which was heard before Chief Justice Way, the
judge is reported to have said that Christianity is part of the
common law, and blasphemy, such as to speak contumeliously of Christ, is a crime. I am well aware that we do
not take our law from Australia; but it is by no means un
common for precedents to be cited from the colonies, and
even from America, in order to throw light on a confused
or doubtful point in our own law ; and the law of blasphemy
is at the present moment in an extremely confused con
dition, the reading as applied to civil cases being very
different from that as applied to criminal proceedings
during the last few years.
We desire to point out that the laws are not enforced
consistently, and that they are enforced at irregular intervals.
Sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, the law is even
used as a cloak to gratify private malice. In recent prose
cutions there is not one case of any proceeding being taken
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
5
against a man of high position or a person of reputation.
All such are allowed to continue their arguments subversive
of Christianity without demur. The proceedings in every
case, without exception, have been taken against uncultured
men speaking at street corners, who raise a prejudice against
themselves and against the cause they advocate by their
manners and the methods they employ.
We would further point out that these men are sent to
prison solely because they are Freethinkers using offensive
arguments against Christianity. Christians may use exactly
similar arguments against Judaism or Mohammedanism or
Atheism, or even against some branch of Christianity other
than the Established Church ; and they may continue to
do so from one year’s end to another without coming within
the scope of the law. It is notorious that zealous Pro
testants do deliberately speak of the Virgin Mary in terms
grossly offensive to Roman Catholics, and Christians of a
certain type have no hesitation whatever in using coarse
and scurrilous language in speaking of Atheism in a manner
calculated to wound the feelings of other persons.
Mr. Asquith : As far as it goes, that is rather an
argument for the extension of the Blasphemy Laws so as
to cover a wider field.
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : I was just going to say that,
because none of those persons are put into prison, no one
is the worse ; and, if they were, no one would be the better.
All that we are asking this afternoon is that we who are not
Christians should be put on exactly the same level as those
who are Christians. We are asking for no special privileges.
We are only asking for equal treatment under the law.
In 1889 Mr. Bradlaugh brought in a Bill for the repeal of
the Blasphemy Laws—a Bill which was based upon one
drafted by Mr. Justice Stephen a few years earlier. It was
rejected upon its second reading, but Mr. Bradlaugh had
every intention to bring in the Bill again and again until
he succeeded in carrying through the House a measure
which would result in the abolition of all prosecutions for
the expression of opinion in matters relating to religion.
Mr. Asquith : I rather think I voted for his Bill.
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : I have the happiness and
pleasure to know that you did, Sir. It will be unneces
sary for me to add that there has been since his death—
�6
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
which, unfortunately, took place almost immediately, and
his work was cut short in that as in other matters—nothing
further done in that way until Mr. Holt courageously under
took the task last year.
Now we are here this afternoon to ask the assistance of
the Government either in giving special facilities to Mr.
Holt, or in themselves bringing in a measure for the repeal
of those laws which the late Lord Coleridge pronounced to
be ferocious and inhuman, which Mr. Justice Stephen said
were essentially and fundamentally bad, which Lord Justice
Lindley said were cruelly persecuting, and which, he added,
judges could only hold remained unrepealed for the express
purpose of being enforced. We are here to ask your
assistance in striking off the last legal fetter on the expres
sion of opinion in matters of religion—a fetter forged five
hundred years ago. The repeal of these laws could do no
possible injury to Christianity ; it could not injure any single
human being. On the other hand, it would remove a grave
evil, by giving the Freethinkers a legal right to be honest.
