1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b842d10258a06cf2c9e19b58b7c47821.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XPdEP-cws2l6Or5xnxbUvvn5cdPAJJkorexzc8wgMG%7EmMZmjnblk4KTrPAie4Ub-nszoNt7oXNcHCjEfySk0uNd3v4PS-pfrie13-kE2MUlx7UIkrCiWFt04FZtnkfTYqcDCg-eFTe8Sddr9fyawx62NG%7EG6unyt5SKRW1UruJLUCe2VowjEHN9XqsDNL8kSoXk7WSpG2v7anxI38k10FnO09dHhQEYTTZ0KJUAskoXbnA-QFDilv3yZ93-kE9ZLUjo2tmNyy9oqbVlDBMpRoK-B1%7EB-j70UR8U03vAzcMLxzkg84v-8PV9QZodM9tbo4-ArviOqwhdFBvgC-njO8A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c608985cf50ae52c38e9fc0b35b82b37
PDF Text
Text
2»
&
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
BwAl au< k;
CL<5l v~(es
REPEAL OF THE BLASPHEMY
LAWS.
I
shall,
at the next meeting of the Norwood Liberal
and Radical Association, move :—
“That this meeting is of opinion that all Statutes
inflicting penalties for opinion (as the 9th and
10th William III, cap. 35), or placing hindrances
in the way of lectures and discussions (as the
21st George III, cap. 49), ought to be forthwith
repealed ”.
S. HARTMANN.
The following is a reprint of the speech made by Mr.
Bradlaugh on this subject in the House of Commons, on
12th April, 1889 (“Hansard,” vol. 335, page 450):—
Mr. Speaker, the Bill, the second reading of which I have
asked the House to pass, is directed against prosecutions
which are partly prosecutions at common law and partly
prosecutions by Statute. The Statute is the 9th and 10th,
William III, chapter 35, and that Statute enacts that any
person convicted of blasphemy, shall, for the first offence,
be adjudged incapable and disabled in law, to all intents
and purposes whatsoever, to have, to hold, or enjoy any
office or offices, employment or employments, and shall,
for a second offence, be adjudged disabled from being a
�( 2 )
plaintiff or defendant in any suit, or from being the guar
dian of his own children, or from being capable of receiv
ing any legacy, and shall be liable to imprisonment for
the space of three years. The Act has been held to be
supplemental to the common law. I may best describe
the Statute by using the words of Lord Coleridge uttered
in a case which was tried six years ago. In the course of
the defence, the Statute had been described as shocking,
and Lord Coleridge said—
“ Some old things, and amongst them this Statute, are
shocking enough, and I do not defend them.”
In a judgment which Lord Justice Lindley delivered in
1885, His Lordship spoke of this Statute as cruel in its
operation against the persons against whom it was directed.
The Statute of 6th of George, chapter 47, which applies
to Scotland, makes the offence punishable by 14 years’
transportation. Now, Mr. Justice Stephen in his “ His
tory of the Criminal Law ”, which was written and passed
through the Press in 1882, although it was published in
1883, wrote—
“ Offences against religion can hardly be treated as an actually
existing head of our criminal law. Prosecutions for such of
fences are still theoretically possible in a few cases, but they
have in practice become entirely obsolete.”
Unfortunately, whilst. the History was passing through
the Press, several prosecutions were initiated, one of which
4 was tried at Maidstone, two which were tried at the Old
Bailey, and two, in one of which I was myself the de
fendant, which were removed by certiorari to the High
Court, and were tried before the present Lord Chief Justice
of England. Here are two views of the law which it
is my duty to submit to the House, one, the view taken by
the present Lord Chief Justice of England—namely, that
it is only the manner of a blasphemous libel which should
be censured and that a calm, and clear, and cool statement
of views could not bring a person within the operation of
�( 3 )
the laws relating to blasphemy; and the other, the view
which, with all submission to the great Judge, who has
expressed the contrary opinion, I am afraid is the real
view of the law—the other, the view which was formed by
Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr. Justice Hawkins sitting in I "
the Queen’s Bench Division, which was mentioned in the
charge of Mr. Justice North in the trials at the Old Bailey,
and which was formed in the case of the AttorneyGeneral v. Bradlaugh reported in the Weekly Reporter, |
vol. 433, especially by Lord Justice Lindley. It seems to
me that the real state of the law has been very fully
explained by Mr. Justice Stephen in an article which
appeared in the Fortnightly Review, and which was pub
lished in examination and criticism of the charge of Lord
Coleridge to the jury in the case of the Queen v. Foote
and others. Mr. Justice Stephen urges that the law as
it now stands is a bad law, and recommends the very
measure which I am bringing before the House to-night.
It is right, however, I should state Lord Coleridge’s view
—the view that it is the manner and not the matter of the
blasphemous libel which should be considered, before I
put what I conceive is, unfortunately the real view of the
law. Lord Coleridge says—
“It is clear, therefore, to my mind that the mere denial of
the truth of the Christian religion is not enough alone to con
stitute the offence of blasphemy.”
and he goes on to point out that all prosecutions for blas
phemy, according to his view, tend to failure. Further on
in his judgment Lord Coleridge says—
“ Persecution, unless thorough-going, seldom succeeds. Ir
ritation, annoyance, punishment which stops short of exter
mination, very seldom alter men’s religious convictions. En
tirely without one fragment of historical exaggeration, I may
say that the penal laws which 50 or 60 years ago were enforced
in Ireland were unparalleled in the history of the world. They
existed 150 years ago ; they produced upon the religious con
victions of the Irish people absolutely no effect whatever.”
�( 4 )
I submit to the House that all kinds of enactments which
are in the nature of persecution for opinion are enactments
which fail in doing anything except driving the expression
of opinion into its worst and roughest forms, and, there
fore, ought not to be desired by anyone who has in any
degree any faith in any kind of liberty. Mr. Justice
Stephen, reviewing the charge of Lord Coleridge, a charge
which he praises in language not too strong, says —
“My only objection to it is that I fear that its merits may
be transferred illogically to the law which it expounds and lays
down, and that thus a humane and enlightened judgment may
tend to perpetuate a bad law by diverting public attention
from its defects. The law I regard as essentially and funda
mentally bad.”
Now when a learned judge, who is now engaged in trying
cases, can thus describe this portion of the law, I think I
can submit there is something like a prima facie case for
its appeal. Lord Justice Lindley in delivering judgment
in the case of the Attorney-General v. Bradlaugh says—
“ It is a mistake to suppose, and I think it as well the mistake
|$ *
,i'
7 should be known, that persons who do not believe in a Supreme
Being are in the state in which it is now commonly supposed
they are. There are old Acts of Parliament still unrepealed by
H which such people can be cruelly persecuted.”
And it was because Lord Justice Lindley found this law
on the Statute Book, that he said he felt constrained to
hold as he did in the case then before him. What is the
state of the law ? I prefer to put it in the words of Mr.
Jnstice Stephen than in my own. He quotes in support
of his statement a large number of cases, and he says—
“ The result of the examination of the authorities appears to
me to be that to this day Blackstone’s definition of blasphemy
must be taken ,to be true; and, if this is the case, it follows
that a large part of the most serious and most important litera
ture of the day is illegal—that, for instance, every bookseller
who sells, every one who lends to his friend, a copy of Comte’s
Positive Philosophy, or of Renan’s Vie de Jesu, commits a crime
punishable with fine and imprisonment. It may be said that
so revolting a consequence cannot be true; but, unfortunately,
�( 5 )
this is not the case. I suppose no one will, or indeed can deny
that if any person educated as a Christian, or having ever made
profession of the Christian religion, denied that the Bible was
of divine authority, even by word of mouth, he would incur the
penalties of the 9 and 10 William III, c. 32. I will take a par
ticular instance by way of illustration of this. The late Mr.
Greg was not only a distinguished author, but an eminent and
useful member of the Civil Service. I suppose he was educated
as a Christian, and no one could have a stronger sympathy with
the moral side of Christianity. In every one of his works the
historical truth of the Christian history is denied : and so is the
divine authority of the Old and New Testament. If he had
been convicted of publishing these opinions, or even of express
ing them to a friend in private conversation, his appointment
would have become void, and he Would have been adjudged in
capable and disabled in law to hold any office or employment
whatever; in a word, he would have lost his income and his
profession. Upon a second conviction, he must have been im
prisoned for three years, and incapacitated, amongst other things
to sue or accept any legacy. About this there neither is, nor
can be, any question whatever.”
And after a long and careful summary of the law, as laid
down in many decisions, Mr. Justice Stephen winds up—
“ In my own opinion the practical inference is that blasphemy
and blasphemous libel should cease to be offences at common
law at all, that the Statute of William III should be repealed,
and that it should be enacted that no one except a beneficed
clergyman of the Church of England should be liable to ecclesi
astical censures for ‘ atheism, blasphemy, heresy, schism, or any
other opinion ’. Such an abolition would not only secure com
plete liberty of opinion on these matters, but it would prevent
their recurrence at irregular intervals of scandalous prosecutions
which have never in any one instance benefited anyone least of
all the cause which they were intended to serve, and which
sometimes afford a channel for the gratification of private malice
under the cloak of religion.”
•
I ask this House to give effect- to what the learned Judge
has said. I know there are one or two arguments which
may be used to weigh heavily against me. One is, that
the class for whom I speak is a comparatively small class.
(Mr. DeLisle : “ Hear, hear.”) There would be no reason
in denying liberty to one man, even if he stood alone.
Every opinion, in every age, has been at some time small,
�( 6 )
and those who hold opinions which, within 100 years have
been the subject of cruel persecutions within this realm,
should be the last to endorse the doctrine of persecution
against those weaker than themselves. It may be urged
that the severe penalties of the law are seldom enforced.
It is only about 50 years ago that under this Act one man
suffered nine years and eight months’ imprisonment in
this country, and was also condemned to pay an enormous
fine. It did not check the issue of the literature by him
against which the prosecution was directed. It only had
the effect of endearing him to a large number of people,
and of making many purchase the writings he issued who
might otherwise not have done so. I hardly like to seem
to be thrusting my personal case upon the House, but I
may be permitted to remind the House that the declaration
has been made very formally in print that the prosecution
which was directed against me, was initiated for the direct
purpose of disqualifying me, under this Statute, for the
term of my natural life, from taking part in the political
work of the country. I submit to the House that, ruling
as it does over 330,000,000 of human beings, of every kind
of faith or lack of faith, it is our duty to treat all alike.
What is the effect of the law as it stands ? Two years ago
a legacy was left to myself and a gentleman in Manchester
for the purpose of endowing an institution. We were all
persons who might have been indicated as blasphemers
under the law. The legacy was left for purely educational
purposes, but the legacy was set aside, first of all in the
Court of the Palatine of Lancaster, and next on appeal,
on the ground that a bequest for such a purpose was an
j illegal bequest and voidable. It may be said “ we would
not object to you being allowed to utter your views, but
we object to you uttering your views in an offensive
language”. But if persons utter their views in an of
fensive manner, and so as to provoke a breach of the
peace, they are punishable under the law as it now stands.
The fact that the law is not always enforced, the fact that
�( 7 )
it is seldom enforced, the fact that Mr. Justice Stephen
in his “ History of the Criminal Law ”, describes the law
as obsolete, the fact that Lord Justice Lindley has referred
to the law as cruel in its operation, should tend, I submit,
to induce the House to grant the Second Reading of this
Bill. I can quite understand it is possible that people
will say that views which are different from their own
should not be offensively urged, but that brings in the
question of the manner of the advocate rather than that
of the matter, and I put it to persons who hold this view,
whether the keeping on the Statute Book of this harsh
and cruel law, does not deprive' any of us, who may wish
to tone and temper argument, of any fair reason for
checking harsh or hasty speech or utterance. Again, let
me point out that the word blasphemy for which' you
punish to-day, has been an ever-changing word. It is
only 240 years ago that a man, Naylor, the Quaker, of
the same faith as the man (Mr. Bright) all of us in this
House honored, was tried for blasphemy. George Box,
William Penn, and scores of their co-workers were sent to
gaol, or whipped at the cart tail as blasphemers. The
Unitarians, had they lived even later than the times of
which I have just spoken, would have come within the
penalties of this Statute which Lord Coleridge says gives
a ferocious power against people, and which Lord Justice
Lindley condemns as an essentially bad law. I feel' that
this is not a time of night to trespass unduly on the
attention of the House. I can only appeal to the generosity
of the majority, but I would point out to them the position
in which they put those who differ from them when they
lack generosity themselves. I have sometimes tried to
argue with my friends in Prance against the strict en
forcement some of them have put on the Anti-Clerical
laws ■ they have answered me “ the Church shows us no
mercy ”. It is that kind of unfortunate spirit which treats
opinion as if it were a crime and thought as if it were a
crime, when the very honesty of the utterance of that
�thought, that expression of opinion, shows you that
the persons against whom you direct your Statute,
have, at least, the virtue of honesty to redeem their
action from being classed as that of the ordinary
criminal. It is against this unfortunate spirit I am
arguing; it is for these people I am pleading to-night.
I am pleading for many who have found trusts for their
children cancelled, as was the case with a member of this
House, honored while sitting in it because of the family
to which he belonged, and for the great name and greater
traditions associated with it—I mean Lord Amberley. He
found his trust for his children cancelled, because the man
whom he honored enough to give the trust, might
have been brought within the scope of this statute. It is
too late to-day to keep these penalties on the Statute Book.
The Bill may not receive sanction for its second reading
to-night, but it is something—and I thank the House for
it—that the House has listened patiently and generously
to an appeal made on behalf of an unpopular minority;
and one day or other justice will have to be done, and I
ask the House to do it whilst those for whom they are
asked to do it are few and weak, rather than leave us to
win, as win we will, that outside public opinion by the
ballot which determines what the law shall be.
A. Bonner, Printer, 34 Bouverie St., 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
Repeal of the blasphemy laws
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Reprint of speech made by Bradlaugh in the House of Commons on 12 April 1889. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner, Printer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1889?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N103
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 (Repeal of the blasphemy laws), 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-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
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/6be21587e085f0f6bbeb5e0bab4f5452.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EBR54fD-1DZWrdwKj3QqNE2sUU8w488gWA4JZAXojsIShO8F5zX7PUAelGrgLmu5GNcHDHQ5jCSVjZS1YbcpZki9HuKO7wPHR60mavMpeY7fFtqIYRPUwj55YOyc1DTOnUrxg0%7Ez8KqtAHUeqIZH2hff9eWnNQZ4JLT5hhNhxcjDcWMhDWoxIiB3nVr87nEbLFZjzs2I65dbJJ3ADvvy%7ENd3LzKTAe8dv%7EQV9Knre65VHaHK5GcPNE7jgGiCY4jghCG%7EVowuXX3dRJJCzpgyVdws3gkr7d%7E12UoiTjeiVwHModztGjUX05iLq7Hc0U4JI4uT7PDORMqaPdrKWOO-KA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
882ad8c1cc7055f07b75fd19d24a6431
PDF Text
Text
THE PROSECUTION OF
MESSRS. FOOTE AND RAMSEY FOR
BLASPHEMY.
In the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on
Tuesday, April the 24th, the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury
had before them the case cf the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote,
the registered proprietor and alleged editor of the “ Freethinker ”
newspaper. The defendants were charged on indictment,
removed into this court by certiorari from the Central Criminal
Court, for the publication in the “Freethinker” of aseriesof “blas
phemous libels,” and on conviction were sentenced to imprison
ment in Holloway Gaol. They were now brought up on Habeas
Corpus, in charge of the governor of the gaol. A fortnight
since the two defendants were placed on their trial along with
Mr. Bradlaugh, for the same offence ; but on the application of
the latter, he was tried alone, the result being that he was
acquitted. The present prosecution was directed against the
two defendants, Ramsey and Foote. They pleaded Not
Guilty.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Woodfall
were counsel for the Crown. Mr. Horace Avory appeared for
Ramsey, while Mr. A. R. Cluer held a watching brief for
Foote.
Mr. Avory: My lord, before the jury is sworn I think it right
to mention at once that I am told that there is some question as
to who, under these circumstances, may be liable to any additional
expense occasioned by the calling of a special jury.
Lord Coleridge : Whose special jury is it?
Mr. Avory: The defendant Bradlaugh moved that this case
should be removed from the Old Bailey by certiorari to this court,
�2
and it was his application originally for a writ of certiorari.
That matter was disposed of the other day, and the special
jury was charged with it.
Lord Coleridge: Yon are not quite accurate, Mr. Avory.
The removal was by Mr. Bradlaugh; the application for a special
jury was by Mr. Ramsey.
Mr. Avory: I did not know that that was so. There is another
matter I should mention. I don’t know whether your lordship
is aware of the previous trial which took place at the Central
Criminal Court. Although the defendants are not in a position
to plead because the indictment charges other numbers of the
newspaper than that on which they are convicted, yet in effect
they have been tried, and those numbers have been given in
evidence before Mr. Justice North.
Lord Coleridge : What has that to do with the present state
of things?
Mr. Avory : I thought perhaps your lordship might put it to
the prosecution whether the court should be occupied in trying
the matter again.
Lord Coleridge : No, no. In any other case I should have made
a great many remarks and suggestions, but I think it better to
let this proceed in the ordinary way.
Mr. Avory: I thought it right, my lord, to mention this. I
only appear here on behalf of Ramsey to watch the legal aspect,
and I think it my duty to say that these counts should be
quashed on the ground of uncertainty. I can give you the
number of counts.
Lord Coleridge: I heard Mr. Bradlaugh upon this. If you
mean to take those same points you need not reargue it.
Mr. Avory : I simply take the same objection, my lord, that
they are bad for that reason.
Lord Coleridge : That is those which refer to the printing of
the newspaper.
Mr. Avory: Those counts which say the defendants printed,
published, or caused and procured it to be printed and
published.
Lord Coleridge : I think there is nothing in that.
Mr. Avory: I thought it my duty, my lord, to take the
objections.
Mr. Cluer: Before the jury are sworn, on behalf of the
defendant Foote, I have to submit that the indictment should be
quashed on this ground ; that it charges a joint offence, and that
it is conclusively proved, as Mr. Bradlaugh has been acquitted,
these were separate offences, and in all cases where three are
joined together for libel, the Court refuses to arrest judgment
on the ground that the act was a joint act.
Lord Coleridge: Are you asking me to rule on the indict
�3
ment that three persons must be either acquitted or convicted.
If you indict persons for a joint act, you can acquit all or
-convict one, and acquit the others. If you indict A, B and C,
for doing something, and you prove it against A, it does not
follow that you can convict B and C.
Mr. Cluer : They are charged with one joint act.
Lord Coleridge : It doesn’t follow the jury will acquit the
•other two because they have acquitted one.
Mr. Cluer: I submit they cannot be put in charge on this
-count at all.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot agree with you there.
Mr. Cluer : One other objection to the indictment is this. In
the 2nd, 4th, and 6th counts, the charge is in these terms. In
the 2nd count, the charge is that of publishing a libel of and
concerning religion. I submit that this is not properly stated as
it does not say of the Christian religion. I submit there is no
offence really to go to the jury in a count that merely charges an
offence against religion. It must either be amended or the count
•struck out.
Lord Coleridge : I don’t think so. Do you wish to put in
“ Christian religion ?”
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : I submit that that is void.
Mr. Maloney : If I consented to that, my lord, it might lead
to something else.
Lord Coleridge : That is the introduction ; the rest are merely
settings out.
Mr. Cluer: It is four lines from the end—“ and concerning
religion.”
Lord Coleridge : There is nothing in that. Now, what is your
•other objection?
Mr. Cluer: There is one further point I wish to urge. In the
ninth count—it may be a mistake in my copy—of the indictment
just before the quotation is made, a charge is made concerning
the Book of Revelations as part of the Holy Bible. There is no
such Book strictly speaking in the Bible, and I submit that
should be amended.
Lord Coleridge I think it is quite good enough.
Mr. Cluer: Such things have been held in other cases, and I
submit it is a matter for amendment. The Book is of course the
Book of Revelation.
Lord Coleridge : It is—to follow the words—“meaning the
Book of Revelations as aforesaid.”
Mr. Cluer: It has reference to something that doesn’t exist.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot take judical notice that there is no
such Book as Revelations in Holy Scripture.
�4
Mr. Cluer: I have a copy in my chambers I can brine:
(Laughter.)
Mr..Maloney then proceeded to open the case for the crown.
He said,—May it please your lordship, gentlemen of the jury,—
the indictment in. this case charges that the defendants William
James Ramsey, and George William Foote, published a blas
phemous libel in a newspaper called the “Freethinker” in
various numbers of that paper between the months of March and
the months of June, 1882. To that indictment the defendants
pleaded Not Guilty, and it is your duty to try whether they are
guilty or not. In the temporary absence of my learned leader,
Sir Hardinge Giffard, it falls upon me to explain the facts
of this case to you, and what has occurred already this
morning. What has occurred previously in the history of'
this case will to some extent render my duty and yours,
I hope, not a long one here to-day. I think the atmosphere
has been cleared this morning of some of the technical objections
which perhaps might have otherwise occupied some time. Mr.
. Avory this morning referred to something which took place, not
with reference to the numbers indicted here to-day, but with
reference to a special issue of the “ Freethinker,” the Christmas
Number. This took place a couple of months ago, and resulted
! in a certain event respecting Ramsey and Foote. It is necessary,
I first, to narrate to you something of the history of these
proceedings. Some of you have doubtless seen something
in the papers about them before to-day. The prosecution in
, this case, of the defendants Foote and Ramsey, commenced
at the Mansion House before the Lord Mayor on the 11th
of July last. After the first hearing Mr. Bradlaugh was
made a co-defendant, and the charge was investigated. They
were committed to the Central Criminal Court, and the case
was afterwards removed into the Court of Queen’s Bench
just before the long vacation, when the defendants entered
I an appearance in the month of November and pleaded Not Guilty.
In December it was set down for hearing, and so it comes on
here. That explains how it is that such a long time has elapsed
since the commencement of this prosecution. After the case had
been removed to the Court of Queen’s Bench a special number
of the “Freethinker” was issued, and proceedings were taken
by the Corporation of London against that particular issue of
the paper. The question you are here to-day to determine has
nothing to do with anything that took place subsequent to the
month of June last year. Prosecutions for blasphemy have
* happily been rare in London. Certainly in Middlesex, prose
cutions for blasphemy have disappeared from the Law Courts
for thirty or forty years, and doubtless it will be urged by the
defendants in this case, that that was sufficient evidence to show
�5
that the whole system upon which prosecutions for blasphemy
were based is effete, and that persons should not prosecute for
blasphemy now-a-days. But when you see the papers you will
perhaps be inclined to conclude that prosecutions for blasphemy
within the last generation have been unusual in London ; because
' there was no reason, because newspapers and books did not con’ tain what was an ontrage upon the feelings of the community at
. large ; and I think when you see the libels they are charged with,
‘ you will say that this at any rate is a publication about the blas
phemous nature of which there can be no doubt, or as to the
propriety of stopping or curtailing its licentiousness to some
extent. An event which has occurred since these proceedings
took place, and which condemned the persons responsibe for the
Christmas Number is an argument in favor of this prosecution
as showing that it was time steps should be taken, and that the
steps taken in this prosecution were not taken too soon. Doubt
less it will be put forward that this is a political movement. I
think they will have some difficulty, so far as they are concerned,
in proving that. The defendants will find some difficulty in
making you believe that this prosecution was commenced from
political motives. The prosecution was commenced against
these two alone originally, and it was only afterwards that a
summons was issued against Mr. Bradlaugh. You heard that
Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted a week ago in this court by a
special jury. I cannot recognise any of your faces as having
been on that jury, but doubtless you know a good deal of what
took place. Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted on that occasion.
There were two questions discussed by my lord, and what
you will have to consider to-day is this, Does this publication
come within the definition of blasphemy, a definition which I
will shortly briefly avert to. The next question you will have
to consider is, Are the defendants responsible for the pub
lication of it ? Have they aided and assisted in producing
this paper from week to week and selling it ? Those are the two
questions you have to consider. First, is it a blasphemous paper,
and are these incriminated passages blasphemous ? Secondly,
Did the defendants publish or procure these to be published ? I
don’t mean in the ordinary trade sense—because one of the
defendants, Mr. Foote, is charged with being the editor. The
question is, Did they aid in sending forth this blasphemous matter
either by editing, selling over the counter, being proprietors,
deriving profits, or in any other way ? The question discussed on
the last trial was mainly whether the then defendant was respon
sible for the publication, and there was very little discussion
whether the matter was blasphemous itself. I think here to-day
the principal struggle will be not as to whether Ramsey and
Foote are responsible for this paper, because the evidence I shall
�6
call will bring conviction to your minds that Ramsey is respon
sible for the publication as he is registered as printer, proprietor,
and publisher under a recent Act of Parliament, and that is
facie evidence. It will be for him to show you that he is not
printer, publisher, or proprietor. I shall give evidence to show that
Ramsey has sold this paper in the shop in Stonecutter Street,
which was the publishing office of the paper and the publishing
office of the National Reformer. After the proceedings had com
menced at the Mansion House—and this may become important—
a month or two afterwards, there were published other numbersheaded Prosecuted for Blasphemy. There can be no doubt that
Ramsey was active in procuring publication of the issues of this
paper and these numbers. As to Foote the evidence will show
you that from the time the paper began in May, 1881, down to
a time subsequent t® the dates in this indictment, he was the
editor of the paper. His name appears on the front of every
paper as editor, and inside the paper it is stated that all com
munications are to be addressed to him as editor of the “ Free
thinker,” at his private lodgings. I shall call evidence to satisfy
you that he was and has been the editor from the very first. On
the recent trial of Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir Hardinge Giffard quoted
what the law of blasphemy is, as it is very appropriately defined
in a standard work on Libel, and that is the law of blasphemy
which the prosecution here to-day will ask you to carry in your
minds when reading the libels in this indictment. Mr. Starkiesays : “ The law distinguishes between honest errors and malice
of mankind. The wilful intention to insult and mislead others
by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred
subjects, or by wilful misrepresentation or artful sophistry calcu
lated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and
the test of guilt. The malicious and mischievous intention, or,
what is equivalent to such an intention in law as well as
in morals, a state of apathy or indifference to the interests
of society, is the broad boundary between right and wrong.”
Now, gentlemen, when you bear that definition in mind, recol
lect that there is no attempt here, and if the attempt were made
it would be useless in the present day—no attempt is being,
made to suppress free discussion or the liberty of the press, or to
interfere with the just rights of any subject. Every person has
the right in this country to discuss controversial matters so long
as he keeps himself within the bounds of decency and reason..
But when a person indulges in malignant scoffing, and abuse, and
derision, gross caricatures, and parodies, flagrant insults, and
outrages to the feelings of ninety-nine people out of a hundred
in this country ; when you see in this paper they have passed all
the bounds of decency, I think you will come to the conclusion
that this case comes within the definition of Starkie, and that it
�7
deserves the censure of the law. You will have an opportunity
of reading the libels. It is usual to read out the libels in court,
but I shall follow the example set at the last trial, and I shall not
read them and offend the people in court by so doing. I shall
not read them unless compelled. It is somewhat interesting to
find what Ramsey and Foote think of their own writings, and
there are two passages in the sixth count of the indictment which
show they knew what they were doing; that their intention
was to outrage the feelings of the people of this country; that
there was an intention to commit blasphemy and violate the
law. They themselves say they intended to commit blasphemy.
I read from the first portion of the sixth count, my lord. There
is set out in that count an extract from one of the Atheistic
sermons, which appear from week to week in this newspaper. I
shall not read the infamous and loathsome comparison between
the deity and Shylock given in that sermon, but in one passage
occurs these words: “lam told that people are shocked at my
Atheistic Sermons ; their blasphemy is so terrible. Well, well, it is
disgust which compels me to pen them. I do it from a sense of
duty. I am fighting against the most disgusting book in the
world. Don’t expect me to speak gently of it. I owe a duty to
mankind, and I will perform it. Godism must be destroyed.”