At present the law denies us that right. We are honest
at our own risk. Many of us cheerfully take that risk,
although we feel that no one has any right to ask us to do
so. But, while we dojthat, we are only too conscious that
those laws create an atmosphere of such bitter prejudice
against the individual that it drives the weaker brethren to
silence and evasion. We venture to express the hope that
if you, Sir, and the Government agree with the opinions
expressed by judges, scholars, and broad-minded Church
men such as Canon Scott Holland and the Lord Bishop of
Lincoln—if you agree that these laws are bad, then we
venture to hope that you will give an ear to our appeal. If,
on the other hand, you think they are wise and just and
expedient, then personally my prayer would be that they
should be enforced according to the strict letter, first of all
against the wealthiest—those in the highest position and
those the most capable of defence—and that not until those
had been before the courts should the authorities conde
scend to use this sorry weapon against the poor,
the defenceless, the ignorant, and the worthless. (Hear,
hear.)
Professor Lowes Dickinson : Mr. Asquith, I desire to
say a few words to associate myself with the purposes of
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
7
this deputation. I should like especially to emphasize the
point made by Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner, that we are not
pleading for the abrogation of laws which have fallen into
desuetude, but of laws which are beginning to be put into
operation more and more. It is for that reason that this
question appears to me to be a really urgent question,
because prosecutions are increasing and not diminishing
under these laws, which I personally believe would be
advocated by very few people in this country to-day.
Mr. Asquith : How many of these prosecutions have
there been ?
Professor Lowes Dickinson : I have not the exact
number, Sir.
Mr. Asquith : Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner said they had
increased very much of late years. Have you any figures
to show the numbers?
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : I cannot give you the exact
figures. We have had three or four a year during the past
six years.
Mr. Asquith : In different parts of the country ?
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : Yes.
Mr. Asquith : These prosecutions have always been
initiated by the local authorities ?
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : Yes.
Mr. Asquith : Never by the Government?
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : No.
Professor Lowes Dickinson : These prosecutions are
now brought according to the law of blasphemy as laid
down by Lord Coleridge. It is no longer maintained
that attempts to subvert Christianity are contrary to the
laws of England. Such a contention would be contrary to
the whole facts of modern society, and if the law were
interpreted in that sense men of eminence in every occupa
tion and those holding the highest offices under the Crown
would be liable to prosecution. But I may say, as I under
stand the matter, it is not certain how this law may be
interpreted, and certainly Mr. Justice Stephen gave it as
his opinion that as things then stood a publisher could be
prosecuted for publishing the Cours de Philosophic Positive
and it is clear that numerous other books would fall under
the same ban.
Mr. Asquith : Is there any case in recent years in which
�8
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
persons have been convicted under these laws for what I
may call blasphemy in the strict sense—that is to say,
blasphemy not accompanied by indecency or profanity of
expression ? When you talk of Comte’s work, for instance,
has there been any prosecution for any publication com
parable with that ?
Professor Lowes Dickinson : My point was that at
present it is still in dispute.
Mr. Asquith : I wanted to know if there was any case
of successful prosecution of anybody. Take Queen Mab
and Paine’s Age of Reason, both of which would have been
held in olden days to be blasphemous.
Professor Lowes Dickinson : I am not saying that there
is any recent case of the kind.
Mr. Percy Vaughan : The Queen Mab prosecution was
in the 40’s—a little more than half a century ago.
Mr. Asquith : That is the last where there is not some
element of indecency of expression, is it not ?
Professor Lowes Dickinson : I do not know of any
recent case where there was not an expression of indecency
or profanity—or rather coarse argument perhaps.
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : Which might have been
used by Christians without any objection being taken.
Professor Lowes Dickinson : On the point of language,
I only want to say this, that in effect this creates one law
for uneducated persons and another for educated persons;
one law for one class and another law for another class.
Because poor and uneducated men do not choose their
words with the same regard for other people’s feelings
which more educated people endeavour to show-----Mr. Asquith : I do not know that Shelley showed much
regard for other people’s feelings.
Professor Lowes Dickinson : I was not referring to
Shelley; but in recent years the prosecutions have all been
of poor men, and I think it is likely that that will continue
to be the case in the future. I am not a distinguished
person myself; but I think if I had stood up in the market
place and repeated what Mr. Stewart said at Leeds, it is
very doubtful whether I should have been prosecuted, and
if I had I think there might have been rather more public
disturbance than there was in the case of the prosecution
of Mr. Stewart. I think it is a preposterous state of the
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS
9
law to say it shall be an offence to hurt people’s feelings,
whether about religion or anything else.