Such is the opinion Foote and Ramsey put forward as to the
nature of the matter issued in violation of the law, and outraging
the feelings. Then I come to another portion which is in the
ri
newspaper, page 158, of the 14th of May, and which is set out I
in the indictment under the heading of “Acid Drops.” It is
as follows: “ The bigots of to-day are the rankest cowards. They
will not proceed against any Secular leaders for ‘blasphemy,’
although our lectures and articles are full of it; but they are
ready to harrass any less-known Freethinker who may be more
safely dealt with. Down at Tunbridge Wells, Mr. Seymour, the j__
secretary of the local branch of the N. S. S., has recently been
singled out as a victim. He was cited before the Justices of the
Peace, on Monday last, to answer the charge of having issued a
blasphemous placard, libelling the Christian religion and the
holy Scriptures. The ‘great unpaid’ committed him to the
Assizes, which will take place about July, bail for a hundred
pounds being required in the interim. No doubt the bigots
fancy they will score an easy success. But they may find them
selves mistaken. The Freethought party will stand by Mr. Sey
mour to the end, and the case will be fought through every
stage. We are not going to let pious humbugs seize and imprison our members without a struggle, and we are prepared to
protect the humblest Freethinker in the exercise of his personal
rights. Secular Societies are not to be molested with impunity
for advertising their proceedings in an orderly way, while the
�8
Salvation mob is allowed to parade the street and to kick up a dis
graceful row like hell let loose. Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge
Wells a few days after Mr. Seymour received his summons. The
papers will not advertise, the police had frightened all the billstickers, and it was given out that all who came to the Hall would
be spotted. One or two local personages came to report the
proceedings. Mr. Foote crammed his lecture with blasphemy,
and challenged the authorities to prosecute him. But they
haven’t the courage. These bigots are a set of blustering
bullies who are afraid of a fair fight; they like instead to get
hold of some unprotected victim and kick him to death.”
That was Mr. Foote’s challenge, “ that he crammed his lectures
with blasphemy and challenge the authorities to prosecute.” In
answer to that Mr. Foote is here to-day. He will have, I am sure,
full justice at your hands, and will have a fair fight as he calls it.
That blustering challenge of Mr. Foote’s for the authorities to
come forward and prosecute, is as much as to say that he and
those behind him were stronger than the laws of this country,
and stronger than the sense of right of the community at large.
I read these passages to show you what legal view these gentle
men take of the stuff which they sent out from their office. They
crammed their lectures with blasphemy, and a truer word was
never spoken by Mr. Foote when he set out in that article that
these lectures are crammed with blasphemy. He has told you
before that their intention is to outrage the feelings of people
and of the community. All this was not dwelt upon so much
on the last occasion. The question then was, whether Mr.
Bradlaugh was or was not responsible for this matter. The
struggle to-day will be whether these are blasphemous, and the
defendants will try to import other matter to get the jury to
take a favorable view of the matter. Now I see my learned
leader is here, I may say, I have dwelt so long on this case,
because I bear in mind something that occurred when Foote and
Ramsey were convicted at the Old Bailey. It seems in this case
the defendants may not call any evidence, and there may not be
an opportunity of my addressing you again.
Lord Coleridge : Is there no summing-up by the counsel for
the prosecution in this case ?
Sir Hardinge Giffard: Not unless the defendants appeared by
counsel.
Mr. Maloney: I knew it was not usual, and I have therefore
dwelt at some length upon these matters on that account. I
think you will be inclined to think that though prosecutions for
blasphemy have been rare, it was due to the fact that no such
outrage upon public decency has been perpetrated as these; and
that the time has arrived when some effort should be made by
the public authorities, or somebody setting the public authorities
�9
in motion, to stop this, and to prevent people who are passing
through the streets from having their eyes shocked by pictures
in shop windows. In conclusion, I would say that though the
law has been often remiss, and is often remiss and slow, yet it
generally ends by catching those who outrage it; and whether
they challenge the law in so many words, or whether they go
along quietly, using some other person to challenge the law on
their behalf, the law in the end secures them and lays them by
the heels. I think you will conclude that this is an instance
upon which the censure of the law ought to be visited.
The events which have put Ramsey and Foote in their present
position will be taken into consideration by the Court. The
•censure of the law is what we ask for, and the censure of the
law is worthily visited upon persons who make a profit in spread
ing such vile corruption through the country.
Lord Coleridge: Can you give me a shorthand note of
Brother North’s sentence ?
Mr. Avory : Here are the shorthand writer’s notes.
Lord Coleridge: I wanted to know whether in the sentence
passed at the Old Bailey the subject matter of this indictment
was considered.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Avory: My friend was not there, and therefore he cannot
decide. You will find the evidence of Kelland, the clerk to the
•solicitors prosecuting. He then produced all those numbers
charged in this indictment in evidence. Those numbers were
handed in. He gave evidence as to the person of whom he pur
chased them, so that the evidence to be given here to-day was
before the learned Judge who tried that case.
Mr. Maloney: The evidence was with a view of showing the
■ connexion between all the defendants and the paper. Those
numbers were put in evidence with the purpose of showing
Foote’s name was on them, and that he was charged in the month
■ of July with having published them.
Mr. Avory : The point is that all the evidence that could be
given as to the defendant’s connexion with this paper was practi
cally given upon that trial. The papers were actually handed in
to the learned judge who saw every one of those numbers. There
were none read in court.
Lord Coleridge : This case has been tried at the Old Bailey,
and if Mr. Bradlaugh had not been connected with it, this would
have been heard before the trial on the Christmas Number.
Mr. Maloney: It would have been heard at the July sittings.
Lord Coleridge: It would have been heard before the
■.Christmas Number case.
Mr. Cluer: I have an informal shorthand note of the sentence,
�10
but I can say from memory that what has been said by Mr.
Avory is absolutely correct.
Mr. Maloney : The defendants, Foote and Ramsey, joined in.
the application for removal, and one of the reasons was that the
fiat of the Public Prosecutor was too general—that is, as to the
form of the fiat given.
Lord Coleridge : Was there more than one libel ?
Mr. Avory: Different parts of the Christmas Number were
made the subject of different counts.
Lord Coleridge: Very well. I must ascertain as well as
I can.
The first witness called was,
Frederick George Frayling, who was examined as follows by
Mr. Maloney:—
Are you a clerk in the office of the Director of Public Prosecu
tions ?—I am.
Do you produce his fiat authorising this prosecution?—Yes.
[Fiat handed in.]
That is signed by him?—Yes.
Mr. Avory: I think it necessary to take the same objection to
this fiat as was taken on a former occasion. The objection taken,
to it was that it was too general, that it did not name anybody,
and that the fiat of prosecution should name the person. Thisappears to be a copy of a section of the Act of Parliament.
Lord Coleridge : Let it be read. [The fiat was read accordmgiy.]
Lord Coleridge : I think it is enough.
James Barber, examined by Mr. Maloney:—
You are Assistant Registrar at Somerset House—Registrar of
newspapers ?—Yes.
Do you produce the file of registration relating to the “Free
thinker?”—I do.
Give the date of the first entry?—Friday, the 26th ofNovember, 1881.
The date of the next entry ?—August 2nd, 1882.
And the next?—February 7th, 1883.
Mr. Maloney: I wish, my lord, to point out when Mr. Ramsey
is registered as proprietor.
Witness: The first registration is of William James Ramsey,
who is registered as proprietor and publisher; place of business,
28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.; place of residence, 20
Brownlow Street, Dalston, E.
And the signature?—William James Ramsey.
What is at the foot of it ?—Printer and publisher.
Those words are printed?—Yes, they are printed in and not
written, and he signs below them.
Was this form partly printed and partly filled in ?—Yes.
�11
Now, the next ?—August 2nd, 1882. This return, also, has
Ramsey as proprietor.
The next ?—There is no place of business given in this return,
and it differs from the other in that respect. The next return is
in the form of William James Ramsey ceasing to be the pro
prietor. It is a return pursuant to the 11th section of the Libel
Act.
Lord Coleridge: Just read that. Under the title of News
papers—“Freethinker names of persons who cease to be pro
prietors—William James Ramsey; names of persons who become
proprietors—George William Foote; occupation of new pro
prietor, journalist.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know in whose handwriting it is ?—Yesr.
Mr. Foote’s.
That is the defendant ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : How is this material in this matter ?
Mr. Maloney : As regards Foote it will be very material.
Lord Coleridge : All this occurred since the indictment.
Mr. Maloney : It is after the indictment.
Lord Coleridge: That would not affect the state of things
under the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: I think it would be evidence of his connexion
with the paper and with 28 Stonecutter Street.
Lord Coleridge : Before the indictment?
Mr. Maloney: It would be some evidence of his connexion
even before the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : Oh, no.
Mr. Maloney: I want it for the purpose of identifying Mr.
Foote.
Lord Coleridge : I won’t stop you about anything before the
indictment. What has anything he has done since the indict
ment to do with the state of things before ?
Mr. Maloney : It would show his connexion with the paper,
his name being upon any issue of it.
Lord Coleridge : I have not stopped you upon that. I don’t
stop you up to the date of the indictment. I don’t see what
right you have to go to August 2nd.
Mr. Maloney: The way I put it is this. The name on the
paper continued the same before the indictment and after the
indictment.
Lord Coleridge : What have we to do with after? You must
show at the time of the indictment he was connected with the
paper. Things done after cannot be material.
Mr. Maloney: Suppose the defendant puts forward something—■
Lord Coleridge: If he says and signs that he was connected
with that paper, it is a different matter.
Mr. Maloney: If a man registers himself, his name being on-
�12
the newspaper from the commencement—surely that is suffi
cient.
Lord Coleridge : You want to show that this is against Mr.
Foote. You want to show that he was the proprietor of the
paper.
Mr. Maloney: No ; editor of the paper.
Lord Coleridge : Well then, editor of the paper in July, 1882.
Suppose this was the only evidence in the case, would you go to
the jury as to his being editor of a paper in July, 1882, because
he becomes proprietor in February, 1883 ?
Mr. Maloney: He is charged with being the man whose name
was on the paper in July, 1882, and with being editor of it.
After that charge is made his name continues still, and goes on
in the paper until December.
Lord Coleridge: I am not dealing with that.
Mr. Maloney: If I find in the month of February, 1883,
something which says I am proprietor now, is not it sufficient ?
Lord Coleridge : If you want a signature, I agree with you*
If you want evidence of handwriting, it is correct.
Mr. MaloneyThe identity of the person is what I want.
Lord Coleridge •. If you want proof of his handwriting, you
can show that.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t think at present I require proof of the
handwriting, but proof of the identity.
Lord Coleridge: I don’t think I can hold it as evidence at
present, but I won’t reject it. I have taken that signature as
Foote’s. I cannot say it is any evidence for the purpose that
you wish.
Examination of witness continued by Mr. Maloney: Who came
to register the paper?—Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey.
Both appeared at your office ?—They did.
Lord Coleridge : Do you wish to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
George John Lavejl, examined by Mr. Woodfall: You are a
clerk in the office of the solicitors to the prosecution, are you
not ?—I am.
You have purchased several numbers of the “ Freethinkeer ” ?
—I have.
Where did you purchase them ?—At 28 Stonecutter Street.
Do you produce the numbers of the “ Freethinker ” which you
purchased ?—They are in court.
Will you give me the dates of them?—March 26th, 1882.
What was the date on which you purchased that number ?—I
don’t know the date.
�13
Could you give me anywhere about the date ?—Somewhere
about the date of the paper.
Was the next one May 21st?—-No.
What was the next you purchased ?—June 11th.
And when did you purchase the next?—On June 14th.
Are those the only two that you purchased ?—-I had purchased
other numbers, but they are the only two I produce.
What time of the day did you purchase ?—Between the hours
of 11 and 4.
During the hours of business?—Yes.
Whom did you see in the shop?—I saw Mr. Ramsey in the
shop.
Who was it sold you the papers ?—Mr. Norrish.
How often have you seen Ramsey there ?—I cannot say posi
tively. I have seen him on more than one occasion.
Did you serve any notice to produce upon the defendants ?—I
did, on the defendant Foote.
And on the solicitor for the other defendant?—No.
That was the only notice you served ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Mr. Ramsey, do you wish to say anything ?
Air. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Air. Foote ?
Air. Foote : Yes, my Idrd.
Cross examined by Air. Foote : You don’t remember the dateon which you purchased the number of the “ Freethinker ” for
Alarch 26th ?—No.
How do you remember the date of your purchase of the number
for June 11th ?—Because I put the date on when I purchased it.
Where ?—On the paper.
When did you put it there ?—The same day I purchased it.
Where did you write it ?—At the left-hand corner.
In what place ?—In the office.
How is it you omitted to put the date of purchase on the
number for March 26th?—I cannot tell you how it was I
omitted to do that.
How are you sure in your own mind at all about the purchase
of the number for Alarch 26th?—Because the paper never went
out of my possession until I had a conversation with my em
ployer about it.
About what time was it ?—About the date of its issue ; within
a few days.
How did you remember these two dates ?—June 11th by my
own handwriting.
How do you recognise the other?—Through having a con
versation with my principal.
Although that was only a few days afterwards you could not
�14
charge your memory with the date you purchased it?—It may
have been a week afterwards, but I could not charge my
memory.
You could not charge your memory for a week ?—Not in
this case.
Is your memory better in other cases ?—Sometimes.
You served me with a notice to produce ?—I did.
Where ?—At Holloway Gaol.
Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord.
.Mr. Maloney: The notice to produce was not put in. This
'witness served the notice to produce.
[Notice to produce put in.]
Edward John Kelland, examined by Mr. Maloney :—You are
a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution?—Yes.
And you purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street?—Yes.
Will you check the dates. Which of these did you purchase ?—
April 9th, 1882.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next number ?—April 23rd.
When did you purchase that?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—April 30th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 7th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 14th.
When did you purchase that?—On the same date.
"What is the next?—May 21st.
When did you purchase that ?—May 24th.
What is the next ?—May 28th.
When did you purchase that?—June 4th.
Mr. Maloney: That is all I ask you about the dates. Other
numbers were purchased by you also ?
Witness: Yes. There is another number, my lord, June 18th,
which was purchased June 15th.
Lord Coleridge : No, no.
Witness: Yes, my lord. It was dated Sunday, but you can
get them previously.
Mr. Maloney: Do you recollect whom you purchased them
from ?—Mostly of Ramsey.
Do you recollect the placards posted outside the shop?—Yes,
I saw them.
And inside the shop?—Yes.
Contents bills ?—Yes.
Have you seen copies of the paper exposed in the window?—I
saw a number of May 28th exposed in the window.
Did you see them subsequent, or prior to the proceedings at
�15
-the Mansion House ?—I have seen numbers week after week in
the shop window, but I cannot say for certain.
Did you serve that notice to produce on Ramsey?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you purchased most
of the numbers produced of me?—Yes.
Do you identify any of those you purchased from me?—I
•don’t identify any particular number.
How do you know they were purchased from me?—I can
recollect I have purchased them from you.
By what means do you know you purchased most of them from
me ?—I can recollect you serving me ; that is the only thing.
Did you produce those numbers at the Old Bailey when I was
tried ?—Yes.
Were they handed in to the learned Judge ?—Yes.
Did you also give evidence that you had purchased them ?—
Yes.
Mr. Ramsey : That is all, my lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You have not told the Court
of whom you purchased all the copies you produced. You
purchased most of the eopies of Mr. Ramsey. Did you purchase
any of them from me?—No, never.
Did you purchase any in my presence ?—No. 1 purchased
copies one day when you were coming down stairs.
You have told the Court you may have seen me come down
some stairs as you were purchasing a number ?—1 said I had
seen you coming down stairs when I had purchased a number.
Before you said you may have seen me. Doi understand you
to say you have seen me when you were purchasing one of these
numbers ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : He did not say that. He said he saw you
after he had purchased them, and when you had gone out of the
shop.
Witness: That is so. You had come down stairs as I had just
bought the papers.
Lord Coleridge: I correct you ; it is better for you.
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. (To Witness) : Did you say
at the Old Bailey you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th of this year?—That is so.
Now, I ask you how you reconcile these statements. At the
Old Bailey you said you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th in the present year. You in
your evidence now tell the Court that it is within a few months
of your purchase of one of the numbers you now produce ?—
I beg to correct that. I made a mistake. I was purchasing
copies as I usually do, and after I had purchased a copy I saw
you come down stairs.
Let us understand. What day is it you are referring to ?
�16
Lord Coleridge: You don’t mean that they apply to any of'
these ?
Witness : No, my lord.
Mr. Foote : That was on February 16th ?—Yes.
Mr. Foote : That is all I wanted, just to show that the witness
had only seen me once, and that on February 16th in this year.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship kindly read on the front
page?
Lord Coloridge : What is it you want me to read ?
Mr. Maloney: On the front page of the paper is ‘ ‘ Edited by
G. W. Foote.” Then in the inside, under notice to correspon
dents, “ Literary communications to the Editor, G. W. Foote,
9, South Crescent, Bedford Square, London. All business com
munications to be addressed to the publisher, 28 Stonecutter
Street.”
Lord Coleridge: How is this at present evidence against
Foote ?
Mr. Maloney: My lord, I will call further evidence.
Lord Coleridge: At present this is only evidence against
Ramsey. This gentleman says he bought most of these papers
from Ramsey.
Mr. Maloney: At the end it says printed and published by
W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street.
Edward Whittle, senior, examined by Mr. Woodfall:—Do you.
reside at 4 Coulthurst Road, New Cross?—Yes.
Are you a compositor ?—Yes.
Where are you employed ?—I work at 170 St. John Street,.
Clerkenwell.
Is that the office of your son ?—Yes.
He is a printer?—Yes.
Do you know where the “ Freethinker ” is composed ?—I don’t
know where it is composed.
Were you examined at the Mansion House ?—Yes.
Were the numbers of the “Freethinker” put in printed
by you?—No. To the best of my recollection the majority of
them were printed in St. John Street.
You know that is so ?—Yes.
At the office of your son ?—Yes.
Do you know who was editor of these numbers ?
Lord Coleridge •. Oh, no. You cannot ask a question of that
sort of this witness. Editor is a complex term. It may mean a
variety of things. I may know Mr. Smith, say, as editor of the
“ Quarterly Review.” I know that merely as a matter of social
gossip. If I were asked in the witness-box if I knew who was
the editor of the “ Quarterly Review,” I should say I know
nothing about it. For the purposes of society I know who the
editor of the “ Quarterly Review” is, but I don’t give evidence
�17
in a criminal case of what I may know in that way. If I was a
compositor, and Mr. Smith told me to compose something, I
should say that.
Examination continued by Mr. Woodfall: Do you know
Foote ?—I do.
Have you seen him at the office in John Street?—I believe I
have.
Don’t you know you have ?—To the best of my recollection I
have seen him there, but I cannot say how many times.
Do you know to whom the proofs are sent ?
Mr. Cluer : I submit the question is not a proper one.
Mr. Woodfall: Do yon send the proofs?—No.
Do you know the proofs are sent to Mr. Foote ?—I don't
know.
You don’t know?—I don’t know. I have no means of
knowing.
Lord Coleridge: There must be some person who takes
the proofs.
Mr. Woodfall: Do you know who takes the proofs?—They
may be either sent by post or hand.
To whom would they be sent ?
Lord Coleridge : The rules of evidence say you have got to
make out your case. Of course the Court knows there are a
variety of things you cannot prove in courts of justice.
Mr. Maloney: May I be allowed to ask whether he knew of
any instance of proofs having been sent from the office in St.
John street, prior to the month of July?
Mr. Cluer: That is the same question in a worse form.
Lord Coleridge : Wait a moment. Let me hear the question.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know what proofs are ?—Yes.
Do you recollect proofs to have been sent prior to the date of
your examination at the Mansion House ?—Certainly.
To whom?—To Mr. Bradlaugh. (Laughter.) I don’t refer tn
proofs of the “ Freethinker,” my lord. (Laughter.)
Lord Coleridge : You don’t?—No.
Mr. Maloney: I asked you about the “ Freethinker.”
Witness: You asked me about any proofs, not about the
“ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Any proofs of the “Freethinker”?_ I don’t
know. (Laughter.)
You don’t recollect whether proofs of the “ Freethinker ” were
sent to any person?—No, I don’t. They may have been sent
but not to my knowledge.
f
Do you recollect being examined at the Mansion house ?_ Yes
Mr. Maloney: I call your lordship’s attention to the first
deposition of this witness.
B
�18
Mr. Cluer : If Mr. Maloney is going to cross-examine his own
witness, I shall have something to say.
[First deposition handed in.]
Mr. Maloney: Has your lordship got to the part, “ I don’t
know who takes the proofs?” Then something else occurs, and
I ask your lordship to permit me to read that.
Lord Coleridge : I think if you read that you should read the
whole of it. He says, “ I believe Mr. Foote is the editor of the
‘Freethinker,’ because I see his name is on the front of the
paper. I have seen him at St. John Street. I don’t know where
the first proof is sent. I don’t know who takes the proofs.
Sometimes they are sent to Mr. Foote, I suppose. I do not
know that they are sent by hand, ‘ Copy ’ is sent by hand or
post. I don’t know anything about the ‘ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship look at the end of the
second deposition ?
Lord Coleridge : He says this : “Do you really know of your
■own knowledge whether Mr. Foote was or was not the editor of
the ‘ Freethinker ?’ I don’t. I only have an opinion merely
because I have seen his name on the front of the paper. That is
the only conclusion I can arive at.”
Mr. Maloney: Allow me to ask him about the proofs being
sometimes sent to Foote.
Lord Coleridge : They may have been sent. Do you know as
a matter of fact they have been sent to Mr. Foote ?
Witness: They may have been sent, but I am not positive.
Mr. Maloney: Does he know Mr. Foote’s handwriting?
Lord Coleridge : You know Mr. Foote’s handwriting by seeing
it at the office ?—Yes, but not in St. John Street.
Mr. Maloney: You did not see his handwriting on any docu
ments in St. John’s Street?—No.
Where ?—At Lisson Grove.
Where was that?—My son’s office in St. John’s Street, Olerkenwell, was a printing office. Lisson Grove was the printing
office before we came to St. John’s Street.
Lord Coleridge: There was composition done at St. John’s
Street, and printing done at Lisson Grove?—Yes; but not at
the same period. Composing was done at both places.
Mr. Maloney: Have you seen matter of the “Freethinker”
in the handwriting of Mr. Foote ? You need not answer unless
you please.
Lord Coleridge: Oh, stop.
Mr. Maloney: I told him he need not answer.
Lord Coleridge: Then why do you ask the question? You
could not possibly suppose that was a proper question to put.
Mr. Maloney: I am thinking about the depositions.
Lord Coleridge: I have not seen the depositions. I know
�19
■nothing about it. I have not looked at them, except so far as
you tell me. I see not a word about that here. All I have read
•of the depositions is those two bits I Lave read. I don’t see
how they will justify your question. I see nothing in these depo
sitions to justify the question about his handwriting. Then, I
really don’t understand you. You first put a question, which I
think any man at the Bar must know was improper and irregular •
•then you say it is not improper and irregular because it is in
the depositions, and when I look at the depositions it is not
there.
Mr. Maloney: I am treating this as a hostile witness.
Lord Coleridge : That doesn’t make it proper. Cross-examina
tion must be a proper process. You have no right to ask
questions that are not evidence. You must know, in a criminal
case, I should not have allowed you to ask a question which is
not permissible. Have you, Mr. Ramsey, anything to ask the
witness ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Have you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Edward William Whittle, son of last witness, examined by
Mr. Maloney:—You were examined as a witness here the other
day?—Yes.
You are a printer carrying on business at 170 St. John Street ?
—Yes.
Look at those numbers before you of the “ Freethinker.” You
.saw those numbers when you were here last week?—I did sir.
Were these printed by you ?—Yes.
For whom?—Mr. Ramsey.
Do you know defendant, Foote p—Yes.
Has he been there in reference to the “ Freethinker?”
Lord Coleridge : You cannot ask that.
Mr. Maloney: What has he done there?—He has come in
reference to matters he had to give me.
Anything else ?—With orders.
What orders?—For pamphlets I have printed for him,
Anything else?—No.
Do you use the word orders there in the sense of directions or
in the trade sense ? I want to know whether you mean directions
or in the trade sense ?—If he wanted a pamphlet he would come
/and give me directions to print it.
Mr. Malony: May I ask him if he has had directions or orders
.as to newspapers p
Lord Coleridge : I think you may ask about the subject
matter of the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: have you had any orders in that sense of
direction ?
�20
Lord Coleridge: You have had orders about some of thosepapers?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : What rvasthe nature of your directions?
Mr. Cluer: Were they in writing?
Witness: No.
Mr. Malony : Who would send the “ copy,” and say it must be
set up ?
Witness : Would be set up for what?
Mr. Maloney: The “ Freethinker.” Did the manuscript of the“Freethinker” come to you?-—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Do you mean the whole of the manuscript
came to you?—The majority of the manuscript.
Mr. Maloney : Did you usually see the manuscript of the
‘‘ Freethinker ? ”—Yes.
Did you know Mr. Foote’s address?—Yes.
That is the address in the paper, I may take it ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What is the address?—9 South Crescent,..
Bedford Square, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: Is there a proof “ pulled ” before the paper goesout ?-—Sometimes.
Lord Coleridge: 1 do know what a proof is, but I don’t knowthe other word, “pulled.”
Mr. Maloney: “Pulled,” my lord, is, I believe, the usual,
word.
Lord Coleridge : What is “pulled?”
Witness : Simply rolling the type and pulling an impression..
Mr. Maloney : Were you in the habit of sending proofs to any
body?—Yes.
To whom ?— Sometimes to the author of the articles, and
sometimes to Mr. Foote.
Is that the usual course?—Yes.
When you sent proofs to Mr. Foote, to what_ address did you.
send them ?— South Crescent.
Did you send by post, or how?—Sometimes by post.
Sometimes by post, sometimes by letter?—Yes.
Has he taken proofs away on those occasions when he has beenat your office ?—I should say not.
Have any proofs come back from him which you had sent tohim ?—Yes.
Have any come back with corrections?—Yes.
Any come back with headings put in ?
Lord Coleridge: I don’t like to confine you too strictly. L
take it for granted you are limiting your examination to the
matters under discussion.
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : That is not in the evidence of the witness as yet.
Lord Coleridge : Otherwise, I don’t see that this is admissible.
�21
Mr. Cluer : It is irrelevant, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Do I understand you that this happened
-with reference to these people ?
Mr. Oluer: I submit the witness should have before him the
•specially incriminated article.
Lord Coleridge : Let us see, first of all, if he has anything to do
with each number.
Mr. Maloney: Had you anything to do with the number of
March 26th ?
Mr. Cluer : I object to this.
Lord Coleridge : Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that ?
Witness : Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What did Mr. Foote do in respect of the
number of March 26th?
Mr. Maloney : Did the manuscript come through his hands ?—
I cannot say as to the whole of it.
Can you say as to the publication ?—I cannot say as to the
first article.
Lord Coleridge : What do you say of the first article ?—That
i-came from him.
Do you mean that the manuscript is composed, as far as the
manuscript is concerned, by him?—Yes, my lord.
Is it in his handwriting ?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer: This is not indicated, my lord. What page is that
on—page 98?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Cluer : Page 99 is the first indicated.
Lord Coleridge : Just give me the beginning.
Mr. Maloney: “That is the god whom Christians love and adore.”
Lord Coleridge : Do you see the passage ?—Yes, my lord.
What do you say about that passage ?—I should not like to
■say where they came from.
Mr. Maloney: To the best of your belief ?—To the best of
:my belief it would come from Mr. Foote.
Is it in the same article with the paragraph which begins
Friends and favorites of Jehovah ” ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Are these all out of one article?
Mr. Maloney : I don’t know.
Lord Coleridge : Well; but really you should know. Is that all
iin one article?—Yes.
Is the manuscript in his handwriting ?—Ao ; it is signed
William Heaford.
Then it was not in his handwriting?—Ko, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: The question I put to you was, through whose
Chands, or from whom did the manuscript come ? From whom
•did directions come to insert it in the paper ?
Lord Coleridge : First of all, did it come ?
�22
Mr. Maloney: That manuscript that came to you for the“ Freethinker ” would come from Mr. Foote ?—I should imagine it does.
After it had been set up, do you know whether you sent a
proof to Mr. Foote ?—I should not like to say.
Have you any belief?—I have no belief about it. We don’t
send proofs of everything.
When a proof is sent out, is it printed on a slip of paper?—It
is printed on a long slip on one side only.
Mr. Maloney : Now we will go to the next number.
Lord Coleridge: Stay; we have not done with this. You
imagine it came from Mr. Foote. By whose orders was it put in'
the paper ?—By those of Mr. Foote. (To Mr. Maloney) : I.
protest against having to lead you.
Mr. Maloney: I was only afraid of going too far.
Lord Coleridge : That is perfectly legitimate. Of course, it is
perfectly legitimate to put it in that way----- I am not prose
cuting counsel.
Mr. Maloney: Now we will come to the number of April 9th.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that paper ?
Lord Coleridge: You have not got through your work. I wilb
not help you any more ; you must go on your own way,
Mr. Maloney: All the papers have been printed by you?—
Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that number of April'
9th ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: That begins, “ Joshua’s first victory ”?—Yes.Lord Coleridge: What page is that ?
Mr. Maloney: Page 113, my lord. (To witness): Have you
page 113 before you ?—Yes.
You see “Joshua’s first victory”?—Yes.
From whom did the manuscript of that come ?—That is Mr.Foote’s.
By whose directions was it printed in the paper?—Mr. Foote's,
Turn to page 116 of that issue. You will see a paragraph
beginning “ All those Christians.” By whose directions was that
put in the paper?-—Mr. Foote’s.
Do you know who is the author ?—No.
Turn to the number of April 23rd. You see the cartoon on
the front page ?—Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with it? By whose directions
was it issued in the paper ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the issue of May 7th, page 150. You see the para-graph beginning with “It strikes me god must have been suffer
ing from bile ” ?—Yes.
Do you know who is the author of that?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
�23
By whose directions was it inserted in the paper?—Mr.
Foote’s.
Now turn to page 158 of the paper, that same number. Do
you see an article there called “Atheistic Pulpit;” the first
portion of it?—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Look at page 155, “ Acid Drops.” You see the paragraph,
“The bigots of to-day are arrant cowards,” and, going to the
end, “Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge Wells, and challenged
the authorities to prosecute him ” ?—Yes.
Who is the author of that?—-Mr. Foote.
• By whose instructions was it inserted?—-Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to May 14th, page 158 ; again, on the 7th count. Do you
see the paragraph, beginning, “After Moses, Joshua was his
favorite or vizier”?—Yes.
Do you remember who was the author?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
By whose directions was it inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
May 21st, has an article headed “What shall I do to be
damned; ” page 162. Did you see that ?—Yes.
Who is the author?—Mr. Heaford.
By whose directions was it inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Page 163—“The mind turned topsy-turvy with fear and
dread at the mere thought of the awful possibility of one of
these rampagious beasts in Revelations lying down after dinner
with the lamb of god inside him.” Is that in the same
article ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : That is the same thing.
Mr. Maloney : May 28th, page 174. Do you see a paragraph
beginning “ The last day of damnation? ”—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the front page of that number. You see a comic
Bible sketch, “The Divine Illumination?”—Yes.
By whose directions was that put in the paper?—Mr. Foote’s.
Is that a representation of almighty god ?-—
Lord Coleridge : Where does that begin ?
Mr. Maloney : The charge is last in the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : That is for the jury.
Mr. Maloney : Now turn to June 11th. That question, my
lord, rather goes to three of the counts. Would you allow me
to ask this witness as to the picture ?
Lord Coleridge : 1 don’t think you ought to ask this witness.
“ What do you think of that picture.” The picture tells its own
story. You charge it as a blasphemous libel, and you say Mr.
Foote ordered it to be put in. You can show it to the jury,
but you have no right to ask this gentleman what he thinks
of it.
�24
Mr. Maloney: Did he authorise the cartoon of June 11th, “ A
miss and a hit ?”
Witness: “ Yes, I should say so.
Has Mr. Foote spoken to you at any time in reference to the
meaning of any of these cartoons ?—No.
Mr. Maloney: May I ask him whether he knows who was
editor of those numbers ?
Lord Coleridge: No; certainly not. That is a complex
question. Editor may mean a great many things. A man may
be editor, and not authorise the publication of any one of these
things. I cannot help saying, Mr. Maloney, that this was sug
gested to you. I have eyes, and I cannot help seeing what is
going on. You ought not to take suggestions that are not proper.
This case must be tried like every other case. I have regretted
to observe the feeling imported into this prosecution. On a
former occasion I restrained myself for obvious reasons. Why
cannot this case be tried, like any other case, without going one
inch out of the legal path. Why does counsel go and examine a
man’s bankers-book.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to ask the witness
whether Mr. Foote has spoken to him as to the person who was
editor of this paper ?
Lord Coleridge : If it bears against Foote or Ramsey, you have
no right to ask it. (To witness) : Has Mr. Foote ever told you
who edited the paper?—No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : That is a totally different thing. Anything
Foote says against himself is evidence against him. Do you wish
to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : That is the case, my lord.
Lord Coleridge (to defendants) : If you would rather take
your luncheon first, before addressing the jury, do so by all
means.
Mr. Ramsey : I should, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Gentlemen of the jury, you must come back
by half-past one.
Mr. Maloney: 1 didn’t quite hear whether evidence for the
defence is to be called, and I should like to know that, because
of some of the official witnesses. I want to free some of the
official witnesses.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot press these gentlemen ; they must
take their own course. If they think right to call witnesses they
must do so.
After the adjournment for luncheon, Mr. Maloney said: In
�25
■ reference to handing the libels themselves to the jury, I suppose
that will be done at the end of the case.
Lord Coleridge : I should think so.
Mr. Avory: There will be no witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Maloney: Then I don’t address the jury.
Mr. Ramsey then proceeded to address the jury as follows :—
Gentlemen of the jury,—I appear before you to-day to
answer this charge under circumstances of extreme difficulty.
For eight weeks I have been in close confinement in prison,
cut off from all participation in the active life and business of
■ the world around me; away from home, from family, and all
I hold most dear. With the exception of one short hour each
• day spent in pacing round and round a track in company
with the vilest dregs of London criminality—whose very pre-sence is like some loathsome contagion—and a brief visit on
• each alternate day to chapel—in the same company—all the
time has been passed in a narrow cell in solitude and silence,
with nothing but the duty calls of the prison officials to vary
the horrible monotony ; my mind a prey to such torture as
;an_y man must feel, who separated from those whom he loves,
'with no knowledge of what is happening to them, knows only
too well that their comfort, their happiness, their very lives
> are dependent on him. All this, combined with the prospect
■of nine weary months of such misery before me, has brought
. about a state of mental depression against which I have been
unable to successfully battle. So that although during the
. last two weeks, thanks to the kindly considerateness of his
• lordship and the indulgence of the governor of the prison, I
have been supplied with the means for preparing to meet this
• -charge, I have found myself unequal to the task. I therefore,
gentlemen, crave your indulgence for any deficiencies in my
defence, and ask you to believe that the great principle of
■“ Free speech and Freethought,” assailed here to-day, is
■ capable of being sustained by the best of arguments and the
. grandest of oratory. I stand before you charged with blas
phemy—an offence which is not of the nature of a crime like
theft or murder, but (is a manufactured offence, differing in
various countries (blasphemy in Spain is orthodoxy in
.England, blasphemy in India is orthodoxy in England), made
for the purpose of maintaining the doctrines of the Esta
blished Church and suppressing all opinions which differed
■from them. During the time that the Church had supreme
■control over the making and administering of the laws of the
country, prosecutions were plentiful. Quakers were branded
.■and flogged as blasphemers, Unitarians were punished as
blasphemers, and are even now indictable under this same
■Jaw under which I am prosecuted. Deistical writings were
�26
prosecuted as blasphemous and the publishers sent to prison.
But gradually as dissent grew more powerful, as opinions
more in accordance with freedom and justice permeated the ■
minds of the people, as religious tests and disabilities were
abolished, and men, for the suppression of whose opinions ■
these laws were made, began to take part in the legislation of
the country, so these infamous prosecutions grew less and less
in number, the law falling at last into such disuse, that for more than fifty years no prosecution of this character has
been instituted in the City of London, although hundreds of
attacks upon Christianity have been made during that time,
some of a far more severe character than those for which men
were sent to prison, mostly published within the city precincts
and all liable to prosecution under this law, by any public
company manipulator who, finding his financial reputation
growing shady, thinks he may obtain a cheap reputation forpiety by posing before a gullible public as a modern defender of
i he faith, and gain a substantial profit at the same time. Into •
such disuse have these laws fallen that the highest and
most honored expositors of English law are at utter variance ■
as to what should be their modern interpretation. One view
is that Christianity being by law established, any publication
which denies its truth must be blasphemous. Mr. JusticeStephens lays it down that the blasphemy lies in the matter ■
not in the manner. If this be so, then the major portion of the
best works of the leading scientists of the day should have
been indicted as blasphemous. If your verdict should be in
accordance with this view, then this prosecution will be the
precursor of a general raid. This is not a mere idle assertion,
for emboldened by the initiation of these prosecutions a society
is already in existence with the Rev. “ Dr.” Wainwright at its
head, which has announced in the “Times ” its intention of
prosecuting the works of Messrs. Huxley, Tyndall, Darwin,
Herbert Spencer, and others as rapidly as its funds will allow.
This may appear ridiculous, but the ridiculousness is the
fault of the law, not the men. They are logical enough, and
certainly far more honest than the instigators of this prose
cution. Another view is, that controversy on any subject
should be permitted which is carried on in decorous language
and in good faith; but that ridicule, abuse, contumelious
reproach, or the use of language calculated to wound the
feelings of Christians, should be held to be blasphemous. This
has the merit of plausibility, but I trust I shall succeed in
proving to you that it has nothing more. Before accepting
this view, you must believe that these laws were made for the
purpose of protecting the feelings of members of the Estab
lished Church, while the feelings of all else might be outraged
�27
with impunity. The test for blasphemy would be whether
some one's feelings had been hurt, and then, as Lord Shaftes
bury has denounced the proceedings of the Salvation Army as
outrageous and blasphemous, it would be the duty of the
authorities to consign General Booth and his companions toprison. But to satisfy even the most rudimentary notions of
justice, the law should at any rate be reciprocal, and each
should be compelled to refrain from hurting the feelings
of every other, whether he be Churchman, Dissenter, Jew,
Mahomedan, Freethinker, or anything else. It could not
even stop at that. There are a great number of people who are
far more sentitive on political questions than on theological
ones, I believe that many times more people had their feelings
outraged by the cartoon which appeared in a so-called comic
paper a few weeks since, representing Mr. Gladstone as thenotorious and infamous “ No. 1,” than have ever experienced
the slightest annoyance at anything appearing in the “Free
thinker.” Bo that to be just, the law should protect the feelings
of every political partisan. The same argument will hold
good in science and literature. In short, it would be a
criminal law for the enforcement of politeness all round j
and that no law could possibly accomplish, even it were
desirable to attempt it by such means. iStarkie, held to be an
authority for this view, says: “ A wilful intention to pervert,
insult and mislead others by means of licentious and contu
melious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful mis
representations, or by artful sophistry, calculated to mislead
the ignorant or unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.”
Now, gentlemen, we are not charged with using licentious
language ; there is not the faintest trace of it; the prosecution
would have been glad to seize on it if there had been. Do not
be misled by the prurient hints of the learned counsel sug
gestive of obscenity and indecency, which are used for the
sole purpose of insinuating a charge he dared not openly
make. Which would you consider to be “ artful sophistry
calculated to mislead the ignorant or unwary ?” the mere
banter, and ephemeral jests never intended and never supposed
to be serious, appearing in a little obscure periodical, here to
day and gone to morrow; or the works I have alluded to, not
ephemeral, but taking their place as standard literature, not
intended and not thought to be jest, but the serious reasonings
of thoughtful men with all the authority of world-wide repu
tation. Artful sophistry can only mean that which has the
appearance of wise reasoning, and is not; and I submit,
gentlemen, that there can be no doubt as to which class of
publication that epithet most fitly applies to in the mind of
a firm believer. Most certainly these works have done ten.
�28
thousand times more to undermine and destroy the Christian
faith than the “ Freethinker” could do in a century. These
laws really owe their retention to their disuse. Whilst all
liberal-minded men who knew of their existence were ashamed
of them, nobody thought them worth troubling about, believing
them to be dead. They would have been abolished long since
had the prosecution been honest in its bigotry instead of
hypocritical, and had it attacked wealthy firms which have
issued high-priced blasphemy for the cultured classes. If
these laws were not in existence, not even the most bigoted
man in the House of Commons would think of attempting to
make them, or, if he did, could carry his project one solitary
stage. This was abundantly proved, when not long since,
Lord Redesdale sought to bring in a bill in the House of
Lords, imposing a religious test on Members of Parliament.
The bill was contemptuously thrown out. But now the solong dormant monster of Religious Persecution is to be gal
vanised into new life and prosecutions are in full swing, not
against wealthy firms, who may publish as much blasphemy
as they like in costly volumes—that would be too dangerous ;
• but against men who, because they are poor, are easier to
attack. The courage of the prosecution is that of a big bully
who valiantly assails a small boy. And what is the pretext ?
that the limits of controversy have been overstepped. But
what are the limits of controversy? Every doctrine in the Bible,
every article of the Church of England, almost every verse
from Genesis to Revelation has been the subject of controversy,
not alone between Christians and Freethinkers but between
the thousand and one sects into which Christianity itself is
split in every direction. The learned counsel has not at
tempted to define those limits, nor to say when or by
whom they were made. The words might have some meaning
if we had in England an Inquisition which from time to time
issued an edict and said “ in criticism thus far shalt thou
go and no farther; ” but until we have such a tribunal the
words are meaningless. It is merely the cant phrase which
has always been used when bigotry has sought to crush hos
tile opinion, and each counsel, half ashamed of the task he
has in hand, borrows it from his predecessor. Since these
old laws fell into disuse a great change has come about in
religious controversy. Education has advanced with great
and rapid strides, and heresy has kept pace with it, so that
opinions are freely expressed to-day which less than a century
ago would have sent their author to prison. The Rev. W.
Woolston was sent to prison for a long time for denying the
truth of the Pentateuch. To-day Colenso does the same thingand
remains and receives the salary of a bishop of the Established
�29
Church; and he employs the same weapon of attack, namely,,
ridicule, as we are charged with using. He over and over
again shows the falsity of the stories in the Pentateuch by
reducing them to an absurdity; as, for instance, wherehe cal
culates that, according to the biblical account, every mother
in Israel must have had. forty-two sons besides a proportionate
number of daughters. His works have been before the public
for twenty years, and yet no one dreams of prosecuting
Messrs. Longmans, the publishers of them. Peter Annett
denied the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and was sent to
prison for more than a year, and twice stood in the pillory.
Dr. Temple does the same thing in the famous “ Essays and
Reviews,” and is rewarded by being made Bishop of Exeter;
and, although Lord Shaftesbury denounced the work as “ blas
phemous productions vomited forth from hell,” yet no one has
prosecuted or thinks of prosecuting t'he publisher. When
Wiliams was prosecuted for selling Paine’s “ Age of Reason,”
Lord Chief Justice Kenyon said, in passing sentence, that if such
works were permitted to be sold the law would be stripped of
one of its principle sanctions—the dread of future punish
ment. Canon Farrar may to-day publish his disbelief in a
hell, and, instead of being placed in a criminal dock, he ismade a high dignitary of the Church of England. In nearly
the last indictment for blasphemy, Messrs. Moxon were found,
guilty of blasphemy for publishing Shelley’s “ Queen Mab,”
under a similar indictment to that on which I stand,
arraigned. To-day we find that no less a person than the late
First Lord of the Admiralty publishes that same Shelley’s
Queen Mab,” upon every railway-bookstall in the Kingdom,
without let or hindrance, and in absolute defiance of the
verdict of the jury which condemned it; and when he wasappointed to that high office in the State, noc one member of
the House of Commons rose to protest or say a word about
it—not even the learned counsel for the prosecution, who sat
in the House as a member. He not only said nothing about
it, but actually accepted the office of Solicitor-General, thus
becoming legal adviser to one who was deliberately setting
the Blasphemy Laws and a jury’s verdict at defiance. What
conclusion can you come to, gentlemen, other than that the
learned counsel and the whole of the House of Commons con
sidered these laws to be obsolete and the jury’s verdict
worthless ? What value, gentlemen, will you put on the new
found zeal for enforcing these laws on the part of one who
was quite content to condone blasphemy when the blasphemer
could confer place, power, and emolument ? The exact value
may be found in figures at the back of his brief. Surely
gentlemen, when we find so great a change has taken placed
�30
that men may now say with impunity, and with honor, that
which, when those laws were in operation, would have sent
them to prison ; when we find that that which less than
a century ago would have ensured the author a long confine
ment in gaol, is now rewarded with a bishopric ; when we find
that a bishop may say (and still retain his office) that for which
a man was sent to prison and the pillory; when we find
the Quaker, whipped and branded in one age. lately sitting in
the Cabinet itself; when we find a Cabinet Minister himself
setting at defiance the verdict of a comparatively modern
jury, and deliberately publishing the blasphemy they con
demned without protest or hindrance on the part of the autho
rities so defied; surely, gentlemen, it is not too much to ask
you to believe that the promoters of this paper were not
actuated by any desire to commit a breach of the peace, but'
were fully persuaded that, in view of the many and great
changes that had taken place—to some of which I have drawn
your attention; with the knowledge that the law had been
regarded as obsolete for many years—no one would think of
dragging from its obscurity this barbaric relic of the legisla
tion of a bad bygone time and setting it in force against them.
No good was ever done by these prosecutions, even from the
point of view of the prosecutors themselves; they do but dra w
attention to that which was sought to be suppressed. No
work was ever yet suppressed by prosecution. Paine’s “Age
of Reason ” and “ Rights of Man ” have been prosecuted over
and over again, and to-day their sale is greater than ever.
Of those who are prosecuted it makes martyrs, for these laws
have never been directed against real criminals but always
against honest citizens. I stand before you to-day charged
with a criminal offence, and yet am a man whose character is
unspotted, whose honor is unimpeached, whose integrity is
unquestioned; and whatever bodily torture and mental agony
an adverse verdict might inflict—it might kill me, but it could
not sully my reputation nor blacken my name. I ask of you,
gentlemen, a deliverance from this cruel and hateful law ; I
ask you to say by a verdict of Not Guilty that you refuse to
define blasphemy anew ; and stamp with your disapproval
these disgraceful attempts to revive the fossil remains of laws
which, passed in an ignorant, barbarous, and brutal time, are
an anachronism out of all harmony with the growing freedom
of the age. I ask you to refuse to reopen that page of
English history of which we should all feel ashamed, stained
as it is with the blood and tears of thousands of victims to
priestly intolerance and persecution; that page which all
right-thinking men would gladly see blotted out for ever.
As Professor Hunter truly says: “ The Heresy Laws bring
�31
before us one of the most melancholy aberrations of legisla
tion. These laws have caused prodigious suffering, but they
'never conferred on the human race one iota of countervailing
■ advantage. They represent a dead loss to the credit side of
human happiness, and the passions which gave rise to them,
-are an unmitigated and unredeemed evil. Black is the guilt
•of those who have abused their position as the guides and
instructors of mankind, to plant in the infant mind the seeds
•of unfounded and irrational hatred, and so have helped to pile
up that great mountain of persecution of man’s inhumanity
to man, which has made countless thousands mourn.”
Mr. Foote next addressed the jury. He said: “My lord and
■gentlemen of the jury, I am very happy, not to stand in this
position, but to learn what I had not learned before—how a
•criminal trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before another
judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who are conducting this
prosecution have not now a judge who will allow them to walk
out of court whilst he argues their brief for them in their
absence.
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson, Mr. Foote,
and that is, that one judge cannot hear another judge censured
-or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction, and I
will simply, therefore, confine what observations I might have
made on that head to the emphatic statement that I have learnt
to-day, for the first time—-although this is the second time I have
had to answer a criminal charge-—how a criminal trial should be
conducted. And, notwithstanding the terrible nature of my
position, there is some consolation in being able, for the first
time in two months, to talk to twelve honest men. Two months
;ago I fell amongst thieves, and have had to remain in their
society ever since, so long as I have been in any society at all.
It is not my intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the
ground which was traversed by my co-defendant in his very
eloquent and pathetic account, his manly and simple account of
the mental difficulties which accompanied the preparation of his
defence; but I will add, that although we have profited—I may
say in especial by the facilities which his lordship so kindly
ordered for us, and by the kind consideration of the governor
of Holloway Goal—yet it has been altogether impossible, in
the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a man to
do any justice to such a case as I have to maintain. Prison
diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a material item—is not of
the most invigorating character. (Laughter.) My blood is
to some extent impoverished, my faculties are to a large
•extent weakened, and it is only with considerable difficulty
�32
that I shall be able to make them obey the mandate of my
■will. The mental ciicumstances, how depressing have they
been ! In looking over a law book I saw something about soli
tary confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year. What
the nature of the confinement is I am unable to ascertain, but
it strikes me that twenty-three hours’ confinement out of twentyfour, in a small cell about six feet wide, comes as close as
possible to any reasonable definition of solitary confinement.
Still it is no use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much, however,
must be said in connexion with it; that a change has come
over the method of treating those who are found guilty and',
sentenced to punishment under these laws. Gentleman, as a
matter of fact, an indisputable matter of fact, I and my co
defendants are undergoing essentially the severest punishment
that has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the last
120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in Clerkenwell
Gaol with twelve months’ hard labor, in the year 1763, there has
been no punishment meted out to a Preethought publisher or
writer at all approximating to what we have to undergo. The
sentence, even before the law practically fell into disuse from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six, four, and>
three months. Our sentence, gentlemen, was twelve months.
Again, prisoners were nearly all treated as first-class misdemea
nants—as far as I can ascertain, all were—they were not sentencedto twelve months—not merely of intellectual death—but twelve
months of conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even carried on
their literary work, and supported those near and dear to them.
We have to depend on the charity of those who, notwithstanding
the position in which we stood two months ago, and stand now,
do not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a great'
vital principle struck at through us, however unworthy we may
be to defend it, and who in lending their aid to see that our in
terests do not suffer so much as they otherwise would, are
actuated by more than friendship for us, by their love of that
principle which has been assailed by our conviction, sentence,
and committal to gaol, and is again assailed in the prosecution
which is being conducted here to-day. A change, gentlemen,
has come over the public mind with respect to heresy and blas
phemy, which every reader of history finds intelligible. Reli
gious bigotry is never more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their cause can
be defended by argument they are ready to defend it by those
means. While they feel that supernatural power is maintainingtheir creed they are to a large extent content in trusting their
�33
cause to the deity in whom they believe. But when they feel
that the ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet; when they feel that the major portion of the in
tellectual power of their day and generation is arrayed against
their creed, when it is not scornful or indifferent to it; when, in
short, the creed is not only losing its members’ brains, but its
own wits ; then it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics
who are striking week after week the most deadly blows at the
creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe, but at those
who happen to be poor and comparatively obscure. These
poorer and more pronounced Freethinkers, are made the
scapegoats for the more respectable Agnosticism of the day,
which is more cultured, but infinitely more hypocritical.
The martyrdom of olden times had something of the
heroic in it.
A man was led out to death. He could
summon courage for the minutes or hours during which
he still had to face his enemies. They placed faggots
round his funeral pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life
ended; and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst under
such circumstances. Then also the persecutors had the courage of
the principles on which they proceeded, and said, “We do this
to the heretic in the name of god ; we do it because he has
outraged the dignity of god, and because he has preached ideas
that are leading others to eternal destruction with him.” But
now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ; like Pilate,
it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all its pretences will be
discounted, 1 believe, by you. When it is said, “We don’t do
this in the interests of outraged omnipotence, and we, the finite,
are not arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying out a
measure of social sanitation, and preventing men from making
indecent outrages on the feelings of othersyou will agree
with me in believing that this is hypocrisy and cowardice
also. Looked at clearly, it is utterly impossible that you
can draw any line of demarcation between the manner of contro
versy in religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference as to
the matter, unless you go the full length of the principle
which is implied, and logically say: “ We do so because religion
is not as these. There is matter as well as manner, and we
protect the feelings of men with respect to these subjects, because
•there is invulnerable truth somewhere imbedded in their belief,
and we will not allow it to be wantonly assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more importance,
and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that fell from
the lips of the junior counsel for the prosecution, in what
G
�34
he called the temporary absence of his leader—a temporary
absence which has turned out to be considerably protracted. One
remark he made use of was that we had attempted to make a
wicked and nefarious profit out of the trade in these alleged
blasphemous libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked and nefarious, there
was no need to say anything about the nature of the profit. But
he himself ought to know—at any rate his leader would have
known—that a passage was read at our previous trial, and
nsed as evidence against me in particular—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—and a large
sale is always a comparative term, for what may be a large sale
for the “Freethinker” would not be large for the “Times”—
the proprietor was many pounds out of pocket. The learned
counsel for the prosecution, I daresay, knew that, but then it
suited his denunciatory style to talk about wicked and nefarious
profit. (Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of the
prosecution—it is his business. You can get any quantity of
that sort of thing by ordering it, provided you at the same time
give some guarantee that after ordering, it will be paid for. He
spoke of a blustering challenge which was thrown out in one of
the alleged libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said that a man
at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted for blasphemy. The
learned counsel omitted to tell you what you will find by referring
to the indictment, that the word “blasphemy” is between in
verted commas, which shows it was employed there, not in the
sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which he might
not attach the same meaning as those using it. So much for
that.
And now one word more as to his introduction before I
proceed. The word “licentiousness” was introduced. The word
“decency” was introduced. I have to complain of all this. 1 pro
pose to follow the method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s
trial some days ago in this court, and had the full approval of his
lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior counsel for the
prosecution did, notwithstanding he said he would not, and read
to you any passages from those alleged libels. Although 1 do
that, I feel what an immense disadvantage results to me because
the words “indecency,” “licentiousness,” are bandied about out
side before the great jury of public opinion, and we are accused,
and may be pronounced guilty and sentenced for offences which
people outside have never had properly explained to them.
Thus we are brought in guilty of blasphemy, and people
say we should have been so sentenced and punished be
cause our attack was indecent. Now, the word “indecency”
as you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un-
1
�35
■becoming or obscene. People will take which meaning best
suits their purpose, and so we are at this great disadvantage
when none of these libels are read out, that we may be brought
in guilty of a charge and sent to prison on it, and people outside
may think that we are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence. I leave
the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of these prose
cutions. I wish to say a word or two on that head. They have
one great disadvantage from the point of view of the prosecution
—they advertise and disseminate widely the very opinions which
they try to suppress; and it seems to me if they were really
honest and had the interests of their own professed principles at
heart, they would shrink from taking any such steps. Then
again, history shows us that no work that was ever prosecuted
was successfully put down. There was only one method of perse
cution that succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre of the
Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian heresies—the very
names of which read as the names of some old fossil things that
belonged to a different era of the world’s history—you will find
wherever a sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of holding the
objectionable opinion ; but when books and pamphlets have
been prosecuted they have never been put down. Unless you
can seize and secure everybody infected with heresy, naturally
you arouse their indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and conse
quently they fight ail the harder for the cause attacked. Paine’s
“ Age of Reason ” was a prosecuted work. Richard Carlile was
sent to gaol for nine years for selling it; his wife and sister were
«ent to gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You would
have thought that would have suppressed the “Age of Reason
yet, as a matter of fact, that work still has a large circulation,
and. a sale all the larger because of the prosecutions instituted
against it fifty or sixty years ago. Take the case of a
prosecuted work belonging to another class of literature—
a pamphlet published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant,
the prosecution of which was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a work
that had been circulated at the rate of one hundred per year
for forty years, was run up to a sale of one hundred and seventvfive thousand. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in that
■case the prosecutors had defeated their own object. When a
question as to the “Freethinker” was asked in the House of
Commons, so far back as February in last year, Sir William
Harcourt replied that it was the opinion of all persons who
�36
had to do with these matters, that it was not politic to proceed
legally against such a publication. That answer was made to
Mr. Frcshfield. A few days afterwards he made a similar answer
to Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who rush in
“ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecution has un
fortunately done that. It is a curious thing, gentlemen,
that all those who have been moving against the persons who
are alleged to be responsible for the “ Freethinker,” belong
to one political party. The junior counsel for the prosecution
told you that no doubt one of the two defendants would ask you
to believe this was a political move, and I do ask you to believe it
is almost entirely a political move. Every person connected
with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield represents the immacu
late borough of Dover, and Mr. Redmond is the representative of
a small Irish constituency, the whole of whose voters could beconveyed to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of London
that secured a verdict against myself and my co-defendant two
months ago. I need not tell you what the politics of the Corpora
tion of the City of London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy
what they will be when brought into something like acccord with
the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to be introduced.
The • prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge Giffard, is also a Tory.
1 don’t mean to say that he is the worse for that. Every man
has a right to belong to which political party he pleases. Tory,
Whig, Conservative and liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on both sides.
But it is a curious thing that this prosecution should be con
ducted so entirely by men of one political persuasion, while
those struck at belong to the extreme opposite political per
suasion. These two things should operate in your minds, and
influence your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry it out. And
last, though not least, we have Sir Jtlenry Tyler, also a Tory of
the deepest dye, who has been the pronounced and bitter
public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh, one of my co-defendants who
is released from his position of danger by a verdict of acquittal.