I am not myself in the habit of deliberately wounding
people’s feelings. But I am certain you cannot come
into contact with certain matters without doing so ; and
many people’s feelings are daily being wounded about
matters as to which they feel strongly. This particular
offence of wounding people’s feelings may exist in
all sorts of matters, but at present it is only punishable
by law in matters of religion. I venture to suggest that
■the ordinary Englishman feels a good deal more strongly
about politics than he does about religion. My own
feelings are exasperated daily by what I read about political
subjects, and I venture to say that if this law of blasphemy
was extended so as to cover the wounding of people’s
feelings in regard to politics the whole of the House of
•Commons would be in prison. (Laughter.)
Mr. Silas K. Hocking : Mr. Asquith, I have not very
much to say. I associate myself with this deputation
because, as what would be termed an ordinary Christian
man, I feel that those laws are out of harmony with the free
spirit of the twentieth century. I do not think any man
ought to be punished for his beliefs or unbeliefs, or for
criticizing the beliefs of other people, or for defending
strongly his own beliefs. Of course it is almost impossible,
I think, to criticize the beliefs of other people without using
what is termed offensive language. It is so in politics, and
it is equally so in religion. I myself deprecate as strongly
as anybody the use of coarse or unseemly language; but
language, like deportment, is a matter largely of taste and of
gentlemanly feeling. And it does not seem to be right that
a man should be punished just because he is not a gentle
man. Moreover, in the strict interpretation of these laws,
■if they were strictly and literally interpreted and enforced, I
fancy that a great many very respectable people, and a great
many religious people, would find themselves in the dock, or
.perhaps in prison. And as I look at the question myself, I
agree with what has been said by others—that there is as
much blasphemy, shall we say, inside the Churches as
outside. For, after all, what is blasphemy to one may be a
rsort of beatitude to another. It depends upon the point of
■view. And, consequently, these laws have to be interpreted
�IO
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA ITS
very loosely, it seems to me, and cannot be decided except
from the point of view of a particular individual. For
instance, a Unitarian denying the divinity of Christ—well,
many of us would say that that is blasphemy. A priest
preaching about transubstantiation—some strong Protestants
might think his language was blasphemous. So that the
whole question of these laws seems to be confused, and I dothink that the time has come in the interests of freedom of
speech—not of offensive speech or of obscene speech, at
any rate, but in the interests of speech, in the interests of
freedom of conscience—when these abuses should be swept
away. I understand that you yourself, Sir, voted for Mr.
Bradlaugh’s Bill when he brought it in; and I gather
from that that you do not need convincing by this deputa
tion.
Mr. Asquith : That was in my hot youth.
Mr. Silas K. Hocking : Well, it was in my hot youth
that he brought it in, and now that I am as old as you, Sir,
or a little older, I find myself to-day in precisely the same
position as then; and I feel as strongly about these laws of
blasphemy now as I did then. I hold no brief for the par
ticular individual whose imprisonment has brought this
case to a head ; I am not here on that ground at all. I
dissociate myself from him altogether in his views and in
the expression of his views. But in the interests of religious
freedom I submit that it is time something should be done
by the Government to remove these, as I think, objection
able laws from the Statute-book. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. H. Swinny : I just want to mention two points.
The first point is that we do not want to abolish prosecu
tions for obscenity or indecency under the ordinary law;
and secondly (this was suggested to me by a remark you
made), so far from these laws being a means of promoting
propriety of controversy, they have the opposite effect—that
they render it extremely difficult for those who are anxious
that their friends should keep to the decencies of contro
versy, to in any way interfere with them or object to what
they are doing. Where people, for pursuing a certain kind
of controversy, are liable to criminal prosecution, it becomes
extremely difficult for those who would have most influence
over them—that is, for those persons who agree with their
views and disagree with their methods—to object strongly
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LAWS ir
to the methods they pursue, for by so doing they may hold
them up as proper objects for prosecution.
Sir William Byles : Mr. Asquith, I am sure you don’t
want any more. You know all about it as well as any of
us. But there are quite a group of members of Parliament
here, and I think it has been thought that perhaps one of
us—I am the eldest—should add just one word of agree
ment with the speakers who have addressed you.
I myself come of ancestry on both sides of men and
women who have suffered for their opinions, and that has
made me an active antagonist of these restraining laws.
They are medieval in character. They are utterly out of
date, they are incongruous, and they are unfit for the
twentieth century. They are a challenge to every new-born
thought; they are an insult to every unorthodox person, and
our friend Mr. Holt has introduced a Bill in the House of
Commons, as I think you know—a very short Bill—and
we want to get it through. You know well enough the
difficulty even of getting a second reading in private
members’ time for a Bill of that kind. You have the
power to help us to pass it if we can get a majority of
members of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) You
are very firm in your saddle, Mr. Asquith, but you have had
a warning that the end might come rather quickly some
day-----Mr. Asquith : I do not know what you mean at all.
Sir William Byles : You have had a warning not to
defer too late to add this fresh sprig to your laurel wreath.
(Laughter.) You will have many things to your credit
when you go out; you will have much honour from your
people ; but if you were to associate yourself with this
movement for the liberation of thought from all these legal
restrictions, I think that all intellectual, thoughtful people
would be grateful.
Mr. H. G. Chancellor, M.P.: May I be allowed to say
just one word? The position of Liberal members in the
House is rather unpleasant, arising from the fact that,
although you have nothing whatever to do with the adminis
tration of these laws (they are administered locally by local
magistrates), you get all the discredit for them. And the
thing that is being said now is that under a Liberal Govern
ment more prosecutions are taking place on this ground
�j2
THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA IVS
than during the long years of the previous administrations
of Conservative Governments. Those of us who are
Liberals, and who believe in the right to free thought,
and to whom these laws are detestable, are rather restive
under the continuance of such a state of things, and we
sincerely hope that you will see your way to giving the
necessary facilities to enable this Bill to pass into law.
Mr. Asquith : Ladies and Gentlemen, I am glad to have
the pleasure of seeing you here to-day, and of hearing what
you have had to say upon this subject. I am glad to
notice, as I should have expected, that, whatever increase
there may have been of recent years in prosecutions under
this head of the law, you realize it is not due to any action
on the part of the Executive Government. (Hear, hear.)
The matter rests entirely with the local police authorities,
and I am not aware of any case in which the Metropolitan
Police, which is under the control of my right honourable
friend the Home Secretary, has initiated proceedings in any
case of this kind.
A Member of the Deputation : There was Boulter’s
case — at Islington—which came before Mr. Justice
Phillimore.
Mr. McKenna : That was before my time.
Mr. Asquith : That is the latest, at any rate.
Mr. McKenna : I have had none during my time.
Mr. Chancellor : There was a case at Clapham
Common since that of Boulter—in 1910.
Mr. McKenna : That was a breach of the peace.
Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner : The Highbury case—
Boulter’s case—was in 1908.
Mr. McKenna : Yes, 1908.
Mr. Asquith : I only wanted to make that clear—that,
as a matter of fact, whatever increase there may have been
in such prosecutions has been due to the zeal, well or ill
directed, of the local authorities, and not to the action of
the central Government.