At my previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor'
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen. Iam very
glad indeed to be able to rely on the authority of his lordship
in saying that the nominal prosecutor in this case is the Queen,
and the actual prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is
Sir Henry Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason
for Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir Henry
Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in financial pursuits.
He was known to be a dexterous financier and an experienced
director of public companies. He was known to be not so much
�37
•loved by shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would receive
an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler had an enemy in
Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had been rebuked in the House
of Commons, by a minister of the Crown, for his mad antago
nism to Mr. Bradlaugh. It is he who has found all the funds
for this prosecution, and I ask you to believe that this prosecu
tion was initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and
his political friends for a purely political purpose ; to cripple, if
possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win through religious preju
dice what could not be won by open political warfare. As I
said before, men of genius and high character are to be
found in the two great political camps, but this is a miser
able descent for a great historic party, which once had its
Peels and its Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ” has a theo
logical meaning as well as amoral and legal one ; and directly you
put the question theologically, What is blasphemy? you are stunned
by a, babel of contradictory answers. In our own country the
Christian says Jcxus Christ is god, and it is blasphemy to say he
is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit in our national
legislature, says Jesus Christ was not god, and it is blasphemy to
say he was. In short, one might say theologically, that blasphemy
is entirely a question of geography; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time you put
the question. It is a matter of longitude and latitude, and if we
are to rely upon the very loose view of the law I shall have to
refer to, as given by Starkie., it is a matter of very considerable
latitude. The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to in the
Old Testament is simply that of cursing god, which I suppose no
one would do, if even he had a monitress like Job’s wife, except his
proper position was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and it is
unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in the judicial
murder of Jesus Christ. And you have the spirit of the
blasphemy law brought out in the prosecution of Jesus of
Nazareth, and, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, the
proceedings for blasphemy against St. Paul. With the Jews
a man was soon found guilty, and very often after they had
stoned him to death they settled at leisure the question
whether he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate, who
represented the majesty of the law, that stood between the bigotry
of the Jews and their victim. And you will remember that it
.was the Roman power, the secular power, which cared for none
�38
of these things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his
life from his Jewish enemies, who would have put him todeath as a blasphemer. Morally, blasphemy can only becommitted by a person who believes in the existence of the deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that on record in
his “ Life of Voltaire.” He says that ridicule or abuse of deities in
whom he doesn’t believe is only ridicule and abuse of ideas which
have no meaning to him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy
unless he believes in the being whom he blasphemes. In practice,
blasphemy means, always did and always will, a strong attack
upon what we happen to believe. The early Christian used to
blaspheme before he gained a victory over Paganism, and he
was put to death. The Protestant used to blaspheme before he
triumphed in England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blas
phemed before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they were
tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became blas
phemers. It is particularly necessary you should bear this in
mind, because you must consider the very unfair position in
which a man stands who is brought before a tribunal believing in
the existence of the deity and the attributes of the deity, who is
said to be blasphemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible ; and when at the same time they have to adju
dicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the manner of it.
If they dislike the matter they are sure to object to the manner;
and so a man in my position stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it
happens to be—that is, our religious belief; and, curiously
enough, I have noticed many publications which urged that the
blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should be made a
crime to insult any form of religious belief. I should not oppose
any such amendment as- that, because it would very soon reduce
the whole thing to an absurdity; for every sect would be prose
cuting every other sect; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have to be
abolished, and every form of opinion would be equal in the eye of
the law, as I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or murder
—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And it really
comes to this—that no man can know thoroughly what a
blasphemous libel is; and no man can be sure whether he is
penning a blasphemous libel or not; and the only way to find
out what the offence is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve
�39
months, which is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of
this kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the matter is
put into their hands; and if they don’t like it, that is sufficient
for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very unfortunate thing that any
man should be tried for such an offence at common law. Recently,
when I was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in his
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the existence of
deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the jury would not
bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to be discharged ; and I was
kept in prison until the next trial took place. Mr. Justice North
told the jury on the second trial nothing of the sort. He left
out altogether the words as to denying the existence of
deity. What made the change in three days ? It is impossible
for me to say. It may be he thought a conviction easier
with such an interpretation of the law; or it may be that
even he, a judge, had read the comments in the daily press,
and that some alteration had been made, perhaps for the
better. The view which was entertained by Mr. Justice
North does not seem to be the view entertained by the Lord
Chief Justice, in whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I
may judge by his summing up on the trial of one of my co
defendants in this action last week. Then, again, we have Mr.
Justice Stephen, whois practically at variance, not only with Mr.
Justice North, but with the still higher authority of his lordship;
so that it would largely depend, in being tried at common law,
whether one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited one jury
brought in a verdict of Guilty, but another jury four days before—
although the evidence was exactly the same—declined to. So
that you have a double uncertainty—your fate depends upon the
view of the law entertained by the judge who presides at the
trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the jury. I submit,
gentlemen, that is a very grave defect, and puts at great disad
vantage men who stand in my position. If a man is to be sent
to gaol for twelve months, blasphemous libel should be defined
by statute. The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of Queen’s
Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash the indictment,
on which I am now being tried, that this statute was aimed
at specific offenders, and only laid down so much law as re
ferred to them. No doubt that is true enough; but still, if
the statute does not fully define blasphemy, yet everything’
included within the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a
word about ridicule, abuse, or contumely. The statute says any
body who has professed the Christian religion within these
realms, shall, for denying the existence of god, or saying there are
more gods than one, or denying the truth of Christianity, be sub
�40
ject to certain penalties. The law was called “ ferocious ” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens us as to the
nature of the age in which those Blasphemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute appears to contain a view of the
law. which the Lord Chief Justice so considerately said he should
not feel justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than it
seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and dwelt
on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law? Com
mon law is judge-made law and jury-made law. Mr. Justice
Stephen on this point has some very notable remarks in
the introduction to his “Digest of the Criminal Law”:—“It
is not until a very late stage in its history that law is regarded
as a series of commands issued by the sovereign power of the
State. Indeed, even in our own time and country that concep
tion of it is gaining ground very slowly. An earlier and, to some
extent, a still prevailing view of it is, that it is more like an art
or science, the principles of which are first enunciated vaguely,
and are gradually reduced to precision by their application to
particular circumstances. Somehow, no one can say precisely
how, though more or less plausible and instructive conjectures
upon the subject may be made, certain principles came to be
accepted as the law of the land. The judges held themselves
bound to decide the cases which came before them according to
those principles, and as new combinations of circumstances
threw light on the way in which they operated, the principles
were, in some cases, more fully developed and qualified, and
in others evaded or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case. I ask you
to consider that this common law is merely old common usage,
altogether alien to the spirit of our age; and that it cannot be
enforced without making invidious, unfair, and infamous distinc
tions between one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to
say that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
power to prevent it.
<
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy, my
co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime. I urge
that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our age. The junior
counsel for the prosecution said blasphemy was prosecuted very
seldom ; it had not been prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and
he urged as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years !” That is not true. From my slight knowledge
of literature, which is not, as one of the journals said, entirely
confined to Tom Paine and the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
could undertake to furnish the junior counsel for the prosecu-
�41
lion with some tons of blasphemy published during that fifty
years; although I probably could not find the prosecution such a
powerful motive as they have recently had for proceeding against
these blasphemous libels. The law against blasphemy is practi
cally obsolete—the fact that there have been no such prosecutions
for fifty years ought to settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which includes the
whole of the offences against religion, says: “The whole of this
law is practically obsolete, and might be repealed with ad
vantage ; ” and he further said it would be sufficient as
to blasphemy if the power of prosecution were confined to
■the Attorney-General. In this case the Attorney-General
has had nothing to do with the prosecution. The jury were
told in another court the Public Prosecutor had instituted it.
As a matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule, and I
submit that his allowance or disallowance is scarcely equivalent
to the allowance or disallowance of the Attorney-General, and cer
tainly not equivalent to the institution of proceedings by the
Attorney-General. Mr. Justice Stephen says: “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought not to be
made the subject of temporal punishment at all, though, if it
tended to produce a breach of the peace, it might be dealt with
on those grounds.” I shall have a few words to say about breach
■of the peace shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephens says: “This law
is practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal punishment
should be inflicted for it. You are made the entire judges of
this question, under the very clear language of the celebrated
Libel Act, called “Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate libel
trials. When issue was joined between the Crown and one or
more defendants, it was there laid down that the jury were not
bound to bring in a verdict of guilty merely on the proof of
the publication by such defendants of a paper, and of the sense
ascribed to the same in the indictment. So that I hold
you are the complete judges; there is no power on earth that
can go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give a
reason for your verdict; you are simply called upon to say
guilty or not guilty; and I submit you have a perfect right to
say guilty or not—especially not guilty—on the broad issue of
the question ; and thus to declare that 'this blasphemy law is
utterly alien to the spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be enforced
now. The old common law was never put in force against
persons who only ridiculed the Christian religion. Our
indictment charges us with bringing the Christian religion into
■disbelief ; so that bringing it into disbelief is blasphemy. That
is logical—bringing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross con
�42
tempt. All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
forty years ago, and as far down as the year 1867, turn upon
the right of a man to questi m and oppose publicly the truth
of the Christian religion. Peter Annett stated in the “ Free
Inquirer” his disbelief in the inspiration of the Pentateuch, and
was punished for it; Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in
seven big volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop
of the English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. In the case of Woolston, he languished
in Newgate year after year, and I believe he died there.
For what? For saying that the miracles of the New Testament
should not be taken literally, but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy tales, and are all
doomed, and that educated and intelligent men treat them as
portions, of the world’s superstition. Nobody now thinks of
prosecuting Mr. Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same
offence as Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same
offence as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentlemen, the common law is more humane
now, it is only because the spirit of the age is more
humane. That you are bound to take into consideration, and
that should influence you in giving a verdict of not guilty to me
and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has always
held that it is a crime to call in question the truth of
the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the case of Cowan
v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of Exchequer • it
originally arose in Liverpool. The secretary of the Liverpool
Secular Society had engaged the assembly room for the purpose
of two lectures. The lectures were entitled, “The character
and teaching of Christ; the former defective, the latter mis
leading;” and the second, “The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of ridicule,
sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet when the owner of the
rooms, after the expense of advertising had been incurred, refused
the use of them for the lectures, and declined to compensate
the persons who had rented for those two nights, it was held by
the Court of Exchequer that it was an illegal act to deliver such
lectures with such titles, and that no damages could be re
covered, because the rooms had been declined for the perpetration
of an illegal act. Acting on this case, some solicitors at South
ampton last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly Room for a
lecture by myself, on the ground that the lecture would be an
illegal act. The lady who owned the room was pious, althorrgb
�43
she had not the honesty to recompense my friends for damages
they had incurred on the strength of her own agent’s written
contract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any im
pugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal act, and my
contention, therefore, holds good that bringing Christianity into
disbelief is as much a part of blasphemy as bringing it into
contempt.
I know there are objections urged against this view.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
England. We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of
this by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it, that if
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, in the
sense in which the words are generally used, then it would be
impossible to bring about any reform of law, because, no law
could be criticised, much less ridiculed, on the same ground that
Christianity, which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or
criticised. Something occurred to me which seems to go even
further than that; and that is, that if Christianity were part and
parcel of the law of the land, then the prosecution for blasphemy
would be an absurdity. There is no crime in criticising any law,
or ridiculing any law, in the pages of “ Punch.” If Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be no
crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the Royal Com
missioners in 1841. In their report they went into it at great
length. The Royal Commission did endorse that view, and
pointed out fully that if Christianity were part of the law of the
land, still the law could be criticised and ridiculed, and, there
fore, no blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds. Sir
Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first said that
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the country.
He was a man of great intellectual ability, and a most upright
judge ; but if he lived in our age, would he endorse such ridicu
lous. language now? He was infected by the superstition
of his age. This same judge sentenced two women to be hung
for witchcraft, an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live.” The time will come when it will be thought
quite as absurd to prosecute people for the crime of blasphemy
as we think it now to hang people for witchcraft. If blasphemy
be a crime at all, it is only a crime against god, who, if he be
omniscient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great altera
tions. in the state and in society, alterations which will justify
you in setting this old barbarous law aside. To begin with,
compulsory oaths have been abolished in our courts of justice
�44
Evidence can now be given by Freethinkers on affirmation.
Mr. Bradlaugh last week was acquitted on the evidence of
people, every one of whom affirmed, and not one of whom
took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to Parliament. I
don’t wish to enter into a religious discussion, or to provoke a
dying bigotry, but I do say, that if with the views the Jews are
known to entertain of the founder of Christianity, and if with
the acts of their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people, they
can be admitted in our national legislature, and help to
make laws which are stupidly said to be protective of Chris
tianity, then it is absurd for Christians to prosecute Freethinkers
for carrying on honest criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t
believe, and which they think they are bound to oppose and
attack. Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used to
be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now the House of
Commons simply clings to a narrow theistic ledge. I have
heard not only counsel but a judge speaking to a jury of Jesus
Christ as our lord and savior, when they ought to have
known—perhaps did know, but didn't remember in the heat of
enthusiasm—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might Ise some among them who knew Christianity and
rejected it. That shows you, still further, that the principles
and opinions which lie at the base of these proceedings ‘ire not
universal as they were once ; and that it is time all invidious
distinctions were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to
stand on their own bottom; and if they cannot stand on
their own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more particu
larly shown in the writings of our principal men. Mr. Leslie
Stephen, for instance, in anwsering the question, “Are we
Christians?” says: “No. I should reply we are not Christians; a
few try to pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst
substantially men of this age, they can cheat themselves into
using the old charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down
alarming social symptoms; a great number call themselves
Christians, because, in one way or another, the use of the old
phrases and th e old forms is still enforced by the great sanction
of respectability; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have
ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avowedly to
be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name.” No one who
has any knowledge of the kind of language held by intelligent
men will doubt that such sentiments are exceedingly common.
You all know the great and honored name of Darwin,
who spent his whole life in undermining the very foun
dations of Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know
�45
when the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prostituted
name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go, and no further,”
saw it was evident he was victor, it professed to honor him and
had him buried in Westminster Abbey; but the world is begin
ning to know if the Church has Darwin's corpse, it is all of
Darwin that the Church has had or ever will have.
A great scientist who doesn’t confine himselfto mere science, as
for the most part Darwin did, says: “ The myths of Paganism are as
dead as Osiris and Zeus, and the man who should revive them would
be justly laughed to scorn ; but the coeval imaginations current
among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers
whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be
unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate, but,
even at this day are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised
world as the authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of
the justice of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin
of things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the semibarbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now,
whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted
by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters ? Who shall count the host
of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the
effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose life has been wasted
in the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into
the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same
strong party ? It is true that if philosophers have suffered their
cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about
the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of
Hercules, and history records that whenever science and ortho
doxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to
retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated,
scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the
world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and
though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as wil
ling as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound science, and to visit, with such
petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl those
who refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand here on the
charge I have to answer, and why ? One is, the language of
a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other the language of a penny
paper.
J
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsly says €
in his work on “Responsibility in Mental Disease,that
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all three mad,
J
�46
{Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why? Because it would
not be safe to attack a man like that He is part of a powerful
corporation that would rally round any of its members attacked
and, therefore, he is left unmolested. Mr. Herbert Spencer, in
his “ Study of Sociology,” speaks thus of the Christian Trinity:
u Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare
will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an enforced
repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
each of them almighty; and yet there are not three almighties
but one almighty; that one of the almighties suffered on the
cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them; and
that whosoever does not believe this ‘without doubt shall
perish everlastingly.’ ” That is language which is, perhaps, as
scornful as any language a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could
use. There is no essential difference between that and language
of the mcst militant Freethought. Mr. John Stuart Mill, who
was not only a writer with a world-wide reputation, but who
occupied a seat in the House of Commons, said that his father
looked upon religion as the greatest enemy of morality; first by
setting up “fictitious excellencies, belief in creeds, devo
tional feelings and ceremonies, not connected with the good of
human kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for
genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating the
standard of morals, making it consist in doing the will of a
being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation,
but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hatefuL I have
a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations have
represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing pro
gression, that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till
they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This
plus ultra oi wicked
ness be considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity,” In one of
those alleged libels, the only passage I shall refer to, there is a
statement to the effect—a statement not in my handwriting—
(unfortunately I am in the position of having not only to defend
my own right but the right of others to be heard) in one of those
libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity of the Old
Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. Wbat is the difference
between a phrase like that and the extract I have read from
the writings of John Stuart Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that
the god of Christianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nine-shilling
book, and the other the language of a penny paper. Writers
and publishers of nine-shilling books should not be allowed to go
scot free and the writers of penny papers be made the scape-
�47
goat of the cultured agnostics of the day. John Stuart Mill, in
another book, says: “Think of a being who could be the ideali
sation of wickedness.” That is the language of John Stuart
Mill. His great friend, George Grote, the author of the
“ History of Greece,” is commonly admitted to be the
author of a little book, “An Analysis of the Influence of Natural
Religion,” which he put together from the notes of that great
jurispr'udist Jeremy Bentham, in which natural religion is
described as one historic craze, the foe of the human race,
and its doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another writer.
Lord Derby—who has given his support to a movement for the
abolition of the blasphemy laws—some months ago, presiding at a
meeting at Liverpool, said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the
few men who had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker.
He is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is a
writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In his fine and delicate
way he ridicules the Christian Trinity. He says : “In imagining
a sort of infinitely magnified and improved Lord Shaftesbury,
with a race of vile offenders to deal with, whom his natural
goodness would incline him to let off, only his sense of justice
will not allow it; then a younger Lord Shaftesbury, on the scale
of his father and very dear to him, who might live in grandeur
and splendor if he liked, but who prefers to leave his home, to
go and live among the race of offenders, and to be put to an
ignominious death, on condition that his merits shall be counted
against their demerits, and that his father’s goodness shall be
restrained no longer from taking effect, but any offender shall
be admitted to the benefit of it on simply pleading the satis
faction made by the son ; and then, finally, a third Lord Shaftes
bury, still on the same high scale, who keeps very much in the
background, and works in a very occult manner, but very
efficaciously nevertheless, and who is busy in applying every
where the benefits of the son’s satisfaction and the father’s
goodness.” Again, the same writer says: “ For anyone who
weighs the matter well, the missionary in clerical coat and gaiters
whom one sees in woodcuts preaching to a group of picturesque
orientals, is from the inadequacy of his criticism, both of his
hearer’s religion and of his own, and his signal misunderstanding
of the very volume he holds in his hand, a. hardly less grotesque
object in his intellectual equipment for his task than in his out
ward attire.” The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians themselves have
run, a long and learned discussion which took place at the
University of Paris nearly three centuries ago, as to whether
Jesus at his ascension had his clothes on, or appeared naked
before his disciples ; and if he did, what became of his clothes ?
�48
(Laughter.) If such a thing had appeared in the “ Free
thinker,” the junior counsel for the prosecution would havesaid “they are bringing our savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and we bring
them before you that they may be handed over to the tender
mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew Arnold is in no fear of
prosecution; it is only the poorer and humbler Freethinkers
who are to be attacked. Mr. John Morley-—who has thrown his
great influence in the scale against me—in his book on
. “Voltaire,” says, “That a religion which has shed more
blood than any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
I epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if published
in England now, would be made the subject of a prosecution, if
there was any honesty in conducting these prosecutions.
Mr. Morley now joins the chorus of those who howl the false word
“indecent” at me ; but no living person, no sentence under this
old law, can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval of
my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would rather be sitting
down in my cell, or meditatively walking up and down with racking
anxiety at my breast, than walk into the House of Commons
throwing my past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor of a
renegade.
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament: “Such a catalogue of crimes
would be sufficient to destroy the character of any Pagan divi
nity whatever. I fail to perceive any reason why the Jews alone
should be privileged to represent their god as guilty of such
actions without suffering the inference which in other cases
would undoubtedly be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of
deity were not of a very exalted order, nor their principles of'
morals of a very admirable kind. There is, indeed, nothing ex
traordinary in the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient
Hebrews should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would
rather be surprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their
savage deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their
god, should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in
the one case from the commands, in the other, from the imme
diate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindusrelate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all the
standards of morality, no such consciousness is ever apparent
in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far worse
offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his character
of the grace of shame.” If that had appeared in the “ Free
�49
thinker ” it would have formed one of the counts of the indict
ment. But no one has interfered with Lord Amberley. A
question was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution of
one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of the numbers
was meant to caricature almighty god. The question was
stopped by his lordship. With Lord Amberley’s words before
us, it is easy to understand that could not be meant to represent
almighty god. A man who after careful reflexion, after weigh
ing evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and moral
faculties upon the question, has arrived at the conclusion that there
is an infinite spirit of the universe akin to ours, though greater
—such a man would never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my
lips, or from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or attack. It
is not almighty god who could be ridiculed in a picture like that.
It is the Hebrew deity—the deity of semi-barbarous people who
lived 3000 years ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who
told them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they had never
built, to take possession of them in the name of god, and brutally
murder every man, woman, and child in them. Can it be a crime
to ridicule or even to caricature a mythological personage like
this? It is not almighty god who is ridiculed, it is simply
the deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become decent
and civilised now. The influences of culture and humanity are
at work, and although we utter the same old shibboleths, we
have different ideas, different tastes, and I hope different aspira
tions.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the Chris
tian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus, and critieises
in a hostile manner the holy scripture. If the law were put
in force fairly, it would be put in force there. Shelley has been
referred to. Shelley wrote, among other poems, one called
“ Queen Mab.” He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a
vengeful, pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for blood. As
the rest of this extract is couched in similar language, I forbear,
out of consideration for the feelings of those who may differ
from me, from reading further. But what I have read is suffi
cient to show that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous as anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And in
one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to Liberty,”
he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean serpent”—
44 The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s works
D
�50
now, and even the leading counsel for the prosecution could
actually accept office under a Ministry, of which the First Lord
of the Admiralty, on whose bookstalls Shelley's works are ex
posed for sale, was a member. Of the poets of our day, it mav
be said, three-fourths of them write quite as blasphemously,
according to the language of the prosecution, as any one in the
“Freethinker.” Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest, if not our
greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I don't think so—uses
in a poetical form the same language that was usedby Elijah to the
priests of Baal. You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah
had a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test They built altars and
they cried respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cut
and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but the fire would not
come. W hat did Elijah do ? Did he call them to a kind of
theological discussion, and say: “Now there is a mistake some
where, and we must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with what
Rabelais would call savglante derision, and he said, in the
language of to-day: “ Where is your god, what is he doing, why
doesn’t he answer you, has he gone on a journey, what is the
matter with him ?” That is the language of irony and the deadliest
sarcasm, and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had had one
tithe of the professed religious bigotry of our prosecutors they
would have done so, but history doesn’t record that they did.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “Hymn to Man,” turns the same
kind of derision on the priests of Christendom. He repre
sents them as calling upon their deity, and he says: “ Crv
aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then he says, by way of
finish:—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, nor warmth in
his breath ;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death ?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him and
men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he come to show judgment •
again ?
Shall god then die as the beasts die ? who is it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward, whose
faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of our tyrants, they call thee, their god by
thy name .
�51
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword,
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten ; thy death is upon
thee, O lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through the
wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
In his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he says :—
“ O hidden face of man, whereover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride,
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou hadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars ; lo,
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell’s worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee ;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb ?
No soul that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Thou shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Freethinkers
would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a mythological deity;
�52
they may ridicule miracles; but they will ’never ridicule the
tragic and pathetic sublimities of human life, which are
sacred, whether enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know
how to draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations 1 have read you had appeared in the “ Free
thinker ” they would have formed one of the counts of the
indictment. The only difference between them is, that one
is in a twelve-shilling book, and and the other in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised as
possessing the highest excellence by the greatest critics, whose
writings have been praised in the “ Athenaeum ” and the “ Fort
nightly Review.” I am referring to Mr. James Thomson. He
says:—
“ If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed
To everlasting torments doomed;
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there!) bow Adieu!
Almighty Devil da/mn me too.”
If that language had appeared in the “ Freethinker,” it would
have formed one of the counts of the indictment. What is the
difference ? Again, I say, the difference is between a five-shilling
book and a penny paper. When those books were reviewed, did
men point out those passages and condemn them ? Not at all.
They simply praised his genius; blasphemy is not taken into
consideration by men who write for papers of such stand
ing. George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm, aimed
at the popular idols of the day. She translated Feuerbach’s
“Essence of Christianity,” and Straus’ “Life of Jesus,” both
of which are indictable at common law, though they have never
been attacked. Renan, in his “ Life of Jesus,” supposes that
the raising of Lazarus took place at a time, when under the
messianic delusion the mind of Jesus had become perverted,
and that he had arranged the thing with Lazarus. Anonymous
books are pouring from the press. Here is one published by
Williams and Norgate. It is called the “Evolution of Chris
tianity.” Speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, it says: “Truly,
if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the genius
of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god of
the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly true
to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of divine in
tervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting details
�53
of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.” Only one other instance of ridicule. The writer,
referring to the sudden and mysterious death of Ananias
and Sapphira, as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, says:
“Ananias and Sapphira his wife sold some property, and
kept back a portion of the price. Perhaps Ananias was a
shrewd practical man, distrustful of socialism, and desirous
of holding something in reserve for possible contingencies.
Or Sapphira may have hinted that, if anything should happen
to her husband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds,
she would not like the position of a pauper scrambling among
the other widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have
been the motives of the doomed couple, if they had been
arraigned before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so
trivial an offence; but under the new regime of the holy ghost,
this unhappy husband and wife were condemned to instant
execution.” That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the “Freethinker,” it might have formed one of the counts of
our present indictment.
I have referred you to great Eving writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; 1 have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one .in my hand
which is circulated over the country and bears’ the imprint
of Messrs John and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way
of Christianity: “Buddhism is the only religion which has
made its way by sheer moral strength; it has become the vast
religion that it is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to
propagate its tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with
blood from keystone to battlement; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood that its poets are never tired of
hymning. . Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fire.
Buddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.” That is being circulated wholesale by respectable
pubhshers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of the
counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the “ Freethinker.”
Yet we know these publishers will never be molested because
they are not poor, and especially because they don’t happen to be
friendly with a politician, whose enemies want to strike him
with, a religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
pohtical sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised, that we
have dealt too freely in ridicule. What is it? You will remember
the ending of some of the problems in Euclid, which is what is
called a reductio ad absurdum, that is reducing a thing to an
absurdity. That is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of argument.
�54
The comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why may
it not be used, in religious matters also ? Reference was made to
a caricature, in one of our political journals, which shall be
nameless here. Mr. Gladstone is represented as “ Number 1 •”
and morally the conclusion is that he was the murderer of one
of his dearest friends. Nobody thinks of prosecuting that
paper the idea would be laughed at. We may caricature living'
statesmen, but not what are to us are dead dogmas. Surely
you will not give your warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr
Buckle says that every man should have a right to treat
opinion as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule
it, however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than Buckle,
John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the “Westminster
Review,” on the Richard Carlile prosecutions, in the year 1824 •.
and speaking of ridicule in that article, he says: “If the
proposition that Christianity is untrue, can leg’ally be conveyed
to the mind, what can be more absurd than to condemn it when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon of ridicule
has been used by a very large proportion of the great intellectual
emancipators of mankind; Socrates used it, and at the risk
of offending some, I may say that Jesus used it; Lucian
used it; the early Christian Fathers used it unsparingly
against their Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as would throw
into the shade anything that ever appeared in the “Freethinker.”
Luther used it, and used it well; Erasmus used it; the Lollards
used it; and it was freely used in the Catholic and Protestant
controversy that raged through and after the reign of Henry
VHI. It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
I know some may think that it is impolitic to introduce the name
of \ oltaire here, but Lord Brougham says that Voltaire was the
greatest spiritual emancipator since the days of Luther. Theonly difference between such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and
Diderot, was his illimitable wit. He had wit and his enemies
hated him for it. Ridicule has been used in all times.
To take ridicule. from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and. pruning process that you would
destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his ridicule, eliminate from
Shelley his ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be ! Ridicule is a weapon
which has been used by so many great emancipators of man
kind ; and if we have used it, even in a coarser manner than
they, it is the same weapon; and if the weapon is a legal one
there can be no illegality in the mere method of using it, and
there has been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it illegal. I
say that it is a dangerous thing to make men amenable to criminal.
�55
prosecution simply on a question of opinion and taste. Really if
you are to eliminate ridicule from religious controversy,' you
hand it over entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don’t want to become asinine
or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seenjs to me, if I may make a pun,
that the gravest thing in the world is the grave ; and if gentlemen
want the world to be utterly grave they will turn it into a grave
yard, and that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to
do for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet them by
subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which means slow
murder ; which cannot kill a strong man in two or three months,
but which may, in twelve months, convert him into a physical
and mental wreck, may make him a byword and scorn. Another
evidence forsooth of the truth and mercy of their creed!
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a minute
or two to the argument about outraging people’s feelings.
You never heard it proposed that this should be mutual; it is
always a one-sided thing. As Mill says in his great essay on
“Liberty:” “With regard to what is commonly meant by in
temperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and
the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to
both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of
them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing
they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will
be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest
zeal and righteous indignation.” I should regard with more
favor this argument if it were attempted to be made mutual.
Suppose I were to put into your hands a book like that of Father
Pinamonti’s “Hell open to Christians,” which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It contains a
picture of the torments of hell for every day in the week. That
is repulsive to my mind. In my opinion it would debauch the
minds of children into whose hands it fell, but I should not think
of calling in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such a question
is the great outside jury of public opinion. Indecent attacks on
religion it is said must be put down. I want you to cast out
ofyour minds altogether the absurd talk of indecency or licentious
ness. If we are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blas
phemy if you will; and don’t by confusing the real nature of our
alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be punished for
blasphemy, we ought to be punished for indecency, of which
I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I have
looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t think there is
anything in it to which this libel can approximate. If a man
�56
starts chemical works close to you, and poisons the atmosphere
you breathe, you have no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or
else remove your business and residence. That is trenching
on your rights. In a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no Act of Parliament to compel any person to
purchase a copy of the “ Freethinker.” The copies that will be
placed in your hands were purchased, not to be read, but for the
purposes of prosecution. It was not a surreptitious thing; it was
not a publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
freethought of the most insidious kind in every line. It is
called the “ Freethinker; ” the man who purchased it must have
done so deliberately, and gone into the shop to do it. As it was
not a paper freely exposed in the shop windows in London, a
man must have meant, before he went into the shop, to purchase
that very thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before be purchased it. I submit that as a man is not
forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he can do is
to allow other people to exercise their rights. It appears now
that liberty is to be taken in the sense of the rough Yankee, who
defined it as the right to do as he pleased and to make everybody
else do so too. Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be
protected from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to dislike.
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we have been told
is the proper view of this question. Starkie on “Libel” has
been quoted. I have not got Starkie’s work, but I have got
Folkard’s edition of the “Law of Libel,” and I must quote from
that. The fact that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie
shows in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution. That a
man should be in peril of losing his liberty on the dictum of
“the late Mr. Starkie” is a most dreadful thing. I hope that
won’t continue. He says: “A malicious and mischievous
intention, or what is equivalent to such an intention in law, as
well as in morals—a state of apathy and indifference to the
interests of society—is the broad boundary between right and
wrong.” I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be alleged I am
apathetic to the interests of society, I give it the most emphatic
denial. When “nefarious profit” is talked about, I tell the
learned gentlemen for the prosecution that they get far more
out of their advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause must
not count on profit; he can only count on the satisfaction
of what to him is duty done. There is no such thing as
apathy here to the interests of society. I have given of my time
and means, for great political and social causes, as much as these
men. I am no more apathetic to the interests of society than
�57
"they are. All these words mean very little. The contention
that has been raised is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of adjectives. These are not questions of fact, and when the
prosecution talk about “ maliciously insulting,” “ wickedly doing
so and so,” they simply use a string of adjectives which every
man may interpret differently from every other man, a string of
adjectives which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind of law by which a
man is to be tried. If it is so I can only deplore it; but it seems
I® me that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a noose put
round, the neck of every man who writes or speaks on the subject
of religion; and if he happens to be on the unpopular side some
body will pull the string, and without being worse than those in
the race before him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled.
I hope I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I want to
say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Kenan
says he has searched the whole Roman law before the time
•of . Constantine, without finding a single edict against any
Opinions. Professor Hunter says practically the same thing.
Blasphemy and heresy were originally not tried by secular courts
like these at all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
' Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the subject of law,
said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesiastical law;
and when the writ de lieretico comburendo was abolished in the
reign of Charles H., there was still special reservation made for
ecclesiastical courts to try offences. But when the clergy began
to lose their power over the people, the judges brought in the
very heresy law that had been abolished; the same heresy
with another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain that
in bad old times, when judges depended so much upon the favor
of the Crown and the privileged classes, and when the Church
of England was held necessary to the maintainance of the con
stitution, it was not wonderful that they should deliver
judgments on the question of blasphemy, which really made
it heresy as against the State Church. I say that blas
phemy meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on con
troverted points of religion if decently conducted. That was not
the language of those great judges of the past. They say we
might discuss controverted points of the Ohnsticcn religion_
those that were controverted amongst learned Christians; but
that the great dogmas that lay at the base of the articles of the
Established Church could not be called in question; and I could
�58
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you one casethat happened in this century. In the case of the Queen against
Gathercole, in which the defendant libelled the Scorton Nunnery,.
Baron Alderson laid it down : “ That a person may without bei-ng
liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the only reason
why the latter is in a different situation from the others is,,
because it is the form established by law, and it is therefore a part
of the constitution of the country.” Russell on “Crimes,”
volume 3, page 196, gives the case a little more fully. He
says: “When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith, called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecution
for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any sect of the
Christian religion save the established religion of the country,,
and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from
the other is, because it is the form established by law, and is
therefore part of the constitution of the country.”
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that heresy
and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought to mean,,
simply ridicule of the State Church or denial of its doctrines
that where religious sects differ from the State Church,
no matter what sect of Nonconformity it be, whether it be a
section of the great Roman Catholic Church itself, or a
Jewish body or Mahomedan believing in the existence of a deity,
yet on those grounds, when they differ from the Established
Church, they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and invidious
right to the Established Church ? If any of you is a Dissenter,
remember the murders, the robberies, and the indignities in
flicted on your ancestors by the State Church. If any one of you
is a Quaker, remember that the gaols of London were full of
your ancestors who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen,
remember that, and don’t give this State Church any protection..
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm, or argument, or
other forms of attack ? It has its livings worth ten or twelve
millions a year ; its has its edifices for worship in every parish of
the country; it has funds for the purposes of propaganda and
defence apart from its State connexions. It has had, until very
recently, practically all the educational appliances in its own
hands; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected against the onslaughts
of a few comparatively poor men? If a Church with such
advantages cannot hold it own, in the name of truth let it
go down. To prosecute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of god, is to prostitute all that is sacred in.
religion, and to degrade what should be a great spiritual power,.
�59
into a mere police agent, a haunter of criminal courts, and an
instructor of Old Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection for person,
property, and character, and all that can be legitimately derived
from these. The ordinary law of libel gives a man protection for his
character, but it is surely monstrous that he should claim protection
for his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that his tastes
shall not be violently outraged against his will. I hope, gentlemen,
you will take that rational view of the question. We have libelled
no man’s character, we have invaded no man’s person or pro
perty. This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order to put
down dissent and heresy. It now lingers amongst us as a legacy
utterly alien to the spirit of our age, which unfortunately
we have not had resolution enough to cast among those absur
dities which Time holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word, gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr. Justice
Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment should be in
flicted for blasphemy unless it led to a breach of the peace. I
have no objection to that, provided we are indicted for a breach
of the peace. Very little breach of the peace might make
a good case of blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like
this must not be constructive ; it must be actual. They might
have put' somebody in the witness-box who would have said that
reading the “ Freethinker ” had impaired his digestion and dis
turbed his sleep. (Laughter.) They might have even found
somebody who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentlemen, they
have not attempted to prove that any special publicity was
given to it outside the circle of the people who approved
it. They hav6 not even shown there was an advertisement
of it in any Christian or religious paper. They have not
even told you that any extravagant display was made of it;
and I undertake to say that you might never have known of it if
the prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this be con
strued as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment says we have
done all this, to the great displeasure of almighty god, and to the
danger of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. You
must bear that in mind. The law books say again and again that
a blasphemous libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy
on the deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is preposterous to
say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace. If you want
that you must go to the Salvation Army. They have a perfect
right to their ideas—I have nothing to say about them; but
their policy has led to actual breaches of the peace ; and even
in India, where, according to the law, no prosecution could be
�60
started against a paper like the “ Freethinker, ” many are sent
to gaol because they will insist upon proeessions in the street.
We have not caused tumult in the streets. We have not sent
out men with banners and bands in which each musician plays
more or less his own tune. (Laughter.) We have not sent out
men who make hideous discord, and commit a common nuisance.
Nothing of the sort is alleged. A paper like this had to be
bought and our utterances had to be sought. We have not
done anything against the peace. I give the indictment
an absolute denial. To talk of danger to the peace is
only a mask to hide the hideous and repulsive features of
intolerance and persecution. They don’t want to punish
us because we have assailed religion, but because we have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentlemen.
Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and not if we have
assailed religion ; and as you know we have not endangered the
peace, you will of course bring in a verdict of Not Guilty.
Gentlemen, I hope you will by your verdict to-day champion
that great law of liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty
which implies the equal right of every man, so long as he does not
trench upon the equal right of every other man, to print what he
pleases for people who choose to buy and read it, so long as
he does not libel men’s characters or incite people to the com
mission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in the result of
this trial. 1 am anxious for the rights and liberties of thousands
of my countrymen. Young as I am, I have for many years
fought for my principles, taken soldier’s wages when there were
any, and gone cheerfully without when there were none, and
fought on all the same, as I mean to do to the end; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment by the
verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose sacrifices for con
viction may not equal mine. The bitterness of my fate can
scarcely be enhanced by your verdict. Yet this does not diminish
my solicitude as to its character. If, after the recent scandalous
proceedings in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate a new era of perse
cution, in which no advantage can accrue to truth or morality,
but in which fierce passions will be kindled, oppression and
resistance matched against each other, and the land perhaps
disgraced with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I
hope, you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused and
eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work; you will
close a melancholy and discreditable chapter of history; you
will proclaim that henceforth the press shall be absolutely free,
�61
unless it libel men’s characters or contain incitements to crime,
and that all offences against belief and taste shall be left to the
great jury of public opinion; you will earn the gratitude of all
who value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and independence
as the crown of their manhood ; you will save yonr country from
becoming ridiculous in the eyes of nations that we are accustomed
to consider as less enlightened and free; and you will earn for
yourselves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its pro
gress, and its glory.
Mr. Foote’s speech, which occupied over two hours and a half in
delivery, created a profound impression on the Court, and evi
dently aroused a feeling of admiration on the part of the jury
and the Lord Chief Justice. At its close,
Lord Coleridge, addressing the jury, said: Gentlemen, I should
have been glad to have summed up this evening, but the truth
is, I am not very strong, and I propose, therefore, to address
you in the morning, and that will give you a full opportunity of
reflecting calmly on the very striking and able speech you have
just heard.
SECOND
DAY.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up to the jury, said—Gentlemen of the jury, the two prisoners, Foote and Ramsey,
are indicted before you for the publication of blasphemous libels,
and two questions arise. First of all, are these things in them
selves blasphemous libels ? secondly, if they are, is the publication
of them traced home to the defendants ? I will begin with the
last because it is the shorter and simpler question. Both are
questions entirely for you ; and when you have heard what I have
to say about the state of the law as 1 understand it, it will be for
you to pronounce a general verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. For
the purposes of the second question, which I take first, I will
assume that these are blasphemous libels. I assume it only for
the purpose of discussing the second question, and I will discuss
it on this basis. Logically, if they are not blasphemous libels,
we don’t want to discuss the second question. In discussing the
second question, I must assume for the purpose of argument that
they are blasphemous libels. Assuming these to be Ebels, is the
publication of them traced home to the defendants? Formerly,
the fact that a man was engaged in the publication of a paper of
�62
this sort—of any sort—and that he was either editor, publisher
or printer of a publication coming out from time to time, and
issued under his sanction, made him in a civil action responsible
for what appeared in it. It was held also to constitute a criminal
libel; and although the publication may have been, in point of
fact, by a servant of his, it would make him responsible in a civil
action, because in a civil action he would be responsible for the
acts of his servants. Yet the case of libel is a peculiar case, in the
existence of which sometimes things are assumed, by great
judges undoubtedly, and a series of decisions arrived at which
modify the law. It was undoubtedly an anomaly in our system
that in the case of libel only, facts which would not have justified
a criminal conviction against a defendant in any other form of
crime, did justify a conviction in the particular case of libel
—seditious or even personal libel. But at the same time, in
the time of Lord Campbell, when he was in the House of Lords,
an Act of Parliament was passed which altered the law in that
respect. The law as altered in that respect came under the con
sideration of the Court of Queen’s Bench in the time of my pre
decessor Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and was the subject mattei
of two decisions. I am obliged to go through this again, although
I went through it with the jury who tried Mr. Bradlaugh, and,
therefore, I must tell you what I told the jury in that case. In
the case of the Queen and Holbrook, which was a case of this
sort, there was a bad libel published on the town clerk of Ports
mouth in a Portsmouth paper, and the proprietor of the paper
was indicted for this libel. It was tried twice over, once before
Mr. Justice Lindley and once before Mr. Justice Grove, and on
both occasions the judges laid down the law sufficiently favorably
as the Court of Queen’s Bench were of opinion, for the person
accused. They laid down the law substantially in this way. If it
was proved, as in that case, that the proprietor of the paper made
over absolutely the control of a particular part of the paper to a
sub-editor or agent, and told him to use his own discretion, to
■do what he thought right from time to time in relation to that
paper, Mr. Justice Lindley and Mr. Justice Grove substantially
told the jury that they were at liberty to infer it was as if in
each particular case the active positive sanction of the defendant
had been obtained to a particular publication. Well, on both
occasions that was held by the Court of Queen’s Bench not to be
the proper way to lay down the law since Lord Campbell’s Act.
And the law now is that it is not enough to connect the defendant
with the publication in which the libel appears, but you must
connect the defendant with the libel itself in the publication.
They all say when a man has edited in any vague sense you like,
when he has been editor of a particular number of a paper in
which there has been a libel, that that will not do unless you
�63
.give evidence to show that he edited, sanctioned, or in some
manner had to do with the particular publication incriminated.
Now that is the way in which Justice Lush—of whose words I
am always glad to avail myself—that is the way in which he lays
down the law in the second case of the Queen and Holbrook.
The section is this : “ If in respect of the trial of any indictment
or information for the publication of a libel, under the plea of
not guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall establish a
presumptive case of publication against the defendant by the act
of any other person, or by his authority, it shall be competent for
.such defendant to prove that such publication was made without
his authority, consent or knowledge, and that the said publica
tion did not arise from want of due care and caution on his part.”
Then the learned judge goes on to say: “ The effect of the statute,
read by the light of previous decisions, must be that an authority
from the proprietor of a newspaper to the editor to publish
what is libellous, is no longer to be, as it formerly was, a question
of law, but a question of fact.” Before that Act passed, the
only question of fact was whether the defendant authorised the
publication of the paper. Now the question is whether he
authorised the publication of the “libel.” Therefore you
must, in this case, have evidence to connect the two defendants
with the publication of the libel as well as with the publi
cation of the paper. Now I think you will be of opinion
that this case has been very ably defended by the two persons
who are incriminated, but I must say they have not defended it
on the true grounds, but only on what they think true grounds.
The grounds to them are true, and upon it they desire to succeed
if they can—not that they would be unwilling to avail themselves
■of any advantage in their favor, because, in a legal sense, they
would have a perfect right to stand upon the strictest
technicality, if in their favor. But, as a matter of fact,
they have not in their defence taken the true points. They have
preferred to rest their case upon that which is the second branch
of this inquiry, and they have not seriously contested that they
did both authorise, sanction and engage in the pubheation, not
■only of the papers in which the libels appeared, but of the libels
themselves. Still, although they have not chosen to raise that
question in argument, it is proper you and I should see that there
is legal evidence on which we can fairly and properly say—
supposing these to be libels—you are guilty of the publication of
them. Now the evidence is certainly all one way. Mr. Kelland,
who is a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution, is called, and
says he purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street; that he purchased, upon the 30th of June, publi
cations of the 9th of April, the 23rd of April, the 30th of April,
the 7th of May, the 14th of May—all in 1882. The publication and
�64
purchase were in 1882. He bought at the same place a paper of
the 21st of May on the 24th of May, a paper of the 28th of May
on the 4th of June, and a paper of the 18th of June on the loth
of June. That I ought to explain, seeing it is published some
days before the date. They have a Sunday date upon that, and
the papers can be procured some days before the date, therefore
the paper of the 18th of June was bought on the 15th, and then
he says, “I purchased these mostly of Ramsey.” Now, any of
them—because really I cannot regard, and I suppose you will not
regard the publication of more than one of these—three or four—
of these libels, assuming them to be libels, as more than one, the
first one—the publication of any of the libels is sufficient, if it be a
libel, to bring the defendants within the meshes of this indictment..
And if you think Ramsey sold the papers across the counter—and
the witness was not cross-examined effectively upon that point,
and Ramsey did not dispute that he had sold those papers to
him—then as far as Ramsey is concerned, there is a distinct proof
of the publication of a number of these libels at all events,
because he was the proprietor of the paper and sold the copies
produced in court. That, according to any view of the law, is
distinct evidence of publication personally by Ramsey. As I
say, Ramsey is entitled to the credit of not having seriously dis
puted it. He doesn’t deny it. Still it is right it shouid be
proved, and it is proved by a witness that is not cross-examined.
If you believe Mr. Whittle, I don’t know that it is neces
sary to go further, as far as Ramsey is concerned, to connect
him with the actual publication of these libels. The
matter stands differently as regards Foote, because Mr.
Kelland, in reply to Foote, said, “ I purchased none of you; never.
I have seen you coming down stairs, not more than once, and
that was on the 16th of February. That is the time when I said
I saw you coming down stairs at Stonecutter Street.” That is
nothing, because in the first place it is months after these sales
had taken place ; and under the authority of the Queen and Hol
brook, if a man is seen coming down stairs it is not sufficient
for a libel. Then Air. Edward Whittle is called, and he says he
has seen Foote’s writing on particular papers, but not at St.
John Street. Whittle was not cross-examined. On looking at his
evidence before the Lord Mayor, it did not appear there was any
particular need to examine him. He said here substantially what
he said before the Lord Mayor. Whittle says he is a printer,,
carrying on business at 170 St. John Street. “ Those numbers,
which are the subject-matter of the counts of the indictment,
were printed by me for Ramsey. I know Foote, who has come
to give me orders for anything he wanted. I have had orders from
him as to some of these papers. He sent the manuscript for
the ‘Freethinker.’ The greater part came from Foote.
L
�65
usually saw the manuscript of the ‘Freethinker.’ I believe a
proof is sometimes pulled. I have seen proofs of the other
articles. The first article, that is the article in the first count
came from Foote. 1 know his handwriting.” This is—I won’t
say a friend in any bad sense, since he is an acquaintance of
Foote, by reason of his having printed for Foote. He has
really no hostility to Foote, but he is obliged, by force of law
to say what is the truth—that the first libel, in the first incrimi
nated paper came from Foote, and was sent in his handwriting.
If so, there is abundant evidence to show, as far as that is
concerned, that he is connected with it. He takes the second
and says: “Ishould not like to say where it came from. To
the best of my belief it came from Foote. It was in Foote’s
handwriting. I should imagine it came from Foote. This was
putin the paper by order of Foote. This paper was printed by me
by his orders.” It is impossible to say that is not evidence to con
nect Foote withtbe second incriminated passage. Then they take
the third. That was in Foote’s manuscript, and it was printed in
the paper by Foote’s orders. It is impossible to say that is not evi
dence that Foote is connected with this. The third, that is the illus
tration, was put into the paper by Foote’s direction. Then the
fourth. Foote didn’t write this one, but it was inserted in the
paper by his directions. Then as to to the next count. Foote
directed the insertion of this article. As to the next one, the
witness said : “I don’t know who wrote it, but Foote ordered it
to be inserted.” Then the next. “ Foote didn’t write this, but
ordered it to be put in the paper.” As to the next, witness
says: “Mr. Heaford wrote this.” Then the next. “ Mr.
Foote ordered this to be inserted.” “Mr. Foote’s name is on
the paper.” Then the last one. “He authorised this also; he
has never spoken to me about the meaning of these cartoons he
has never told me he edited the paper.” You will remember that
yesterday, I prevented a general question put in that form, bear
ing in mind the Queen v. Holbrook. A man may be the editor
of a paper but it doesn’t follow, because he is the general editor
of a paper, everything in that paper makes him criminally liable.
It must be shown that the incriminated portions of the paper
have had, so to say, his mind upon them, and that his mind has
gone with the publication of them. Now on the part of young Mr.
Whittle we have had this evidence, which certainly is sufficient,
uncontradicted—and it is uncontradicted—to show that Foote*
as well as Ramsey, was actively, and within the decision to which
I have already adverted, connected with the publication of these
incriminated passages. There is no evidence on the other side.
I must say that Mr. Foote, in his very able speech, rather
assumed that he was responsible for these publications, that he
authorised them, and that his mind did go with them. Anything;
E
�66
he said in his speech would probably be not enough, but here is
the evidence of Whittle, whom he did not cross-examine ; who
gave his evidence with reluctance—not unbecoming reluctance—
because he was giving evidence against a person by whom he was
employed. So he gives evidence which fastens on Foote the
responsibility of the publication of every one of these incriminated
passages. I don’t know that it is proved he wrote them in the
sense of having composed them, but with regard to all of them
it is shown he sent them to the printer with directions to have
them printed in the “Freethinker.” Now that is enough to
satisfy you, unless you can see some reason which I cannot
suggest to you, to doubt this evidence. Supposing you assume
these to be libels—Foote and Ramsey both are answerable for
their publication. That, however, of course, is, comparatively
speaking, the least matter which you had discussed yesterday,
because the proof was clear, and the proof was not, in fact, dis
puted. The other point, which is first in logical relation, remains—
Are, these within the meaning of the law blasphemous libels?
Now that is a matter that as you have been truly told is
entirely for you. You have the responsibility of looking at them,
and of pronouncing whether they are or are not blasphemous
libels. My duty is to express to you, as clearly as I can, what is
the law. upon the subject; I will not say to answer, because it
is not the duty of a judge to answer, the speeches made;
but it is, as I conceive, his duty to point out to you which
■of the observations are well founded in his judgment. No one
knows more than I how erring and feeble that judgment is. Still
it is to be exercised to the best ability god has given me, and
you must take it for what it is worth, and then the matter is for
you. In addressing any jury, but more especially a jury like this,
I should feel the most absolute confidence that a jury in a criminal
case would obey the law as laid down, and whether they liked it
oi' not, they would take the law from the judge and apply it like
honest men to the facts; because, as I said a week before, it is far
more important that the law should be administered conscien
tiously, than that the law in a particular case should be a good or
bad law ; because the moment judges or juries go beyond their
functions, and take upon them to find one way or the other—
not according to the law as it is but as they think it ought to be
—then, instead of any certainty, anything upon which any sub
ject can rely, we are left to an infinite variety of human opinion,
to the caprice—excuse me using the expression—to the caprice
that may at any moment influence the best of us, to the preju
dices that bias—I will not say that, because sometimes prejudices
are good—but to the feelings and prejudices which distort and
disturb the judgment from the simple operation of ascertaining
whether the facts proved come within the law, as they are
�67
’bound to take it. You have heard, and heard with truth, that
these things are, according to old law, old dicta of old judges,
'undoubtedly blasphemous libels, because they asperse the truth of
Christianity. I said a week ago—and I see no reason to doubt that
I said correctly—in regard to these words and to these expres
sions, for reasons which I will give presently, from the very cases
in which these expressions have been used, that can no longer be '
taken to be a statement of the law'in the present day. It is no longer
true in the sense in which it was true when those statements were
■made. It may be true in another sense—-I don’t say it is not—but it
is no longer true, in the sense in which those statements were made,
that Christianity is the law of the land. Jews, Nonconformists,
Mahomedans, and a variety of persons in the times when these
dicta proceeded from great judges, were treated as having scarcely
■any- civil rights at all. It was impossible, in a free country, to
persecute them to death, but almost everything short of persecu
tion to death was enacted deliberately by the Parliament of this •
country against such persons—I don’t mean by name because it
was not so ; and it has often been pointed out that the exclusion
-of the Jews was an exclusion
accident, although I am bound
to confess I had never much faith in that. They were histori
cally excluded, probably because, at the time when the statute
was passed, they were not thought sufficiently worthy an Act
■of Parliament. But now—I may be in error—but as far as I know “
the law a Jew maybe Lord Chancellor. Certainly a Jew may
be Master of the Rolls; certainly, by the merest accident when
the late Master of the Rolls was appointed, before the Judicature
Act came into operation, a great and illustrious lawyer, whose
loss the whole profession is deploring, and in whom those who
were honored with his friendship knew they lost a warm friend
and loyal comrade—he might have sat here and tried this very
case, and he might have been called upon to say—at least if the
■law be correct, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
the land. He, a Jew, might have been bound to lay down, accord
ing to that view, to a jury in which there might have been half
a dozen Jews, that it was a breach of the law, subjecting a man
to twelve months’ imprisonment, to deny that Jesus Christ was the
Messiah, a thing which he himself did deny, which every Jew in
■the land must deny, which Parliament has deliberately allowed
them to deny, and which it is just as much now under the law of
the land their right to deny, as it is your right and mine, if we
believe it, to assert it. Therefore, to base the prosecution of an
aspersion on Christianity per se—I shall, I hope, be taken to mean
no more than I exactly express—to base a prosecution for an
aspersion of Christianity perse, on the ground that Christianity is in
the sense of Lord Hale, Lord Raymond, or Lord Tenterden, part of
the law of the land, is, in my judgment, to forget that law grows
�68
like other things, that though the principles of law remain, yet that
the law grows. And it is one of the inestimable advantages of
the common law that it is so, that the principles of law have tobe applied to infinitely changing circumstances and to growth—
some people would say towards retrogression, but I should venture
to say towards progression of human opinion. Therefore, merely to
discover that Christianity is denied, or the truth of Christianity is
denied, on general grounds, and to say, therefore, that a man may
be indicted for a blasphemous libel, is absolutely untenable ; and 1,
for one, will certainly never, until I am boundtodoso—of course
I should be happy to obey the law like a dutiful subject, if
it is expressed in a way I cannot fail to understand—
but, until it is so expressed, I shall not lay down the law in a
way which cannot be historically justified. The Acts being
passed, Parliament is the maker of the laws, and if Parliament
has passed laws which make the dicta of the old judges no
• longer applicable it is no disrespect to those judges to say
that laws made under one state of things are no longer law under
_ another state of things, which Parliament has altered. When I
_
last addressed the jury on this subject I said—and 1 thought that
I said—this shows how careful you should be—that I said what
appeared to me almost a reductio ad absurdum ; that if tnis were
still the law of the land—1 put it respectfully—I said it would be
impossible to discuss any question of the law as it is, that there
could be no reform, that it would not be possible to discuss the
question whether a Republican or Monarchical form of Govern
ment was the best, as Harrington did in his “ Oceana,” and as
other writers have done, without danger of being prosecuted for
a seditious libel. But this case has led me to look into such few
books as I possess ; and what 1 thought was a reductio ad
absurdum I find is held in the case of the King v. Bedford.
There a man is prosecuted for discussing gravely and civilly,
and, as the report says, “with no reflexion whatever upon
any part of the existing Government.” He was actually con
victed of a seditious libel because he said hereditary principles
were not the wisest. I find 150 years ago a man was actually
convicted for gravely and seriously maintaining that which I
thought could be seriously and gravely maintained without any
infringement of the law. I need hardly say if the case came up
now no judge or jury would convict. It would be monstrous
such a thing should be done. That may show shortly that the
bare statement that it is enough that these things are denials,
utter denials, of the tiuth of the religion of Christ is not
maintainable. I should not think that it was enough to show a
mere denial of Christianity in the present to make the thing
capable of being attacked. “But, no doubt, whether we like it or
not, we must not be guilty, and Imust not be guilty, of anything
�69
like taking the law into one’s own hands, and to wrest the law
from what it really is, and to convert it into what I may think in
my foolish judgment it ought to be. I must lay down the law
to you as I understand it and find it in books of authority. Mr.
Foote, in his very able speech yesterday, spoke with something
like contempt of the late Mr. Starkie. Well, he did not know
the late Mr. Starkie, and how very able and good a man he was.