Well, of course, there is a great deal in all this that is
absolutely common ground among us. No one can defend
the machinery of the existing state of the law upon this
subject. It is partial, because such protection as it gives,
and such offences as it creates, are mainly in defence of
Christianity, according to the dictum of Lord Hale part of
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA IYS 13.
the law of England, and I think in a more limited sense
Christianity as established by law—that is to say, as
embodied in the doctrines and discipline of the Church
of England. I do not think you could at any time have
undertaken a successful prosecution for blasphemy against
the doctrines of the dissenting sects—certainly not of the
Roman Catholic Church or of the Jewish communion ; and
our fellow subjects in India, who live under a comprehen
sive criminal code,&re, at any rate in this matter, in advance
of us. For the offence there is an offence treated impar
tially against any form of religion, whatever that form may
be. That is an obvious and unjustifiable flaw in our
existing law.
As regards the statute law, I have been looking at this
Bill of Mr. Holt’s, and I do not imagine that there is any
body who would dissent from the statement that most of
these statutes are altogether obsolete. I do not think any
of the recent prosecutions have taken place under them,
and I agree with you in thinking they might all be swept
off the book with very great advantage, or at least with no
real hurt. In fact, the real difficulty is the common law—
not the statute law made by Parliament, but the common law
as made by the judges. The interpretation of the common
law by the judges has varied from time to time. In the
eighteenth century and the early part of the nine
teenth century the publication of works like The Age of
Reason, Queen Mab, Cain, and so forth, was held to fall
within the scope of the Blasphemy Laws, and was punished
accordingly. Of late years a more restricted view has been
taken by the judges and applied by the courts. How it
originated (it is one of the many illustrations we have of
judge-made law in this country) it is difficult to say, but it
amounts to this—that, according to the dictum of Lord
Coleridge, which has been referred to several times, and in
which he was repeating, if my memory serves me rightly, a
similar decision given by his father, Mr. Justice Coleridge,
many years before, so long as the decencies are observed
the fundamentals of religion may be attacked—a statement
which would have given great trouble and disquietude to
Lord Hale, Lord Eldon, and many other of our most
eminent judges in the past. That shows, of course, a
tendency—I do not say it is other than a very beneficial
�14
the PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LAWS
tendency—-on the part of the judges to restrict the scope
within which this doctrine can be applied. Nowl understand
your desire to be that we should go a step further, and that
even this attenuated fragment, or relic, of the old Blasphemy
Law should altogether disappear. (Hear, hear.) And I con
fess, speaking for myself, and only for myself, I am in sym
pathy with you. (Hear, hear.) I can see no good object—
certainly no object which is bound up in any way with the
cause of religion—in the maintenance and enforcement of
these laws. (Hear, hear.) They are partial, as I have
already pointed out; they are uncertain, being differently
interpreted from generation to generation ; and I am afraid
there is a certain amount of truth in what was said by some
of the speakers to-day—that they are rarely enforced except
against comparatively ill-educated and humble persons,
which of course adds a sense of injustice—special injustice
—to a grievance which is already not inconsiderable. I
do not know of any object which they serve. I think, of
course, it is necessary to see that we do not lose any
security or safeguard that the law at present provides against
breaches of the peace—(hear, hear)—or violent or offensive
language. (Hear, hear.) That is not confined, as has
been pointed out, to the sphere of religion. There are
many other spheres of life in which, as some of us are
more or less voluntarily cognisant, offences of that kind
are probably of more frequent occurrence, but in which
they are rarely visited with any prosecution or penalty.
I see no reason myself for making any special category of
offences in regard to religious as distinguished from other
forms of controversy. I think, if the law is adequately
defined and maintained against the use of any form of lan
guage which is reasonably calculated to create a breach of
the peace, the context in which that language is used, or
the purpose for which it is used, is wholly irrelevant.
Therefore, as I say, speaking for myself—and I think the
right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary agrees with
me, and the Attorney-General too—I think that this rather
outworn and obsolete chapter in our law might very well
disappear not only from the Statute-book, but from the
common law of the land. And although, as I said a few
moments ago, the vote which I gave in favour of Mr.
Bradlaugh’s Bill was given at a much earlier stage of my
�THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA WS 15
political existence, I see no reason to repent it, or to doubt
that if the opportunity offered I should give a similar vote
again. (Hear, hear.)
I do not know what more you want.