When I was young I knew him. He was not only a man of
remarkable powers of mind—perhaps he never had his rightful
estimate in the world—he was a man of liberal opinions, and a
person in whose hands—if law-making can be safe in anyone’s
hands—I should have thought it might be safely left. Whether
I am right or not is immaterial, because this view of Mr. Starkie’s
has been again and again assented to, and it appears to me to con
tain a correct statement of the existing state of the law. He says :
“There are no questions of more intense and awful interest
than those which concern the relations between the creator and
the beings of his creation ; and though, as a matter of discretion
and prudence, it might be better to leave the discussion of such
matters to those who, from their education and habits, are most
likely to form correct conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted
that any man has a right, not merely to judge for himself on such
subjects, but also, legally speaking, to publish his opinions for
the benefit of others. When learned and acute men enter upon
those discussions with such laudable motives, their very contro
versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily be
mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general tend
to the advancement of truth and the establishment of religion
on the firmest and most stable foundations. The very absurdity
and folly of an ignorant man, who professes to teach and
enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so gross as to render
his errors harmless; but be this as it may, the law interferes not
with his blunders so long as they are honest ones—justly con
sidering that society is more than compensated for the partial
and limited mischief which may arise from the mistaken endea
vors of honest ignorance by the splendid advantages which
result to religion and truth from the exertions of free and nnfettered minds. It is the mischievous abuse of this state of
intellectual liberty which calls for penal censure. The law visits
not the honest errors but the malice of mankind. A wilful in
tention to pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of
licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or
by wiful misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mis
lead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.
Malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equivalent to such
an intention in law as well as morals—a state of apathy and in
difference to the interests of society—is the broad boundary
�70
between right and wrong.” Now, gentlemen, I believe that to be acorrect statement of law. Whatever it ought to be, the law is not
a matter for you or me. I have only to ascertain what is the
law, and, having ascertained it, to explain it to you, as far as my
powers of explanation enable me, and to leave you to apply the
facts to the particular case before you. I cannot help saying,
there is a great deal that strikes my mind in the way in whichMr. Foote dealt with this passage on these principles of Mr.
Starkie, but there is more to be said, I think, than at first sight
perhaps, appears; and there is a passage in this same book of
Mr. Starkie’s—not a passage of his own, as I understand it,,
though it is not quite clear whether it is or not, but I believe it.
to be a translation from the work of Michaelis, in which he says
that which is true enough. He says it is not clear whether it is a
bad thing for the libeller that he should be punished by the law
rather than by the rougher handling of an angry populace. And
he says: “Were the religion in question only tolerated, still
the State is bound to protect every person who believes it from
such outrages, or it cannot blame him if he has not the patience
to bear them. But if it be the established national religion—and
of course the person not believing it, is only tolerated by the
State, though he enjoys its protection just as if he were in a
strange house—such an outrage is excessively gross, and unless
we conceive the people so tame as to put up with any affront,
and of course likely to play but a very despicable part on thestage of the world, the State has only to choose between the two
alternatives of either punishing the blasphmer himself, or else
leaving him to the fury of the people. The former is the milderplan, and, therefore, to be preferred, because the people are apt
to gratify their vengeance without sufficient inquiry, and of
course it may light on the innocent. Nor is this by any means a
right which I only claim for the religion which I hold to be thetrue one; I am also bound to admit it, when I happen to be
among a people from whose religion I dissent. Were I in a
Catholic country to deride their saints, or insult their religion
by my behavior, were it only rudely and designedly putting onmy hat, where decency would have suggested the taking it off; or
where I in Turkey to blaspheme Mahomet, or in a heathen city,.
its gods—nothing would be more natural than for the people,.
instead of suffering it, to avenge the insult in their usual way—
that is tumultously, passionately, and immediately ; or else the
State would, in order to secure me from the effects of their fury,
be under the necessity of taking my punishment upon itself; and.
if it does so, it does a favor both to me and other dissenters from
the established religion, because it secures us from still greater
evils. Therefore it is not socleartomy mindthatsome sort of pro
tection of the constituted religion of the country is not a good*.
�71
'thing even to those who differ from it because if there were no
such protection the consequences pointed out by Michaelis
might ensue. It does not follow that because the objects of
popular dislike differ in different ages—it does not follow (I
wish it did) that the populace of one age is much wiser than the
populace of another. It is not so very long ago since a Bir
mingham mob wrecked the house of Dr. Priestley, as good, dis
tinguished and illustrious a man as probably has ever been an
English subject. And that was not, remember, the State that
did that—it was the populace that wrecked his house and
destroyed his library. Therefore, it is not quite so sure to my
mind, that some sort of blasphemy laws, reasonably enforced,
are not to the advantage of persons who differ from the religion
of the country, and who are intending and desire to destroy it.
Therefore, it must not be taken as so absolutely certain that all
those laws against blasphemy are tyrannical. It is not so sure.,
when you come to look at the matter calmly and quietly, and
not from Mr. Foote’s or Mr. Maloney’s point of view, it is not
so sure that some kind of law of this sort is not advan
tageous. However, the principle is to be found laid down in
Starkie, and that principle is as I have expressed it to you. I
think it right to say that the cases that I have quoted to you—I
don’t pretend that I have the time or the learning to read every
case written upon the subject—but the cases which I have been
able to study, do not satisfy me that the law was ever different
from the way in which Starkie has laid it down. I have taken three
cases, about seventy or eighty years apart, and I find that the
law, as I understand it, is laid down exactly the same in all those
three cases. The first case is a case decided by that great
lawyer of whom Mr. Foote spoke, Lord Hale. He rightly said
he was a man of absolute integrity and great intellectual
force; and perhaps if he had read, as I have done, all the trial
of the witches before Lord Hale, he would have seen that Lord
Hale was there doing, what many a judge has to do—was ad
ministering a law he did not like, and so gave the accused per
son every advantage which his skill and the law allowed him, but
neither the prisoners nor jury would take advantage of it. The
case is a very curious one, and if any one reads it, I think it
would be a very rough analysis of it to say, that Lord Hale bung
people for witchcraft because of a passage in the Bible, though,
no doubt, the passage was referred to. Anybody who will be at
the pains to read that case will say there is more to be said for
Lord Hale than the general run of mankind believe. Lord Hale
in the case of Taylor had these words before him—and you
must always take a case according to the subject matter it
decides, and the opinion contained—these expressions, ter
rible to read, namely, “That Jesus Christ was a bastard, a
�72
whoremaster, an imposter, and a cheat, and that he, Taylor,
neither feared god, man, nor deviL” Those were the words
upon which Lord Hale had to decide in that case, and
Lord Hale said that such kinds of blasphemous words
were not only an offence against god and religion, but a crime
against the laws and therefore punishable. He did not say that
a grave argument against the truth of revelation was so punish
able, but that such kind of wicked and blasphemous words were.
That is what Lord Hale held in that case. That is one of the
■earliest cases on the subject. You may find expressions which
seem to go further, but you ought to look before you cite these
cases so glibly as some people do. You should look and see
v hat was the subject matter of the decision. Lord Hale held
that to be a blasphemous libel, and if it was a matter of law I
should be compelled to say it was a blasphemous libel, though I
trust I am not disposed to hang witches. (Laughter.) But I
believe that to be a perfectly accurate description of the state
of the law as it is at present. The next case which has been
so much cited from Strange, although it is better reported from
Fitz-Gibbon, is that of Woolston, who was convicted of blas
phemous discourses on the miracles of our lord, and the Court
laid very great stress on the words in the indictment “ general and
indecent attacks,” and stated that they did not intend to include
disputes between men on controverted points. That is the law
as laid down by Lord Raymond. The case that has been com
monly cited as bringing it down later is that of the King
Waldington, which was decided by Lord Tenterden, and the
words of the libel were—“That Jesus Christ was an impostor,
a murderer and a fanatic.” The Lord Chief Justice laid it down
that that was a libel, and a juryman asked the Lord Chief
Justice whether a work tliat denied the divinity of our savior
was a libel. Now mark the answer given by Lord Tenterden,
one of the most cautious and justly respected men. He answered
thata work speaking of Jesus Christ in the language referred to
was,a libel. His answer is that a work speaking of Jesus
Christ in the language used in the publication in quesquestion is a libel, and I have read the words. That case came
before the King's Bench, which consisted of Lord Tenterden,
Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Ilolroyd, with Mr. Justice Best.
The three first-named judges being as great lawyers as ever sat
upon the Bench, and I think no one would compare Mr. Justice
Best with Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, or Mr. Justice
Holroyd, When the case was moved to the King’s Bench, Lord
Tenterden said: “I told the jury that any publication in which
our savior was spoken of in the language used in this publica
tion was a libel, and I have no doubt whatever that it is so. I
have no doubt it is a libel to publish the words that our savior
�73
was an impostor, a murderer, and a fanatic.” Mr. Justice
Bayley says: “ It appears to me that the direction of the Lord
Chief Justice was perfectly right. There cannot be any doubt
that a work which does not merely deny the godhead of Jesus
Christ, but which states him to have been an impostor and a
murderer is at common law a blasphemous libel.” Mr. Justice
Holroyd says: “I have no doubt whatever that any publication
in which Jesus Christ is spoken of in the language used in this
work is a blasphemous libel, and that therefore the direction was
right in point of law.”
Mr. Justice Best gives a longer
judgment, in somewhat more rhetorical language, but to the
same effect; and he concludes: “It is not necessary for me to
say whether it be libelous to argue from the scriptures against
the divinity of Christ.
That is not what the defendant
professes to do.” Then he says: “ The Legislature has never
altered the law, nor can it ever do so while the Christian
religion is considered to be the basis for that law. There is a
case which is often cited as an authority to show that to deny or
dispute the truth of Christianity is an offence against the law,
because there is a statement that Christianity is part, or ought to
be part and parcel of fthe law of the laud. That is the case of
the King v. Waddington, which is one of the latest which binds
me here, and upon which I shall be bound to direct you. I
think when you come to consider the cases you will very much
doubt whether the old law is open to the strong attacks that
have been made upon it. I doubt extremely whether, if you
come carefully and quietly to look at and read through—not
merely look at—the notes and extracts read from cases, and
master the facts of the cases upon which those old decisions
were pronounced—I doubt if they will be found to be so
illiberal and harsh as it has been the fashion to describe them in
modern times. After all, I say as I said before, that Parliament
has altered the law on the subject; it is no longer the law that
none but holders of the Christian religion can take part in the
State, or have rights in the State ; but, on the contrary, others
have just as much right in civil matters as any member of the
Church of England has. The condition of things is no longer the
same as it was when those great judges pronounced those
judgments which I respectfully think have been misunderstood,
and strained to a meaning they do not warrant. It is a comfort
to think that things have been altered, because I observe that in
the case of the Attorney-General v. Pearson, which is a very
interesting case, decided'in 1817 by Lord Eldon, it seems there
was some doubt expressed as to whether the 9th and 10th
IVilliam the Third as to persons denying the Trinity were
still in operation. I do not want to be a defender of old things ;
they are shocking enough, and under this Act men are prevented
�74
from holding any kind of office if they deny this or that; inshort, if he does not hold the Thirty-nine Articles a man is
liable to punishment, and after a second offence still more
terrible things are to follow. It must be remembered what was
the state of the country at the time that statute was passed, who
was the king upon the throne, the state of political factions, what
were the feelings that not unnaturally agitated men’s minds
And regard being had to all that—I am not going to defend it
for a moment, I do not say it is to be defended—then it is to be a
good deal more explained than at first sight appears. At all
events, it is enough to say no man could dream of enacting 9th
and 10th William the Third at the present day; and 1 hope
and trust that Lord Eldon’s doubts as to whether some parts
of these are still in existence will never be brought to
a solution in a court of law which says they are well
founded. Such are the rules by which you are to judge of these
libels. You have heard a great deal—and here is the least
pleasant part of my duty, which I wish I could avoid—you have
heard a great deal very powerfully put to you by Mr. Foote,
about the inexpediency of these laws, and the way these laws areworked. It might, perhaps, be enough to say that is a matter
with which you and I have nothing to do. What we have to dois simply to administer the law as we find it; and if we find the
law such as we don’t like, the only thing to do is to try to get it
altered, and in a free country, after discussion, public agitation,
and excitement, a change is always effected, if it approves itself
to the general sense of the community. But there is no doubt it
has been very well put to you, and it is worth observation that
there is a good deal to be said for the view Mr. Foote has so ably
put forward. It is true if this movement is to be regarded as perse
cution, it is perfectly true—unless persecution is thorough-going—
it seldom succeeds. Mere irritation, mere annoyance, mere punish
ment that stops short of extermination, have very seldom the effect
of altering men’s religious convictions. 1 suppose—because they
are passed away—I suppose that, quite without one fragment of
rhetorical exaggeration, I may say that the penal laws, which fifty
or sixty years ago were enforced in Ireland, were unparalleled
in the history of the world. They had existed 150 years; they
had produced upon the religious convictions of the people abso
lutely no effect whatever. You could not exterminate the Irish
people. You did everything that was possible by law, short of
actual violence and extermination, but without the slightest effect.
And, therefore, there is no doubt that the observation is a correct
one, that persecution, as a general rule, unless it is more
thorough-going, than, at any rate, in England, and in the nine
teenth century, anybody would stand—is, generally speaking,,
of little avail. It is also true—and I cannot help assenting to it—
�that it is a very easy form of virtue. A difficult form of virtue
is quietly and unostentatiously to obey what you believe to be
god’s will in your own lives. It is not very easy to do that and if
you do it, you don’t make much noise in the world. It is very
easy to turn upon somebody who differs from you, and in the
guise of zeal for god’s honor, to attack somebody who differs from
you in point of opinion, but whose life will be very much more
pleasing to god, whom you profess to honor, than your own.
When it is done by persons whose own lives are full of pretend
ing to be better than their neighbors, and who take that parti
cular form of zeal for god which consists in putting the criminal
law in force against somebody else—that does not, in many
people’s minds, create a sympathy with the prosecutor, but rather
with the defendant. There is no doubt that will be so ; and if
they should be men—-I don’t know anything about these persons—
but if they should be men who enjoy the wit of Voltaire, and
who do not turn away from the sneer of Gibbon, but rather relish
the irony of Hume—one’s feelings do not go quite with the pro
secutor, but one’s feelings are rather apt to sympathise with the
defendants. It is still worse if the person who takes this course
takes it not from a kind of rough notion that god wants his
assistance, and that he can give it—less on his own account than
by prosecuting others—or if it is mixed up with anything of a
partisan or political nature, then it is impossible that anything
can be more foreign from one’s notions of what is high-minded,
religious, and noble. Indeed, I must say it strikes me that anyone
who would do that not for the honor of god, but for his own
purposes, is entitled to the most disdainful disapprobation that
the human mind can form. However, the question here is not
with the motives—of which I know nothing—nor with the
character, of which I know less, of the prosecutors, or those who
instituted these proceedings, but with the proceedings them
selves, and whether they are legal. The way in which that
matter has been dealt with by Mr. Foote is extremely able and
well worthy of your attention ; and it is for you to say, after a
few words from me, what effect it produces upon your minds.
Mr. Foote’s case is, as I understand it, this—he will forgive me
if I do not quite state it accurately : “I am not going to main
tain that this is in the best taste; some of it may be coarse, some
of it may to men of education give offence. It is intended to be
an attack on Christianity ; it is distinctly intended to be an attack
on. what I have seen in the publications of cultivated agnosticism.
It is meant to point out that in the books, which you Christians
and professing Christians call sacred, are to be found records of
detestable crimes, of horrible cruelties, all of which are said to
have been pleasing to almighty god. I do mean to attack this
representation of god. I mean to say all that is not true : I say it
�76
is a detestable superstition. I mean it, and if I have said it in
coarse language, that is because (though he need not have
said this) I have not sufficient education or culture to cull
my words carefully; but I will bring before you a number
of books, sold upon every bookstall, written by persons
admitted to the very highest society in the land, in
which not only are the same things to be found, in point
of matter, but I will read you passages in which there is very
little difference between the matter and the manner, and I
will read you, for example, passages from Mr. John Stuart Mill,
-Mr. Grote, passages from Shelley, and from other persons. I
mention those who are dead so as not to wound the feelings of
any. Nobody ever dreamed of attacking Shelley (that is not 1
quite correct, for the publisher was prosecuted, and he himself I
was deprived by Lord Eldon of the custody of his children). I '
will show you, says the defendant, things written by them quite
as strong and as. coarse as anything to be found in these
publications of mine; and, says Mr. Foote, it is plain the law
cannot be as suggested, because it cannot be said that a poor
man can not do what a rich man may ; it cannot be said you may
blaspheme in civil language. And more than that, he says, £;I
will show you that the manner of some of these publications is
no better than mine.” Let me say upon that subject two things;
one is in Mr. Foote’s favor and one is against him. He wished
strongly to have brought to your minds that in the sense in
which .Starkie used the words—that is the ordinary sense of the
word licentious—Mr. Foote is anxious to have it impressed on you
that he is not a licentious writer, and that this word does not
fairly apply to his publications. You will have the documents
before you, and you must judge for yourselves. I should say
that he is right. He may be blasphemous, but he certainly is not
licentious, in the ordinary sense of the word; and you do not
find him pandering to the bad passions of mankind. That is a
thing in his favor, and is entitled to be said. With regard to the
other point, if the law as I have laid it down to you is correct,
so far as the decencies of controversies are observed—as far as I
can see, it always has been the law, and certainly I lay down
as law to you now—that if decencies of controversy are observed,
even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a
person being guilty of blasphemous libels. There may be many
great and grave writers who have attacked the foundations of
Christianity. Mr. Mill, undoubtedly, did so, and some great
living writers may also have attacked Christianity; but no one
can read these articles without seeing a difference between
them and the incriminated publications which I am obliged to
say is not a difference of degree but of kind. There is a grave,
earnest, reverent—perhaps I may say religious—tone about the
�77
Very attacks upon Christianity itself, which show that what isaimed at is not insult to the opinions of the majority of mankind,
or the holders of- Christianity, but a real, quiet, earnest
pursuit of the truth. If the truth at which they have arrived is
not the truth we have been taught, and which, perhaps, if we
thought for ourselves we should arrive at, yet because their con
clusions differ from ours, they are not to be the subject matter of
a criminal indictment. Therefore with regard to many of the
people whose writings have been very properly brought before
you by Mr. Foote—with regard to many of those persons I
should say they are within the protection of the law and
are well within the authority of the passage I have read to
you, and which I remind you of, as containing my judgment.
With regard to some of the others from whom Mr. Foote quoted
passages, I heard many of them for the first time. I do not at
all question that Mr. Foote read them correctly.
They
are passages which, hearing them only from him for the
first time, I confess I have a difficulty in distinguishing
from the incriminated publication. They do appear to me
to be open to exactly the same charge and the same grounds of
observation that Mr. Foote’s publications are. He says—and 1
don’t call upon him to prove it, I am quite willing to take his
word—he says many of these things are written in expensive
books, published by publishers of known eminence, and that they
circulate in the drawing-rooms, studies, and libraries of persons
of position. It may be so. All I can say here is—and so far I
can answer for myself—I would make no distinction between
Mr. Foote and anybody else ; and if there are persons, however
eminent they may be, who used language, not fairly distinguish
able from that used by Mr. Foote, and if they are ever brought
before me—which I hope they never may be, for a more trouble
some or disagreeable business can never be inflicted upon me_
if they come before me, so far as my poor powers go, they shall
have neither more nor less than the justice I am trying to do to
Mr. Foote ; and if they offend the Blasphemy Laws they shall 1
find that so. long as these laws exist—whatever I may think
about their wisdom—they will have but one rule of law laid down
in this court. That Mr. Foote may depend upon, and I admit,
as far as I can judge, some of them, that they are strong,
shall I.say coarse expressions of contempt and hatred for the
recognised—generally recognised—truths as we take or have
accepted them of Christianity, and of the Hebrew Scriptures,
which are said to have been inspired of god himself. Mr. Foote
must however forgive me for saying that that is no argument in
his favor. It is no argument for a burglar—I mean nothing
offensive to him—I should be unworthy of my position if 1
insulted anyone in his position—it is no argument in favor of a
�78
■burglar to say that some other person has committed a burglary.
Because some persons may have escaped, in the infinite variety
of human affairs, that is no reason why others should not be
brought to justice. If he is right in his quotations from these
writers, it appears to me they are fairly subject matter of such a
prosecution as this. Suppose they are, it does not show that he
is not. What Mr. Foote had to show—which he did to the best
of his ability, and it is not his fault if the law is against him—
. what he had to show was, not that other people were bad, but
that he was good; not that other persons were guilty, but that
he was innocent. And it is no answer to bring forward these
■cases, some of which I confess I cannot distinguish from some of
these incriminated articles. It is not enough to say these
persons have done these things if they are not brought before
us. I not only admit, but I urge upon you, and everybody who
hears my opinion, that whilst laxity in the administration of the
law is bad, the most odious is the discriminating laxity, which lays
hold of particular persons and does not lay hold of others liable
to the same censure. That may be, and is so, but it has
nothing to do with this case. The case is here, not whether
other persons ought to be standing where Mr. Foote and Mr.
Ramsey stand, but what judgment you ought to pass upon them.
We have to administer this law, whether we like it or not. It is,
undoubtedly, a disagreeable law, but I have given you reasons for
thinking it is not quite so bad, or quite so indefensible, as Mr.
Foote, from his point of view, thinks it is. On the contrary, I
think it is a just law that persons should be obliged to respect
the feelings and opinions of those amongst them. I assent to the
passage of Michaelis, that in a Catholic country we have no right
to insult Catholic opinion, nor in a Mahomedan country have we
any right to insult Mahomedan opinion. I differ from both, but
I should feel that I was bound to treat with respect opinions with
which I might not agree. You will see these publications, and
if you think they are permissible attacks upon the religion of
the country you will find the defendants Not Guilty; but if you
think that they do not come within the most liberal and the
largest view that anyone can give of the law as it exists now,
as I have laid it down to you, then, whatever may be the j
consequences, and however little you may think the prosecution
wise, or however little you may think the thing itself desirable,
however little you may think any kind of publication should i
ever be made subject matter of attack, yet it is your duty to
administer the law as you find it, not to strain it in Mr. Foote’s
favor because you think he ought not to be prosecuted, still less
to strain it against the defendants because you may yourselves
not agree with the sentiments which they advocate, as you
certainly are not likely to agree with the manner in which they
�79
•advocate them. Take these libels into your consideration and
say whether you find Mr. Foote or Mr. Ramsey Guilty or Not
Guilty of the publication.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship give the jury the papers?
L°rd Coleridge: I beg your pardon, there are some cartoons
that are offensive. Mr. Foote’s excuse is that they are not attacks
upon, and not mtended to be a caricature of almighty god If
there be such a being, says Mr. Foote, he can have no feeling for
him but a profound reverence and awe, but this is his mode of
holding up to contempt what he calls a caricature of that being
as it appears in the Hebrew scriptures. That is for you to trv
You must look at them and judge for yourselves whether thev
do or do not come within the law.
J
On the conclusion of the summing-up which occupied an
hour and forty-five minutes, at twenty minutes past twelve
o clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, taking with
them the incriminated publications.
&
Shortly before two o’clock, Lord Coleridge, who had received
a communication from the jury, said : I have been informed
that they are not able to agree to a verdict, and I ought to
be at Westminster to meet the Lord Chancellor and the fudges
who are members of the Rule Committee. Indeed I ought to
have been there at ten o’clock this morning, but I was anxious
to dispose of this case. The jury inform me that there is no
prospect of an agreement, but perhaps they have not been
long enough m consultation to be able to say that it is impos
sible that they should come to an agreement. I have spoken
to Mr. Serie, my associate, and I have mentioned an hour at
which the jury, in the event of their not being able to ao-ree
shall be discharged. What do you propose to do, Mr. Malonev’
if they should disagree ?
J
Mr. Maloney : I should like, my lord, to consult with Sir
Hardmge Giftard as to that, and let the case stand on the
Lord Coleridge : Is he in the building ?
Mr. Maloney : Within the next quarter of an hour I will
see him. My own desire .is . that the case should stand in the
list tor trial at the next sittings.
Lord Coleridge : Why at the next sittings ? Why should
I postpone it?
J UVU1UMr. Maloney : I merely say that, my lord, for the conve
nience of all parties.
Mr. Avory: On behalf of the defendants my lord, I have
to say that I do not desire it to be postponed, and would prefurtherVelay b6
again’ that ifc should be tried without
�80
Lord Coleridge : I have already intimated that is my view.
In case the jury disagree, Mr. Maloney, you must be ready
with your answer to-morrow morning, as to what course you
intend to pursue.
Mr. Maloney : In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, your lordship
allowed the jury to have the prints.
Lord Coleridge : They have got them.
Mr. Maloney : I beg your lordship’s pardon, I was not
aware of that.
Lord Coleridge : Supposing that there should be a verdict
of Guilty , I would pass sentence to-morrow morning. Sup
posing there should be a verdict of Not Guilty, it is not
necessary to consider the matter further. Supposing there
is a disagreement, I shall want to know in the morning what
the prosecution intend to do.
Mr. Maloney : I shall try to find out before half-an-hour
what Sir Hardinge Giffard intends to do.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot stay; I ought to have been at
Westminster at ten o’clock.
Mr. Avory : If there should be a verdict of Guilty, I should
move for an arrest of judgment.
Lord Coleridge: That would be very improper.
Mr. Maloney • If there should be a verdict of Guilty and
your lordship proposes to sentence to-morrow morning, I
should be prepared on the part of the prosecution to say
that they desire to have a lenient view taken of this particular
case.
Lord Coleridge: If they are found guilty of it, the defen
dants must appear to-morrow morning before me. If you
think it is in the interests of your clients to raise that then,
you may do so.
Mr. Maloney : Very well, my lord.
Lord Coleridge then retired.
At three minutes past five the jury came into court, when,
the Associate addressing them said :
Gentlemen of the jury, are you agreed?
The Foreman: No.
The Associate: Then gentlemen of the jury you are dis
charged, but I must ask you to attend on Saturday at half
past ten in case you are wanted.
THIRD DAY.
At the sitting of the Court this morning (Thursday), Mr.
Foote and Mr. Ramsey, coming down again in the custody of
�81
the Governor of Holloway Gaol, were present by the direc
tion ot his lordship given on the previous day, in the event of
the jury disagreeing m their verdict. This, as will be seen
tteywTe
B}raseyeandSFoot6,Ca^n° °V6r
°aSe °7
gainst
The Lord Chief Justice, addressing Sir Hardinge Giffard
said :
Hardinge what course do you propose to take?
..
Hardin(^1®ard:
lOT<i5 if your lordship desires
that this case should go on now, I am ready to go on now.
Lord Coleridge : Just as you please.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I respectfully beg your lordship’s in
dulgence I am not practically prepared to defend mvself
now. I didn t know how much prison diet and confinement
fad weakened me, until I had to make an effort for my defence
the day before yesterday, and the Governor of the Gaol can
mform your lordship how physically, prostrated I was after it.
i Lord Coleridge: I have just been informed, and I hardlv
knew.it before, what such imprisonment as yours means, and
what m the form it has been inflicted upon you it must mean ■
but now.that I do know of it, I will take care that the proper
sup^°r t"168 ^n°W
also and
see fhaf you have proper
Mr. Foote : Thank you. my lord
Sir Hardinge Giffard : Will next week suit your lordship to
hands!"18 CaSG? °f C°UrSe 1 am qUite in your lordship’s
day1?' 1,00116 : Oould y°ur lordship take the case next Tues-
. Lord Coleridge : Yes, I think I can if that will suit you. It
is so entirely unusual to pursue a case in this way that I will
do anything you wish.
J
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my.lord. If your lordship would
fix it for that day it would suit us.
Lord Coleridge : Very well.
Mr. Foote : If your lordship pleases----Sir Hardinge Giffard: After your lordship gives that
opinion, I should certainly feel it my duty to recommend my
clwnt to acquiesce m anything your lordship should sugLord Coleridge : It is extremely unusual when a conviction
X»:SrP“y,he same sort
Lord Coleridge : I am perfectly aware of that.
�82
Sir H. Giffard : And that the indictment contains different
libels.
Lord Coleridge: I am aware of that, too.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: The second indictment, your lordship
will remember, was preferred against the defendants by the
Corporation of the City of London.
Lord Coleridge : I am quite aware of that, and I am also
aware {hat they were different subject matters. That is the
reason I said the same sort of thing.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : This is the earliest in point of
date.
Lord Coleridge : Yes, I know.
Sir Hardinge Giffiard: I only want your lordship to have
the facts before you. Anything your lordship suggests I will
advise my client to accede to.