Sir William Byles : Facilities for the Bill.
Mr. Asquith : Oh yes, I know. But there are so many
changes in the law of this country which are desirable on
their merits that, as my friend Sir William Byles knows very
well, no Government, even with the most comprehensive
programme and with the most stable majority, not liable
to any of those accidents or incidents to which he rather
obscurely referred—(laughter)—can possibly include all of
them in its legislative projects for any given year. We have
a pretty heavy cargo to carry at present.
Sir William Byles : This is a very little thing.
Mr. Asquith : It is a little thing ; but every little counts,
and I am not at all sure that there is any room in the hold
of our ship for an additional legislative parcel, large or
small. Therefore I cannot honestly promise you anything
in the nature of Government time—which is what you
mean by this; that is what you really mean, you know—
which must be subtracted from other legislative purposes.
But sympathy and goodwill I do give you in full measure,
as far as I, at any rate, personally am concerned; and if
you can manage, in the many opportunities—the many
opportunities—which are still open to private members to
prosecute legislation which is beneficent in itself, and which
is generally desired—if you can manage to find a nook or
a cranny for this little Bill of yours, we shall be very happy
to support you to the utmost of our power. I cannot say
more than that.
Mr. R. D. Holt : It only remains for the deputation to
thank you most heartily for the way in which you have
received us, and for the speech which you have made to us.
I must say I quite appreciate your unwillingness to provide
Government time for the Bill, although it is quite obvious
—there is no use in concealing the fact—that we have no
more chance of passing that Bill unopposed after eleven at
night than we have of going off in an aeroplane; indeed,
rather the less chance of the two. Nevertheless, I should
like—and I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole depu
tation—to thank you most warmly for your sympathy and
�16 THE PRIME MINISTER & THE BLASPHEMY LA Jf'S
for your promise, and we shall live in hopes that circum
stances may enable you later on to go rather better even
than your promise.
The deputation then withdrew.
New’ and amplified edition ; 128 pp., cr. 8vo ; cloth, is. net, by
post is. 2d.; in paper cover, 6d. net, by post 7d.
PENALTIES UPON OPINION;
Or, Some Records of the Laws of Heresy
and Blasphemy.
By HYPATIA BRADLAUGH BONNER.
“ Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner carries her inquiry from early
mediaeval times up to the present. Her purpose is avowedly
propagandist, designed to excite an agitation for the repeal of
our obsolete blasphemy laws. For ready reference to enact
ments otherwise practically inaccessible her w'ork serves an
extremely useful end. It is written with much force, and under
stress of indignation against miscarriage ofjustice.”—Athenccum.
“ A very temperate little book, and it should certainly be read
by all those who have been rendered uneasy by the recent
outbreaks of police interference with the public propaganda of
unpopular minorities.”—Star.
“ Without expressing any opinion upon debatable points, we
may say that Mrs. Bonner’s history of the case is very useful
and instructive.”—Nottingham Guardian.
London : Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Prime Minister and the blasphemy laws : verbatim report of the speeches at the recent deputation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Deputation to Mr Asquith, 26 March 1914, included William Archer, Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, and Charles A. Watts. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1914
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N174
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Prime Minister and the blasphemy laws : verbatim report of the speeches at the recent deputation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/54715001690907906009c90ce7ae9c60.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d440pNduAWqssKccadu3hXAzpbukSeq8qk1WYnCDjMU8uPgbvzwlu-f3lM3OTPDasfMWuX7B0HtgOVQe9dU1y-vIpB-nRud0savz3%7E64atVCRNEc6r1qlZ2V0lfXSe%7EPoRQoI3Vr9RoJqwNNJy6PjNXmE-6B%7E-y-SFOi3LGe7Pi2fT3jkZEXACPz1Bl2nSH-uF7okxSwTkxVvf9Eb4a%7E1RBBf56A1GpSVdxD0rb7PHooFkbF7ZqGBK9y9dqX-L0EAuDRhiuOmRk6wnKY-yqAIAoJUUO0r8hvhs0laS3QZ5ewwOcrdl8Md7aM9LP-nWA7WrffbL%7EIfHHlKMRGbWnmmw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6adebb82b5f4179638a64451bdb92e83
PDF Text
Text
I&jl.
£2-35 7
N'73
November, 1912
THE BLASPHEMY LAWS:
What they are, and why they should be
abolished.
“ Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to
argue freely according to conscience, above all
other liberties.”—Milton.
There have been more prosecutions for blasphemy during the
PAST YEAR than during the previous FIFTY YEARS. There
have been more prosecutions for SPOKEN blasphemy during the
past FIVE YEARS than during the previous HUNDRED
YEARS. What has become of our boasted freedom of speech?
What are the blasphemy laws; and why should they be per
mitted to continue?
During the first five centuries of Christianity in
England the legal prohibitions of heresy were few and
unimportant. The Church relied upon its terrible power
of excommunication to punish the man who dared to
exercise the right of private judgment. But when the
authority of the Pope was rejected by a large and
increasing number of persons, excommunication lost its
power, and in the fourteenth century it was complained
that there were “evil persons” who “expressly
despised ” the censures of the Church, and refused to
submit to its condemnation. At this period the aid of the
law was called in and there commenced a series ol
enactments for the extirpation of heresy by burning,
imprisoning, and fining the heretic. In addition to the
statute law, heresy also became a criminal offence under
what is known as common law, the law, i.e., which
has its origin in custom and acquires legal force through
the repeated decisions of more or less famous judges;
or which expresses the views of the judges without
warrant of legislature or custom. The statutes for the
�punishment of “offences against religion’’ still in force
are :—
I. Depraving, despising, or reviling the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper, (i Ed. VI, c. i.)
II. To speak in derogation, depraving, or despising of
the Book of Common Prayer, (i Eliz., c. 2, s. 3.)
III. An Act for |he more effectual suppression of blas
phemy and profaneness. (9 Wm. Ill, c. 35.)
IV. An Act to prevent certain abuses and profanations on
the Lord’s Day. (21 Geo. III. c. 49.)
V. An Act for the punishment of blasphemy in Scotland.
(6 Geo. IV, c. 47.)
To these must now be added Section 54 of the Metro
politan Police Act, 1839, and Section 28 of the Town
Police Clauses Act, 1847, which give the police power to
take persons into custody for using profane language
in public places. In the cases of Mr. Jackson at Leeds
in April, 1912, and Messrs. Chasty and Muirhead at
Ilkeston in the following month, the magistrates held
that profanity is indistinguishable from blasphemy.
The common law as to blasphemy was settled in 1676
by Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale. The learned
judge then laid down that “ Christianity, being parcel
of the laws of England, therefore to speak in reproach
of the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the
law.” This was the accepted reading of the law for
two centuries. So late as March, 1883, Mr. Justice
North, in trying Messrs. Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp,
said that it was blasphemy to deny the existence or
providence of God ; or to ridicule the persons of the
Trinity, or the Cnristian religion, or the Holy Scriptures
in any way. In April of the same year, however, Lord
Coleridge, in his celebrated summing up, gave what was
virtually a new reading of the law. Specifically
contradicting former rulings, he said that it was no
longer true that Christianity was part of the law of the
land, but that “ if the decencies of controversy are
observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be
attacked without the person being guilty of blasphemy.”
This ruling in effect put the law upon an entirely new
footing. It was traversed at the time by several learned
lawyers, and in 1886, in the case of Dr. Pankhurst v.
Thompson, Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Manisty
both expressed their disagreement with Lord Coleridge’s
�ruling, but it has recently been reiterated and confirmed
by Mr. Justice Phillimore and Mr. Justice Darling in
Mr. Boulter’s case, 1908-9, Mr. Justice Horridge in the
cases of Messrs. Stewart and Gott, 1911, and by Mr.