Lord Coleridge: I have acted upon one rule throughout
the whole of this case. In any other case I might have said a
great deal, but in this I decline to make the slightest sugges
tion of any kind or description. I must leave it entirely in
the hands of the prosecution on their own responsibility. But
as I have had information from the highest source—the Gover
nor of the Gaol—that Mr. Foote is physically suffering from
the prison discipline (the Governor of the Gaol cannot help
it); but as Mr. Foote is physically suffering from it, I will cer
tainly do all I can to put him in a physical position to defend
himself, and I will take the defence whenever he pleases.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: After what your lordship has said I
quite acquiesce in the adjournment until Tuesday, and in the
meantime I will consult those who have instituted this prosecu
tion, for what they believe to be right and proper purposes,
and I will take their direction as to what shall be done, and
then ask them to take into account the imprisonment of the
defendants and the disagreement of the jury. I have no
doubt all that will be fully considered by those for whom I
act.
Lord Coleridge: As I said yesterday—and I don’t say it
satirically—the names of the parties who have instituted
these proceedings are unknown to me, and of their motives
and character I am absolutely ignorant.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : If it should be determined not to go
on with this prosecution, probably it would be unnecessary
that the defendants should be brought here again, because in
that event notice would be given, and the bringing up of the
defendants from the gaol be unnecessary ?
Lord Coleridge: As you please about that At any rate, it
can stand for the present, and the case be taken on Tuesday.
Does that suit you ?
�83
Mr. Foote : Yes, my lord. As the trial in that case is a
matter of contingency, I would ask your lordship to direct
the Governor of the Gaol to allow us proper food in the
interval.
Lord Coleridge: I believe I have no authority over the
Governor of the Gaol. Let me do him the justice to say if it
had not been for his communication, I should not have known
that you were suffering from what he is obliged to do by law
He is a minister of the law.
Mr. Foote : Quite so, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : If there is any difficulty about it, I will
take care that the Home Secretary or the Prison Inspectors
or whoever are the proper authorities, shall know of this if
there is any difficulty in the way.
’
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. I am quite content to
leave it there.
Lord Coleridge (addressing the Governor of the Gaol)
said: Yon will understand that the same facilities are to be
continued to Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey for preparing their
defence, as I ordered before.
°
The defendants then left the court in custody, after shaking
hands with numerous friends who crowded round
°
It is only fair to the Governor of Holloway Gaol to say
that owing to his kindness, Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey
garb^6^ ln C°Urfc in
ordinary dress instead of the prison
)
�APPLICATION FOR A NOLLE
TO BE ENTERED.
PROSEQUI
[Before the Loud Chief Justice, on Saturday, April 28th.~]
Mr. Maloney said : Will your lordship allow me to mention
the case of the Queen v. Foote and Ramsey? What occurred
on Wednesday was communicated to the prosecutor, and he
has accordingly informed those who act for him—Sir H.
Giffard and myself—to state to your lordship that it is his
desire that a nolle prosequi should be entered a- rega ds the
defendants Foote and Ramsey.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot do that; it is for the AttorneyGeneral to do it.
Mr. Maloney: It is our intention to apply to the Attorn eyGeneral for his permission.
Lord Coleridge: The Attorney-General must do it for
himself.
Mr. Maloney: The prosecution will apply to him to enter a
nolle prosequi, and whatever steps may be necessary for that
end will be taken.
Lord Coleridge : You must not assume that he will do it.
As I have always understood when the Attorney-General does
this, he takes upon himself a certain responsibility. I did it
myself once or twice when I was Attorney-General. It is
the prerogative of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Maloney: I have made some inquiry at the Grown
Office about it.
Lord Coleridge: No doubt it can be done. The AttorneyGeneral can do it if he likes, but you must not assume in a
case of this kind that he will release you from the responsi
bility of going on, or not going on. That is what I mean.
Mr. Maloney: It is intended to make application to the
Attorney- General.
Lord Coleridge : I am much obliged to you for telling me
this, but I can make no order upon it; therefore the matter
must stand until Tuesday. It is impossible to say what the
Attorney-General may say as to this. I may say it is not a
case in which on behalf of the Crown I will interfere; the
�85
prosecutor must act upon his own responsibility. He can
either go on or not, just as he pleases.
Mr. Maloney: If the prosecutor is willing not to go on, I
suppose it is optional with him ?
Lord Coleridge : I say nothing about it except this; that
you put upon the Attorney-General a personal responsibility
which he may be willing to accept or not; but that is entirely
for him to say.
Mr. Maloney: My instructions are, that the prosecutor wished
whatever steps might be necessary to be taken for the with
drawal of the prosecution, should be taken.
Lord Coleridge : That is another matter, if he is willing
to appear on Tuesday and offer no evidence.
Mr. Maloney: I think some difficulty might arise out of
that, because it might lead to the supposition that the papers
charged in the indictment were not blasphemous, and lead
to their being re-pnblished again.
Lord Coleridge : I only point out that when you tell me
that you assume on the part of a great public functionary
that he will take the responsibility, it is by no means certain
that he will accept it. If he likes to take it, by all means
let it be so; but I only point out to you that you must not
assume he will do it as a matter of course, and so relieve
you from a responsibility which at present lies upon you.
That is all I mean—he may not take the responsibility.
Mr. Maloney : I thought it right that I should mention it
to your lordship at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Coleridge : You are quite right to do so ; the case
must stand in the paper for Tuesday morning.
Mr. Maloney: Very well, my lord.
�ABANDONMENT OF THE PROSECUTION.
In the Court of Queens Bench on Tuesday, May 1st, before
Lord Coleridge, the Lord Chief Justice of England, on the
case of the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote being called,
Mr. Maloney (in the absence of his leader, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, Q.C.,) said: After mentioning this case to your lord
ship on Saturday a petition was drawn up and lodged with
the Attorney-General yesterday morning, for a nolle prosequi
on behalf of the prosecutor, and this very instant the AttorneyGeneral’s clerk has handed in his fiat granting a nolleprosequi.
Lord Chief Justice: Very well; you must let me see it,
please.
Mr. Maloney (handing the fiat to the Lord Chief Justice) :
Your lordship sees the petition.
Lord Coleridge (after reading the fiat) said: I have said
not a word about this being unadvisable, not one single
syllable. The statement in this petition is absolutely inaccu
rate. That I have intimated in the slightest manner whether
it was advisable, or the contrary, is absolutely untrue. I took
particular care to leave the responsibility with the prosecutor,
and I have intimated not a word as to whether it was
advisable or not to go on. I find the petitioner states that I
thought it was unadvisable to proceed. I said nothing of the
sort.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t remember, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: I took particular care not to say anything
at all, one way or the other.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to read the
words?
Lord Coleridge: Do you mean to say the word “ unad
visable ” is not there ? If it is not you may contradict me.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord, I don’t mean to say that.
Lord Coleridge: Then I don’t understand your applica
tion. I take exception to one word, which is utterly inac
curate. If that word is not there, contradict me in what 1
say. I have nothing further to do of course, if the AttorneyGeneral has entered a nolle prosequi. I cannot have anything
further to do. I don't know exactly what is done in these
�87
cases. I shall, of course, not think of going on with the
case. After the Attorney-General has entered a nolleprosequi
there is an end to the case as far as I am concerned. Some
thing, however, must be done.
Mr. Maloney: The usual course, my lord, is for the Queen’s
Coroner to draw up a nolle prosequi, and to enter it upon the
record. That is as I understand the practice. That fiat is
the Attorney-General’s authority to the Crown to act, and it
is lodged at the Crown Office.
Lord Coleridge : The Crown Office doesn’t open until eleven,
and, technically speaking, I cannot proceed for ten minutes,
(it was ten minutes to eleven). Of course, under these cir
cumstances, I should not think of proceeding. You will
undertake to see that this is done now, Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Under those circumstances I have nothing
further to do than to call the next case.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY EDWARD B. AVELING, D.SC., AT
28 STONECUTTER STREET, 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 prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Ramsey, William James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 87 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Report of Queen v. Ramsey and Foote, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, 24 April [1883]. Includes addresses to the jury by Ramsey (p.25-31) and Foote (p.31-61). Annotations (corrections, marks) in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Edward B. Aveling
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N259
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Trials
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 prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy), 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-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8bae7fbbc69ea20d6706adb0fbf77ba2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nQaYgl4OVCpTRcVn4t29EZdt70SvXZbRG%7EUHwLpXgow7VsVo0o8YXtI49LeVlvJxifP7sD0GBdmbprSwe954Kw1D1HSm-FSh6qP5Lzm2jpFKNqto5pikQkRC3N0EmjkCzLIqkU--boJVk2FWbQOcUuFLWN5hK7VhkdMpdJmRgCMQQ0Gk6TeOQL-rNbETjpjJUS3mDKTicsXUdPnHaDlywNX9O8DUUPGnGbinUxWBlQLjg91lMekeBPFW4KkWE1yikszHzr9hDRIYzuVUoEQ1NN4yboFUFeLhNaguAeJ1xKsMddBlFEWCtmjmVaYLMB-yJxFBWUC1Hxm77bCGqZc3PQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f109b8df0125e057c0f9d599bfb7c03a
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
Verbatim Report
OF THE
TWO TRIALS
OF
G. W. Foote,
W. J. Ramsey and H. A. Kemp,
FOR
Blasphemous Libel in the Christmas Number
of the “ Freethinker.”
Held at the OLD BAILEY on Thursday, Ma/rch 1st, and on
Monday, March 5th, 1883,
Before Mr. Justice North and Two Common Juries.
PRICE
ONE
SHILLING.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
��DEDICATED
TO
THE PEOPLE
OE
ALL
N A T I O N S.
��THE “FREETHINKER” CHRISTMAS
NUMBER PROSECUTION.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY.
Thursday, March 1st, 1883.
(Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.)
George William Foote, the editor • W. J. Ramsey, proprietor and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher, surrendered to
their bail to answer a charge of having published a blasphemous
libel in the 44 Freethinker,” the indictment being grounded on
matter found in the columns of the Christmas Number of that
journal.
. Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. H Lewis
instructed by Sir II. T. Nelson (the City Solicitor), on behalf of
the Public Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Horace
Avoi-y appeared for Kemp, and Foote and Ramsey were unrepre-
in °Pening the case for the prosecutionsaid that the defendants were indicted for the offence of blas
phemy, and happily, prosecutions of that character were rare
m this country. The offence of blasphemy consisted in, among
other things, making contumelious or disrespectful reproaches
against the Christian religion or the Holy Scriptures. By the
law of this country Christianity was part of our common law and
whatever people’s private feelings might be, the publication of
gross and violent attacks upon the Christian religion, insulting as
they were to the feelings of a Christian community, was a matter
which when it reached a certain point it was absolutely necessary
+i° +
was said’and he dare sa? veryoften
said
that the dragging into the light of publications of a blasphemed
or indecent character sometimes did mischief by attracting public
attention to that which would otherwise pass unnoticed. That
observation was, however, subject to this exception, that if the
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
nature or publication was such that it grieved and insulted the
feelings of the community; if, for instance, in a shop-window in
a public thoroughfare, things were exhibited to every young
and innocent mind which ridiculed what they had been taught
from their earliest years to regard with the utmost reverence, it
was the duty of the authorities to take action to put a stop to such
publication. In so doing, they did not drag into light subjects
which but for the interference would have remained in obscurity.
On the other hand, they drove at all events from the public
thoroughfares and from the public- notice things which when
displayed in shop-windows would necessarily attract a crowd.
The authorities were either compelled to allow so great an out
rage to public decency to continue, or they were called upon to
vindicate the law. A great deal also must depend not only on the
mode of publication, but also on the nature of the publication
itself. There were some things—some doubts set forth in books
and directed against the reverence which the law regarded as
part of the law of the country, but which, nevertheless, were so
expressed as to form no insult to those who thought differently.
Doubts on many points—or many theological tenets—had of
course occupied the minds of men for more than 1800 years, and
so long as doubts of this description were expressed with due
regard to the feelings of others, and without the intention of
outrage and insult, he would be a very rash person indeed, who
would think to drag into a criminal court disquisitions conceived
in such a spirit, even although they might be adverse to the views
which the great majority of Christian people entertained. Of
course, whenever an outrage of the present character was the
subject matter of complaint, it was common to hear observations
directed to the supposed liberty of discussion, freedom of press
and so forth. These were very plausible words to make use of,
but when he called the attention of the jury to the nature of
these publications, they would probably be of opinion that, quite
apart from any question of theological difference, quite apart
from any honest doubts people might entertain, those who were
guilty of so great an outrage of public decency had no right to
appeal to such topics as freedom of the press or liberty of dis
cussion. The point to which he should have to direct the
attention of the jury, was the outrage that had been committed
on the feelings of a Christian community. When he said this,
it was undoubtedly a fact that it had been found necessary, for
instance, in our great Indian dominions, where Christianity was
by no means the creed of the majority of the population, to pro
tect the freedom of conscience, and the right of every man to
hold his own faith by making criminal offenders of those who for
-outrage and insult thought it necessary to issue contumelious or
scornful publications concerning any religious sect, though not a
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
3
Christian sect. Probably their own feelings of what was right,
and of what was due to the real freedom of mankind, would
teach them that people should be allowed to hold their own
views and to strenuously fight for them, but it was no part of the
freedom of every man to insult, and revile, and hold up to
ridicule everything which other people held in reverence. He
had thought it right to make these observations, because it
seemed to him a prostitution of great names to bear the titles of
freedom of the press and liberty of discussion made use of when
he had to call attention to such ribaldry as was contained in the
present publication. He would not read, nor did he think it at
all desirable that he should describe what that publication was.
They would have it in their own hands and would form their own
judgment on it. He certainly would not be a party publicly to
describe the sort of thing that he had before him at that moment.
This was the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker.” To make
the Christmas Number appropriate, he presumed, to the season,
the composers of this publication had thought it right to have a
series of pictures respecting incidents in the life of our Lord and
Savior.
To say that they were caricatures would be an
inadequate statement. Each incident, round some of which
clustered the most awful mysteries of the Christian faith, formed
the subject of the grossest and most degrading caricature. The
Almighty himself was the subject matter of one of these pictures,
and accompanied with them was letter-press, including a ribald
song or poem so gross and outrageous in its character, that
beyond calling the attention of the jury to it he would not out
rage public decency by referring to it. Each and all of these
matters were intended to insult and grieve the conscience of
every man who was a Christian—nay, he would say any sincere
worshipper of the great God above us, whatever form of belief he
might hold. This was the object and intention of the paper of
this character. If the subject matters of the indictment were not
libels, he did not know what could be, for no indecency or out
rage in language or picture could exceed the violence of this
publication. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the
evidence he intended to produce, observing in conclusion that if
the paper did not speak for itself, as to. the hideous and out
rageous blasphemy of its contents, he could only say that no such
offence could be known to the law.
Evidence was then called in support of the prosecution.
Robert Sagar, a constable in the City of London Police
Force, stated that on the 16th of last December he went to the
bookseller’s shop at 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road,
and purchased two copies (produced) of the Christmas Number
of the “Freethinker.” The defendant Kemp was serving in the
shop and received sixpence from him in payment for the two
�4
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
copies. On the 20th of January he purchased two more copies
at the shop from the defendant Kemp, and on January 31st he
agafn saw him behind the counter.
Mr. Poland said that the numbers produced were entitled
Christmas Number of the “Freethinker,” and were stated on
the title-page to be “edited by G. W. Foote.” On the back
sheet was an advertisement of Mr. Foote’s publications. . At the
end of the book it was stated to be printed and published by
H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, London,
E.C. He put in the certificate of registration of the “ Free
thinker,” from which it appeared that the name of the proprietor
was given as IV. J. Ramsey, and the signature was that of H. A.
Kemp, and the date of the signature being July 31st, 1882.
In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, Sagar stated that he saw
a number of books and other publications in the shop besides
the “ Freethinker.”
John Lowe, collector of rates for the parish of St. Brides,
stated that on the 7th of November he received a cheque signed
by Mr. W. J. Ramsey, in payment of a rate of £2 Is. 3d., in
respect of 28 Stonecutter Street.
W. G. Mitchell, cashier in the Birkbeck Bank, proved that the
cheque in question had been duly debited to Mr. Ramseys
account.
William John Norrish, of 20 Fowler Street, Camberwell, who
made affirmation instead of taking the oath, said that he lived
for five years at 28 Stonecutter Street, and up to the time when
he left in October last, it was the office of the Freethought Pub
lishing Company. That Company had, however, removed to
Fleet Street at the end of September. Witness was Mr. Brad
laugh’s servant while at Stonecutter Street. Mr. Ramsey was
manager of the Freethought Publishing Company, but witness
was not aware that the “ Freethinker ” was at that time pub
lished at the shop in Stonecutter Street. The name of the pub
lication was not painted up over the door at the time he left,
although it was there now. The defendant Kemp was not em
ployed there at the time, but he went there occasionally, and
witness had seen him there since ; Mr. Foote also used to look
in occasionally.
In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, witness said that while
he was employed at Stonecutter Street there was no printing
press nor were there any facilities for printing a newspaper
there, and no printing was done on the premises.
By Mr. Foote : Mr. Foote did not call often, and witness
never saw him transact any business there.
James Barber, assistant registrar of newspapers, stated that
the last registration of the “ Freethinker ” related to a change
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
5
of proprietorship—Mr. Foote becoming proprietor in place of
Mr. Ramsey. This was on the 7th of February last.
William Oakhampstead, detective of the City of London Police
Force, produced a copy of the “ Freethinker,” bought by him of
Mr. Kemp, at 28 Stonecutter Street, on the 16th of February,
in which appeared a notice stating that, although the Christmas
Number had had a very large sale, the conductors were several
pounds out of pocket by it.
Sir H. Giffard pointed out that this notice appeared after the
proprietorship of the paper was transferred to Mr. Foote.
. John Edward Kellan, of 19 East Street, D'Oyley Square,
solicitor’s clerk, produced several copies of the “Freethinker,”
purchased by him at the office in Stonecutter Street, at various
times. He went there principally in May and June last, and he
had seen all the defendants there. All the copies bore the
notice “edited by G. W. Foote,” and “printed and published
by G. W. Ramsay, 28 Stonecutter Street.” There was also
a notice to correspondents directing that all business com
munications should be directed to Mr. W. J. Ramsey, 28
Stonecutter Street, and literary communications to the editor,
Mr. G. W. Foote, 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, W.C.
In July last at the Mansion House witness gave evidence, and
the attention of Messrs. Foote and Ramsay, who were then
defendants, was called to these notices. Witness saw Mr. Foote
at the shop on the 16th of February.
By Mr. Foote: Witness had only seen Mr. Foote at the offiee
on one occasion—on the 16th of February.
By Mr. Ramsey: The name of Mr. Ramsey did not appear oil
any of the copies of the “ Freethinker ” witness had bought
since July.
William Loy, City Constable, said he had seen the defendant
Kemp in the office in Stonecutter Street every day in the week
during the present year, the defendant Ramsey most days, and
the defendant Foote occasionally.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : How long have you been
watching the place ? I have been on duty there for the last tw®
years. I have not been watching the place more than others.
You were not instructed to watch it? (No reply.) Were
Further evidence was given by Mr. Foote’s landlady and her
servant and by two postmen, to show that he had had letters
addressed to him at his lodgings as editor of the “Freethinker,”
but in cross-examination, all these witnesses admitted that they
had never seen letters addressed to him as editor of the Christ
mas Number of the “ Freethinker.”
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Avory said, with reference to the defendant Kemp, he did
aiot think it right to occupy the time of the court by contesting
�6
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
the fact that the defendant had been at the shop selling these
papers. He was bound to accept the definition laid down by his
lordship the merest office-boy would be considered a publisher
in the eyes of the law, and he would therefore reserve any
observation he might have to make.
Mr. Foote : My lord, at this stage of the proceedings, I am
going to ask the prosecution to elect against which of the three
defendants in this case they will go to the jury. There is no
allegation of conspiracy, and no evidence has been presented to
the court to support the charge of a joint act. I submit that
even if the allegations sought to be proved, were proved—that I
am editor of the particular number of the “ Freethinker” against
which these proceedings are taken, that Mr. Ramsey is the pro
prietor, and Mr. Kemp is printer and publisher,—still whatever
act we have committed would not be a joint offence. There has
been no evidence tendered to the effect that any copy of this
paper was purchased in the presense of all of us. It is not con
tended that we ever acted together at one and the same time, in
one and the same place. It is not urged that we all three wrote
any one of the libels in the indictment; it is not urged that
we all three printed; and I submit to your lordship that the
offences, if any, are distinct. What I might do as editor of
any particular publication, what the defendant Ramsey might
do as publisher or proprietor, and what the defendant Kemp
might do as printer, or even as shopman, must be considered
as entirely distinct matters having no necessary connexion.
For instance, I might write an article which might be a blas
phemous One. I might hand it to a printer to print. . In
letting it go out of my hands into the printing-office I might
be proved guilty of the offence of blasphemy, and it could not
in any way concern the printer. If the printer prints it, he
cannot in any way be concerned with any action except one
commenced after the article was put into his possession, and
which ends after his work is completed. The publisher’s act,
again, is a different act, in a different place, and can have no
necessary connexion with the two previous acts, as a thing
might be written, and printed, and not even published. I sub
mit then, your lordship, there is no allegation of conspiracy.
As these actions are several, and not joint, it is altogether im
proper to include the three of us in one indictment, and the
prosecution should be called on to elect as to which they will
go to the jury on. In support of this I may mention to your
lordship the case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, in
which the Lord Chief Justice used some language which could
scarcely be exceeded in its strength. The reference is in the
12th Cox Criminal Law Cases, p. 87. The Lord Chief Justice there
dwelt upon the damage which must necessarily be done to more
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
7
than one defendant joined in one indictment, on the ground that
evidence which is given against one of the defendants might serve
to the detriment of another defendant, while it would not be
admissible if the defendants were being tried separately. There
have been cases, too, in which, when several defendants have
been joined in one indictment, the indictment has been subse
quently quashed on this ground. There is the King against
Lynn and Debney, 1, Carrington and Payne, 128; and there is
also the case of the Queen against Tucker, 4, Burrows 2046.
It was held by the court in these cases that the indictment
was bad, because the action proved against the co-defendants
was not a joint action,
Mr. Justice North: I cannot hear you say now that the indict
ment ought to be quashed. You should have taken that
objection long since.
Mr. Foote : I am not doing so, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: That is the point you are putting to me
now.
Mr. Foote : No, my lord. I am very sorry if I have misled
your lordship. My point is that on this ground the prosecution
should be called on to elect which of us they should go to the
jury against. Indeed, in the case of the King agains t Lynn and
Debney, the prosecution was so called on.
Of course the
object, my lord, is obvious. If the prosecution decline to elect,
then we shad have a case for appeal in the Court of Crown
Cases-Reserved; if, on the other hand, the prosecution do elect,
it will greatly diminish the work before the court, and it will
not inflict injustice upon co-defendants, who, even if they suc
ceed eventually in their appeal, will have, in the meantime, to
undergo imprisonment.
Mr. Ramsey also urged that the prosecution should be called
on to elect against which of the defendants they would go to the
jury, on the gro.und that there had been no evidence of a joint
offence.
Mr. Justice North: I see no reason for calling on the prose
cution.
Mr. Ramsey: I ask your lordship to make a note of this for
the consideration of the Court of Crown cases Reserved.
Mr. Justice North: Go on. As regard the note, I have made
a note.
Mr. Ramsey : Thank you, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: Do not let my last observation mislead
you, Ramsey. I have made a note, but I do not say I have made
a note for the consideration of the court.
Mr. Foote : My lord, in my case I submit there is no evidenceto go to the jury. To begin, my lord, I will go back to the
7th of February, when according to the evidence given in court,,
�3
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
a change was made in the proprietorship of the “Freethinker.”
I was then registered as proprietor, but, my lord, I submit that no
registration of my proprietorship on the 7th of February could
at all prove or even indicate that I was editor of a particular
publication bearing whatever title, which according to the indicment it is alleged was published on the 16th of December, nearly
two months before. Then, my lord, what does the evidence
amount to in general against me ? We have the evidence of one or
two police officers who say that they have seen me at 28 Stone
cutter Street, the place of publication, as it is alleged of this
paper, and these police officers admit that my visits have been
comparitively few, and that they have been distributed over a
considerable space of time. In conjunction with this, we have
the evidence of the witness Nourish, to the effect that I have been
for years in the habit of occasionally calling at 28 Stonecutter
Street, so that whatever there may be in the testimony of the
police officers, it is only, so to speak, a continuation of the
evidence of Mr. Norish, and his evidence is that I have called
at 28 Sonecutter Street occasionally in a friendly way, but that
he has never seen me transact business there. Neither of the
police officers say that they have seen me transact business there.
Now what is the evidence to go to the jury upon as to the specific
publication in which these alleged libels are to be found ? I
submit, my lord, that if I were proved to have been the editor of
every other number bearing the title of the “ Freethinker,” it
would not be proof that I was editor of this specific publication.
It is not like a newspaper which runs from day to day, and from
week to week. This is a special publication. It might or it
might not have been edited by whoever is proved to have
been the editor of the ordinary numbers of the paper, and
I submit that there has not been the slightest shred of evi
dence that could connect me with the editorship of this
particular Christmas Number, which is before the court.
The letter-carriers cannot say that they have ever delivered
an envelope directed to me as editor of the Christmas “ Free
thinker,” or as editor of the Christmas Number of the “ Free
thinker.” They cannot even swear that they have delivered
letters addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker ” at any
time whatever between November 16th and December 16th,
during which time it might reasonably be supposed that my
editorial work in connexion with the Christmas Number of the
“ Freethinker ” would have been done. Then, my lord, we come
to the evidence of the witness Curie. She says that she has
seen envelopes addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
She also has never seen any envelope addiessed to me as editor
of the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker.” She knows
nothing of the Christmas Number. Then we have the evidence
�'Report of Blasphemy Trials.
9
■of Mary Finter. She also has never seen any letters which could
be connected with this specific publication; and although it is
true she says she has seen a copy of the Christmas “ Free
thinker ” in my room, she also cannot say that there was more
than one copy. She admits that she saw in my room papers of
all shapes and colors, and therefore it is nothing extraordinary
—when according to the prosecution that paper has had an enor
mous sale—that a man who has in his room papers of all shapes
and colors should also have in his room a publication which has
attracted so much public attention as this. There is one remark
of Sir H. Giffard’s which I might refer to. He said there had
been no attempt on the part of the defendant Foote to deny that
he was in any way responsible for this alleged publication of a
blasphemous libel or of any others which had appeared in the
numbers of the “ Freethinker.” But I am not in the witnessbox, I am not before this court tendering evidence, and it is not
for me to help or in any way suggest lines of argument to the
prosecution, or to save them their trouble, which cannot be a very
burdensome matter when they have behind them such very
powerful friends with such very long purses. It is not for me
to make any such statements. I am simply dealing, and I am
bound simply to deal, with the evidence of the prosecution—all
the evidence which great expenditure of money and a large
issue of subpoenas has been able to produce ; and I submit that
there is no evidence to connect me with this Christmas Number
of the’“ Freethinker,” and that even if I had been proved to
have edited every other number, it would not be proof sufficient
that I had edited this particular number. I lay great stress upon
this point, because Sir H. Giffard evidently imagines that an
adverse verdict of the jury, if we should have to appeal to them,
would entail upon all of us, and upon me in particular, very
grave penalties. For this reason I think the court ought to be
perfectly satisfied that there is ample evidence to go to the jury
upon before deciding that my case should be presented to them.
I submit, my lord, that there is no evidence to go the jury upon.
Mr. Justice North : You had better address the jury, Foote ;
I am of opinion that there is.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship propose any adjournment?
Mr. Justice North : Presently • not just yet.
Mr. Foote : I may take considerable time.
Mr. Justice North: I do not say that there will not be an
adjournment before you finish ; but the usual time is half-past
one. You had better begin. We will break off at about half
past one, at whatever time will be most convenient to you.
Mr. Foote : My lord and gentlemen of the jury. The case
which is before you is one which the learned counsel for the pro
secution has described as very grave ; and, although in one
�10
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
sense of the word I might seriously differ from him, I do agree
that in another sense of the word the case is grave, because you
are asked to give a verdict against me for an alleged blasphe
mous libel, and both the law and the punishment involved m it
have come down from barbarous and illiberal times, and that
makes the case all the more grave. I will ask you to divest your
minds, if possible, of all pre judice ; I will ask you to divest your
minds entirely, if it be possible, of all memory of some of the
language which was used by the learned counsel for the prosecu
tion. I am prosecuted for blasphemous libel, and in the remainder
of my remarks, for brevity’s sake, I shall simply use the word
blasphemy. The learned counsel used this word once or twice
in his opening, but he used the words decency and indecency at
least six times as often. I am not prosecuted here on a charge
of indecency. I am prosecuted on a charge of blasphemy. I
can quite understand that, by substituting the word decency,
other associations might be raised and other ideas excited in the
minds of the jury, and that while a verdict was asked for on one
ground, it might be sought to be snatched on another. I would
ask you, therefore, to throw aside the word decency altogether.