Justice Eldon Bankes in Mr. Bullock’s case, 1912.
All laws against heresy or blasphemy are laws for the
repression of opinion, and Lord Coleridge’s reading of
the law does not alter that fact or remove the danger of
prosecutions. Who is to decide what are the “ decen
cies of controversy ” ?
Are twelve antagonistic
jurymen to be the censors? What would be the
decision of twelve Belfast Orangemen who had
to try a Catholic speaker, or twelve Catholics
who were trying a bitter Protestant lecturer? Is
it reasonable to expect a more impartial verdict from
twelve Christians in trying a Secularist for an attack
upon their faith? The Secularist is, in effect, tried by a
packed jury. At its best, Lord Coleridge’s law as to
spoken or written blasphemy is a law which gives im
munity to “the scholar and the gentleman’’ whilst
denying it to the poor and unlearned. Can anyone de
fend the retention of a law which discriminates between
two classes of the community in this way?
Moreover, experience shows that these police prose
cutions are a complete failure even from the point of
view of the prosecution. So far from promoting
moderation of speech, by rousing resentment they
actually lead to the use of violent language. Free
thinkers to whom coarseness in controversy is extremely
repugnant are placed in a very awkward position.
There is something invidious in trying to moderate the
violence of those who are open to prosecution. It is
impossible to remonstrate with such a speaker publicly,
since the remonstrance might set the law on his track
and be used against him on his trial. It is equally diffi
cult to remonstrate privately with those embittered by
the imprisonment of their friends. The law, as it is
administered to-day, is an engine for silencing, not the
advocates of scurrility, but the advocates of moderation.
Further, even if Lord Coleridge’s law has superseded
that of the previous 200 years in regard to spoken or
written heresy., the old reading still obtains in regard
to legacies, contracts, and the guardianship of children.
A legacy bequeathed for the purpose of propagating
�opinions subversive of the Christian religion was held
to be contrary to the law so recently as 1903. The
question as to the “ decencies of controversy ” or the
place in which the opinions were to be propagated did
not arise. The legacy was invalid simply because it
was inconsistent with Christianity.
If a parent
publishes his or her Atheistical opinions, the
Court may hold (and has held) that as a reason for
depriving such parent of the custody or guardianship
of the children. Contracts for purposes involving the
publication of heretical opinion can be (and have been)
broken with impunity. It has even been held that
there is no copyright in heretical books.
It is argued that these laws are obsolete. If they
are obsolete, then nothing could be more simple or more
straightforward than to abolish them. The proof that
they are not obsolete is, first, that they are enforced;
second, that their abolition is resisted. So long as there
are people who oppose the abolition of the blasphemy
laws, so long may we be quite sure that there are people
who desire to see them enforced. The only way to ensure
that no one shall be imprisoned or otherwise punished
for his opinions is to take away the power to punish.
Public opinion ought to be the one and only censor of
the “ decencies of controversy.”
Freedom to criticise, freedom to express opinion, is
one of the most valuable rights a man can possess, and
should belong to the uncultured quite as much as to the
cultured. We therefore plead for the entire abolition
of the power to prosecute for the expression of opinion
in matters of religion.
Those who value the right to speak freely, according
to conscience, above all other liberties, are urgently
requested to join the Committee for the Repeal of the
Blasphemy Laws, and should send in their names at
once to the Secretary.
The following Societies are already represented on
the Executive Committee :—The British and Foreign
Unitarian. Association, the National Secular Society,
the Positivist Society, the Rationalist Press Associa
tion., the South Place Ethical Society, and the Union of
Ethical Societies.
Issued by the Commit'ee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws,
South Place Institute, Finsbury, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The blasphemy laws : what they are, and why they should be abolished
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: The Committee was constituted in 1912 by the NSS, RPA, Union of Ethical Societies and the British and Foreign Unitarian Society. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Committee for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1912
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N173
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The blasphemy laws : what they are, and why they should be abolished), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy
NSS
South Place Ethical Society