There is no obscenity alleged. The question before us is one
of blasphemy, and I shall have to ask you in the course of my
remarks to dismissfrom your minds also one or two misstatements
of fact that were made by the learned counsel, and one of these
I consider it necessary that you should divest your minds of at
the present moment. Sir Hardinge G-iffard told you that even
in India, where there are so many diverse and conflicting
sects—and, indeed, the learned counsel might have said with
quite as much truth where there were so many diverse and con
flicting religions, amongst them being the religion, of our own
country-—-that even in India the law had made it a criminal
offence, to use contumelious language against the beliefs of
others.' That is not true. The law relating to the subject in
India is simpler and more liberal than that. It does not deal
with words or with opinions—it deals with overt acts, and even
those acts must be of the nature of obtrusion. The law of India
does not make it criminal for a member of one religious sect to
use the most contumelious language to a member of the same
sect or to any other person on whom he did not voluntarily force
himself, with respect to the tenets of any other sect, JTo, thelaw of India, which of course is the law therefore of a part of
our British Empire, gives the same right to every sect and every
religion—unlike the law to which Sir H. G-iffard appeals this
morning. If you interfere with the religious worship in India
of any other sect, if you commit a breach of the peace, not by
words but by action, if you desecrate any shrine, or if you make
a physical attack upon an idol—in that case the law of India
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
11
finds that you are interfering with the religious liberties of all.
You have a perfect right, according to the law, to say what you
please to people who choose to hear you, and to write what you
please to people who choose to read what you write. You have
no right to go further and compel people to listen to your con
temptuous language, or to see you desecrate what they
consider to be sacred. Quite recently in India, as the learned
counsel most know, members of a body calling themselves the
Salvation Army—with what right I will not now examine—have,
under the law of India, been arrested, although they are Chris
tians, and have gone to India for the purpose of converting the
natives to what is, according to the learned counsel, the only true
religion and the religion of this state ; they have been arrested
for walking in procession through the streets, on the ground that
they were flaunting themselves objectionably before members of
other religious persuasions, and that such conduct would natu
rally lead to a breach of the peace between the contending sects.
The law of India, therefore, is not what the learned counsel
says it is. If that law were applied to this country, as some day
I hope it will be, an action could be brought against a Christian
for outraging the feelings of a Freethinker. I will draw your
attention, gentlemen of the jury, to a letter which appeared in
the Daily News, signed by no less a person than Professor
Hunter, of the,University College, London.
Mr. Justice North: How has that anything to do with the
case ? Mr. Foote : I am not going into the letter. I am only going
to refer to it as containing a full proof of what I am saying to
the jury. I am only dealing with Sir H. Giffard’s statement.
Mr. Justice North: I am not going into that statement at all.
The jury will not have to consider what the law of India is, but
what the law affecting this case is.
Mr. Foote : Then, my lord, I will discontinue my remarks on
this point, expressing my regret that the learned counsel should
have thought it necessary to occupy the time of the court with
it. (Laugher.) The learned counsel for the prosecution told
you that all you had to do was to determine the question of
publication—that all the rest lay with the learned judge. I
submit that that is not so.
Sir H. Giffard : You have quite misunderstood me.
Mr. Justice North: I did not understand you to say that.
Sir H. Giffard \ On the contrary, I left both questions to the
jury—whether it was blasphemy and whether it was published
by the defendants.
Mr. Foote continued: I will ask the gentlemen of the jury to
take a copy of an Act passed in the 32nd year of George ITT.,
which is an Act dealing with trials for libel. It is entitled “ an
�12
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
Act to remove doubts respecting the functions of juries in cases
of libel.” The first clause runs thusWhereas doubts have
arisen whether on the trial of an indictment or information for
the making or publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are
joined between the King and the defendant or defendants, on
the plea of not guilty pleaded, it be competent to the jury im
panelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole
matter in issue: Be it therefore declared and enacted by the
King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and con
sent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of.the same,
that on every such trial, the jury sworn to try the issue may
give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole
matter put in issue upon such indictment or information; and
shall not be required or directed, by the Court or Judge before
whom such indictment or information shall be tried, to find the
defendant or defendants guilty, merely on the proof of the pub
lication by such defendant or defendants of the paper charged
to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same in such indict
ment or information.” So, gentlemen, you have practically the
decision of this whole matter in your own hands. I ask, my
lord, that this Act shall be passed to the jury.
Mr. Justice North: I shall tell them what points they will
have to decide.
Mr. Foote : May they not have a copy of the Act, my lord ?
Mr. Justice North: No ; they will take the law from the
directions I give to them ; not from reading Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Foote : Gentlemen of the jury, I hope to obtain your
verdict of not guilty on much broader grounds than those which
have been up to the present indicated. I hope that you will
remember that, bound as you are to give no man a reason for
your verdict, vou are the ultimate court of appeal on all questions
affecting the liberty of the press, the right of free speech, and the
right of freethought, and that if some old laws which are even
now unrepealed, such as laws dealing which excommunicate people,
were made the ground of an indictment, you would without
hesitation exercise the right which resides in you and give a
verdict of Not Guilty, whatever might be the nature of the offence.
I have even from the courts of law some justification for this
appeal to you, because it is not so very long ago since a London
magistrate refused a summons against a citizen under the law of
Maintenance on the ground that the law of Maintenance was obso
lete. It would be difficult to decide, if such a point were raised,
what lapse of time renders a law obsolete, but I will ask you,
gentlemen of the jury, to remember that it is more than fifty
years since any prosecution for blasphemy took place in the
City of London, and more than twenty-five years since any
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
13-
prosecution for blashphemy took place in the whole of the
country. That, in the meantime, attacks on religion have been
published, and that some of them have been of a fierce and
remorseless character, are facts of which the prosecution must be
thoroughly aware. Would such a lapse of time make the law
obsolete ? It would be difficult to lay down any hard and fast
line, but I submit, that if a magistrate has a right to refuse to
grant a summons under a certain law, on the ground that such
law is obsolete, a jury would have a right tosayNot Guilty instead
of Guilty, and refuse to send a man to gaol through their verdict,
or to cripple him with a heavy fine, when they are equally aware
that the law set in motion against him has not been enforced for so
many years, and more, they see that men are singled out for prose
cution, whose distinctive crime is not that they have used ridicule,
even if all the accusations against them were proved—not that they
have used sarcasm and irony, because it is well known that ridicule,
sarcasm, and irony are used in all controversy, whether religious
or otherwise—but simply because their publication is issued
in a cheap form which brings it within the reach of
the people. Prosecutions of this kind are never commenced
against the rich and powerful or against the writers of 12s.
books; they are always directed against men whose poverty
makes them seem friendless, always against men who are
speaking to the masses of the people; simply because the law
under which such prosecutions are begun partakes of the
nature, of a police law, and was intended to keep the masses of
the people in a kind of bondage, a kind of political and social
slavery to those who had the making of it, and who are, there
fore, interested in seeing it carried out. Now, gentlemen of the
jury, I want you to observe that the law under which we are being
prosecuted—-as the learned judge, Mr. Justice Stephen, onlyrecently
pointed out in a decision in the Court of Queen’s Bench—began
with burning alive. The writ relating to heretics was only
abolished in the reign of Charles II., and under that writ a man
pronounced a heretic might be taken to the stake and burnt to
ashes. That is a significant fact which ought to influence your
minds to-day, as it shows that the origin of all such pro
ceedings as the present is simply persecution. It shows that the
law itself originated in a persecuting and barbarous age, that it
is a relic of the past, a disgrace to civilisation, and a scandal to
humanity; and a jury of intelligent and honest Englishmen
ought not to allow themselves to be made the instruments of
enforcing such a law. It is a remarkable thing that while the
learned counsel for the prosecution observed that no one would
think of interfering with what he called decent discussion of
controverted points of religion, and while also he said that he
did not think any proceedings for such an offence would lead to
�14
iJ
J
£■
*
A
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
anything, yet it was necessary that publications which outraged
the feelings of the Christian public should be put down. Well,
gentlemen, as the learned judge I have no doubt will tell you,
the law is perfectly clear as to heresy and blasphemy, and one
of our high judges—no less a person than Mr. Justice Stephens
_ Pas recently in his ‘ ‘ History of the Criminal Law, stated that
the real law in the matter of blasphemy is that the offence lies
in the matter and not in the manner, and that any attack on the
established religion of the country is blasphemous, and under
that law could be punished as such. You have only to remember
that what are called now controverted points of religion—such for
instance as the subjects dealt with by Bishop Golenko in his <6
great work on the Pentateuch—were points that might not be
controverted only a century before, and that while Bishop
Colon Iso can still remain a colonial bishop of the English Church
notwithstanding that he is the author of these volumes, impugning the authority of these five books of the Bible, yet the Bev.
Mr. Wolston was actually sent to prison, and kept there for
years, tor making the proposition now put forward by Bishop
Colenzo. To that it is only a question of the public opinion of
the country, measuring itself against the rigidity of the old law.
As to the statute law there can only be one opinion. There is, I
believe, only one statute against blasphemy in the statute book
—the 9th and 10th William III. We are not indicted under that
statute, but I think it necessary to point out to you the nature
of the statute, so that you may understand the spirit of these
laws. I find that any person who denies any member of the
Trinity to be God, or says there are more gods than one, or
denies that Jesus Christ was God, or denies the inspiration of
the Holy Scriptures, is, on a first conviction, to be deprived of
any post he may occupy in the country; and, on a second ccm"
viction, to be sent to gaol for three years, and to be deprived of
his civil rights for the remainder of his natural life, so that he
would be incapable of sueing any person who owed him any
thing, and of defending himself against any person who sued him
in an unjust suit.
.
At this point the court adjourned for lunch, Mr. Justice Aorth
intimating to Mr. Foote that it was of no use for him to address
t the jury on points that were not law. The jury would take what
| was the existing law from him.
On the resumption of the proceedings,
Mr. Foote continued his speech as follows:—Gentlemen of
the jury,—while I shall be exceedingly sorry to trespass out
side my proper province and on the province of the learned
judge, an while I propose not to follow the observations I was
addressing to you immediately before the adjournment, I wish
to call your attention to the fact that the indictment on which I
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
15
am prosecuted is an indictment at common law. Common law
is a question of precedent. It is unwritten law except for pre
cedent. The judges and juries have made it. It has contracted and
expanded with the public opinion of the times, and I submit that
as this indictment is under common law, with the Act of Geo. TIT ,
which I quoted before, you have a right to frame your decision
upon the entire question, and the arguments I shall now address
to you will be based on the assumption. Of course in what I
shall say I am to a very large extent in his lordship’s hands. I
should be exceedingly sorry to say anything that may be miscon
strued into disrespect of the court, and I trust that anything I
may say will be considered as merely the effort of a man untrained
in law and untrained in the ■ procedure of courts, to defend
himself for the first time in his life against a charge like this.
Any unintelligible breach of etiquette I may commit will be,
therefore, I am sure, overlooked. Now, we are told by the
learned counsel in his opening address that Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land. That may be true ; probably
the learned judge will direct you that it is true. But, after all,
gentlemen, the question of blasphemy is not such a question as
that of theft or murder. It must be largely if not entirely a
question of opinion, because even the learned counsel, in his
opening remarks, observed that some latitude of dissent from
Christianity, which was the law of the land, would be permitted,
though there was a certain latitude which would not be permitted.
Clearly,. therefore, the learned counsel is proceeding on the
assumption that after all the guilt would lie in the manner and not
the matter of the blasphemous libel. Now, gentlemen, I shall
ask your attention to something which I consider ought to in
fluence your judgment in this matter. I would ask you to bear
in your minds the words which conclude the first count of the
indictment. I am charged with having published blasphemous
libels “to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion
to the high displeasure of Almighty God, and against the peace
of our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.” It may be
that this is merely the phraseology of indictments, but I have
nothing whatever to do with that; I take the language of the
indictment as it stands, and I would submit to you, gentlemen,
that if one part of blasphemy consists in giving great displeasure
or high displeasure to Almighty God, you cannot possibly have
any evidence in support of this charge. Surely, gentlemen, the
question of whether any words or pictures, which are only
speeches addressed to the eye, are displeasing to Almighty God,
is a question which you must be content to leave to the Deity to
decide ; and if you believe in a Deity, and in future rewards find
punishments, you will, I am sure, be content not to take up a
position of protection, not to allow the finite to champion the
�16
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
interests of the infinite ; but to leave to the high tribunal in
which you believe the judgment of all offences against itself.
The learned counsel emphasised the words “ to the evil example
of all those in like cases offending.” Well, gentlemen, you cannot
be ignorant of the fact, as men of the world, moving about from
day&to day, and week to week, and reading papers of all descrip
tions that a prosecution like this even if successful m an adverse
verdict, could not at all prevent the propagation of here
tical opinions, even if those opinions were expressed or rather
maintained with a degree of levity which you yourselves would
disapprove I do not think that the terrorism of an adverse
verdict could at all influence the very large number of heretics
that exist in this country; but, on the contrary, 1 shall ask you
to believe that it would be construed as persecution, and that
persecution has, according to the showing of history unless, it
has exterminated, always, by arousing the fervor of men, in
creased the strength of their cause. In this case, instead of an
adverse verdict being deterrent, it would only excite interest m
the ideas that are stigmatised by it, and would only lead to a
far greater curiosity about them; and as the learned counsel
knows curiosity in such a case as this is very unfortunate be
cause it frequently leads to results the very opposite to those
which the plaintiffs desire. I am charged with the publica
tion of a blasphemous libel “ to the great scandal and reproach o
the Christian religion.” I would ask you to consider the real
facts of this alleged blasphemous libel, and its publication. ±t
is not alleged that men have been sent out into the streets to
force the publication into people’s hands. It is not even alleged
that people had it pressed on their notice, or that any extraordi
nary prominence has been given to it other than that which the
curiosity of the reader, who may have been informed of its
existence, might imply. With this fact on your mind, what
weight can you attach to the declaration of the learned counsel for
the prosecution that the obvious intention was to outrage the
feelings of the Christian public. The Christian public is a very
wide one, and an outrage on the Christian public m the street
might perhaps have a wider effect and publicity than any
outrage through the press. Nothing of this kind is alleged. It
is a press offence. There is no declaration whatever within the
borders of the incriminated number of the “Freethinker that
its object is to outrage any person’s feelings. Does not the
learned counsel know—gentlemen you must—-that a paper which
may be considered blasphemous by authority may be written,
and published, and sold, and printed, by those who be
lieve in what is stated in the publication, for people who
equally believe in it. On the very face of the thing, we must
assume with respect to any publication, whether heretical or
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
17
foihthem’ostanaiitiSthireCt17 intended
P^P1* who entertain
tor the most part the views propounded in it. If you were to
start a paper m the hope that those who hold opinions
directly opposite to those expressed in it, would support it you
would very soon be undeceived. That is a matte?which will
not create much controversy. I submit, therefore, that it is
not a question of what any Christian, whether sensitive or in
sensitive, might dislike m a Freethought paper which may be
written printed, published, sold for people who believed the
men who are responsible for the publication, and who also be
lieve m the policy which guides them in disseminating their
views. I would, therefore, ask you not to attach any particular
importance to the learned counsel’s observations on^his pjint
I submit that there has been no proof of the alleo-nd in
tendon ; on the contrary, ah the evidLce is ¿SX
The last charge of the first count in the indictment is that
the libel is against the peace of our Lady the Queen her Crown I
»nd dr^ty. There, again, I daresay I shah be¡¿formed tZ
that is the legal way of stating that a blasphemous libel has bZ
committed; but gentlemen, these are in the nature of reasons
These are in the nature, if I may use such language of
lustrations of the concrete effects of disseminating such ™ Mica
tions, and if these concrete results do not follow“ that ough" to
¡''"i."''“ y0U ““
verdict you give. I utterly deny thatothere
has been any evidence whatever tendered to show or that
pZZZ oWHhee XS X&TX'u"
ZaSZ’ °i crd lead> t0
ob&e‘"on &
trary there has been caused a feeling of excitement of a
pleasant character, and what may prove to be 5
mental character by the commenXS
would not have taken place if the incriminated paper had been left
alone to find its own public that approved it, and to be despised
if you will, by the public that disapproved it. ‘ ‘ BrS of
the peace, gentlemen! I think youwill find that
i
Freethinkers and heretics a“e not prone to bt/ol?
the neaee Ynn vwin t +n- i V
pi one to breaches of
«
J i r 11’-1 thmk’ be aware that there has been
a good deal of excitement in the streets of
of the peace have oceur^b“
law, simply because the pX^fX^aXTaX/
B
�18
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
leads to breaches of the peace. I submit that the proper way of
Healing with matters of this kind—the mode which public
opinion is slowly beginning to appreciate—is to deal with breaches
of the peace as they occur, and that it should not be argued
that the expression of certain opinions m a particular form
will necessarily lead to breaches of the peace, unless it
can be shown that such breaches of the peace have occured
in the past, and that there are indications that they will
in all probability occur in the future. With regard to
these concrete results that are predicted from the blasphemous
libels set forth in the indictment, I shall ask you to give a
verdict of Not Guilty, and to withhold the verdict of Guilty.
Now gentlemen, I leave the indictment for a moment, and I
come to other considerations. Whether Christianity is really
nsrt and parcel of the law of the land is a question which I
Eve Si the hands of the learned judge He will direct you,
gentlemen, on that subject. But I do affirm that dissent from
Christianity is so widespread m our country that fair-play, justice
and humanity, alike demand that a jury should not give a verdict
of guilty in the case of a prosecution for blasphemy, unless they
are fully persuaded that those who are accused really wished
really intended, and really designed, not only that the feelings of
others should be outraged, but that some commotion might be
raised some violent commotion which might be called a breach
of the peace and from which it might be inferred that they
designed the promotion of their own views through the disruption
of society and the violation of public order. Now, gentlemen,
I told you before that one of the reasons in my opinion why the
present prosecution was commenced, was that the alleged blasphemous>libels were published m a cheap paper, and I asked you
to bear in mind, that there was plenty of heresy in expensive
books published at 10s., 12s., and even as much as £1 and
more.’ I think I have a right to ask that you should have some
proof of this statement. I think I can show you that similar views
are expressed by the leading writers of to-day—not perhaps in
precisely the same language—for it is not to be expected that the
paper which is addressed to the many will be conducted on just
the same level, either intellectually or aesthetically speaking, as a
pubbeation in the form of an expensive book which is only
intended for men of education, intelligence, leisure, and learning
—but such views are put before the public by the most prominent
writers of the day. You will, of course, expect to find differences
in the mode of expression—and as a matter of course differences
of taste • but I submit that differences of taste affect the question
vervhttie, unless, as I have said, they actually lead to breaches
of the peace. But in a case like this there ought to be no dis
tinction1^on grounds of taste. Surely the man who says a thing m
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
19
one way is not to be punished, while the man who says the same
thing m another way is to go scot free. You cannot make a
distinction between men on grounds of taste. I can imagine that
lfthere were a parliament of aesthetic gentlemen, and Mr. Oscar
**, j yer.e ma^e Prime Minister, some such arrangement as that
W01U1iLfind3 wei.gbt before the jury; but in the present state of
enlightened opinion, I do not think that any such arrangement
would be accepted by you. Now, gentlemen, I shall call your
attention first of all to a book which is published by no less a
firm than the old and well established house of Longmans The
author of the book----Mr. Justice North : What is the name of the book.
MMr; Foote : The book is the “Autobiography of John Stuart
Mr. Justice North : What are you going to refer to it for ?
lord 'b00te: 1 am going t0 refer t0 one PaSe of it, my
Mr. Justice North: What for?
Mr- Foote : To show that identical views to those expressed in
volumes^ paper before tbe court are expressed in expensive
Mr. Justice North : I shall not hear anything of that sort. I
am not trying the question, nor are the jury, whether the views
expressed by other persons are sound or right. The question is
a blasPhemous libel. I shall direct
them that it will be for them to say whether the facts are proved
m this case.
1
1 e111! * al1 your attention, my lord, to the remarks
i*
of Lord Justice Cockburn m the case.
;,¥r’ ¿jUSfclCe N°rth : I will hear anything relevant to the sub
ject. My reason for asking-you was to find out whether vou
were going to quote a law book.
Mr. Foote : I will quote a verbatim report.
Mr. Justice North : I can hear that.
Annie Bes°ant
Charles Bradlaugh and
Mr. Justice North : By whom is your report published.
m
a verbatim report published by the Freethought Publishing Company—the shorthand notes of the full
theCcoeurkgS’
h the cross-examination and the judgment of
hem*1it?UStiCe N°rt11: Tbere is no evidence of that.
*
Did you
did11"’ F°°te: 1 dld nOt Personally Pear it; but my co-defendants
Mr. Justice North: I will hear you state anything you suogest as being said by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.
7 * * *°
�20
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote : Mrs. Besant was about to read a passage from
“Tristram Shandy”----Mr. Justice North : You have not proved the publication.
Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord; but although this is not
formal evidence and only the report of a case, I thought your
lordship would not object to hear it. [Mr. Foote here handed
in a copy of the report to the judge, and pointed out that the
Lord Chief Justice had said he could not prevent Mrs. Besant
from committing a passage to memory or from reading books if
reciting from memory.]
Mr. Justice North: 1 will allow you to go on, either quoting'
from memory or reading from the book; but I cannot go into
the question of whether this is right or not.
Mr. Foote: I am not proposing that. I am only going to
show that opinions like those expressed here extensively prevail.
Mr Justice North: That is not the question at all. If they
extensively prevail, so much the worse. What somebody else
has said, whoever that person may be, cannot affect the question
in this case.
„ ,
Mr. Foote : But, my lord, might it not affect the question of
whether a jury might not themselves by an adverse verdict be
far more contributing to a breach of the peace than the publica
tion in which they are asked to adjudicate.
Mr. Justice North: I think not, and it shall not do so it 1
can help it. It is a mere waste of time to attempt to justify
anything that has been said in the alleged libel by showing that
someone else has said the same thing.
Mr. Foote : In all trials the same process has been allowed.
Mr. Justice North : It will not be allowed on this occasion.
Mr Foote : If your lordship will pardon me for calling atten
tion to the famous case of the King against Wiliam Hone, I would
point out that there Hone read extracts to the jury.
P Mr. Justice North: Very possibly it might have been very
relevant in that case.
.
.
.,
Mr Foote • But, my lord, it was precisely a similar case; it
was a case of a blasphemous libel. Lord Ellenborougb sat on
the Bench.
Mr. Justice North : Possibly.
Mr. Foote: And Lord Ellenborough allowed Mr. Hone to
read what he considered justificatory of his own publication, lhe
same thing occurs in the case of the Queen agamst Bradlaugh
^Mr Justice North: We have nothing to do to-day with the
question whether any author has taken the views which are
taken in these libels, whoever the author was.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am to go on read
ing or not ?
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
21
Mr. Justice North : Go on with your address to the jury sir •
that’s what I wish you do. But you cannot do what you’were
about to do—refer to the book you mentioned for any such pur
poses as that you indicate.
r
Mr. Foote : I hope your lordship does not misunderstand me.
1 am simply defending myself against the very grave charge
under an old law.
s
Mr Justice North: Go on, go on, Foote. I know that. Go
on with your address.
Mr. Foote : Your lordship, these questions are part of my
address. Gentlemen (turning to the jury), no less a person than
a brother of one of our most distinguished judges has said___
Mr. Justice North: Now, again, I cannot have you quoting
books not m evidence, for the sake of putting before the jury
m 3?aiiterT th?L,Sta<te- The Passage you referred to is one in
done the L°rd CiUef dustlce pointed out that that could not be
Mr. Foote: But the action, my lord, of the Herd Chief Jus
tice did not put a stop to the reading. ’ He said he would allow
Mrs. Besant to-XTquote any X---------- dUlHUSS. of her address.
passage as part
TIT
T
xn
Mr. Justice North: Go on.
Mr Foote : No less a person than the brother of one of our
most learned----do^hatJUStiCe N°rth : N°W did 1 UOt teH y°U that y0U could not
this^case*?0^6 ' WU1 y°Ur lordship give a most distinct ruling in
Mr. Justice North: I am ruling that you cannot do what you
Are trying to do now.
J
I100?.6 : dam sorry> my lord, I cannot understand.
Mr Justice North: I am sorry for it. I have tried to make
myself clear.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am not to read
from any letter to show lustification of the libel 9
be^hown°te : My 1OTd’ “ aU °rdinary libel case Justification can
Mr. Justice North : Go on.
Mr. Foote : 1 do not wish to occupy the time of the court un-
�22
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
necessarily, but really I think your lordship ought to remember
the grave position in which I stand, and ought not to stand m
the way of anything which I consider to be of vital importance
to my defence.
. T
•
Mr. Justice North: 1 have pointed out to you what I consider
to be questions the jury have got to decide. I hope you will no
go outside the lines I have pointed out to you, but, with these
remarks, I am very reluctant to interfere with any prisoner sayin* anything which he considers necessary, and I will not stop
you. I hope you will not abuse the concession I consider I am
making to you.
_
■
Mr. Foote : I should be very sorry, my lord.. I am only
■ stating what I consider necessary. To the question of Are
we Christians ?” which was propounded by the late German
writer, Strauss, the gentleman to whom I refer, answers
“ No ! I should reply ; we are not Christians ; a tew try to pass
themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially men
of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old
charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming
social symptoms ; a great number call themselves Christians,
because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and
the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of respec
tability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear to part
with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have
ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avow
edly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name
Gentlemen, you will all have heard, I am sure, of the great
name of John Stuart Mill, who was not only a great writer,
whichis his highest claim to distinction, but was also a member
of Parliament, elected, despite the most unscrupulous use ot
the fact that he was a heretic, by the constituency of West
minster. John Stuart Mill says he was brought up without
religion, and states that his father, who brought him up
“ looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by
setting up fictitious excellencies,—belief in creeds, devotiona^
feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good ot
human-kind,—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes
for genuine virtues : but above all, by radically vitiating the
standard of morals ; making it consist m doing the will of a
being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation,
but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. J.
have a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations
have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly in
creasing progression, that mankind have gone on adding trai
after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called
this God, and prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
23
of wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is com
monly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.”
That is very emphatic language, and if a great writer, with
not only an English or even a European, but a universal re
putation can disseminate, such language as that through the
agency of respectable publishers and in expensive books
surely those who occupy the same ground, teach the same
ideas m their own way to those who are willing to listen to
them without forcing them on anyone’s attention, should
enjoy immunity from such penalties as are inflicted in a
case like this, and should enjoy exactly the same rights as
those who differ from them—I suppose, gentlemen, I shall
not trespass too much on your patience if I ask you to go
back for a moment to the fact that I mentioned before the
adjournment, namely, that it is a quarter of a century since
there was any prosecution for blasphemy in England,
lhe case was that of a poor Cornish well-sinker, who was
sent to gaol for having chalked some silly words on a gate
which words the witnesses could not agree about. This man
was liberated after a very short incarceration, because public
opinion was aroused against the sentence, and the authorities
round it necessary to remit the larger portion of it. A great
ea 0 controversy was excited at the time, and among other
gentlemen who took part in it was no less a person than the
great historian, Mr Henry Thomas Buckle, and he stated
It should be clearly understood that every man has an abso
lute and irrefragable right to treat any doctrine as he thinks
proper; either to argue against it, or to ridicule it. If his
arguments are wrong, he can be refuted; if his ridicule is
t ohsh, he can be out-ridiculed. To this there can be no ex
ception. It matters not what the tenet may be, nor how dear
it is to our feelings. Like all other opinions, it must take its
chance; it must be roughly used ; it must stand every test: it
must be thoroughly discussed and sifted. And we mav
truth 7t that lf
really be a great and valuable
truth, such opposition will endear it to us the more, and
that we shall cling to it the closer in proportion as it is
argued against, aspersed, and attempted to be overthrown ”
beTt W X’ 1*aSkZ°U toJemem?er this language-to rememher that this great man has said m language which I would
I a riht6 5U°,ted ,lf 1 C0uld only emulate it, that we all have
a right to treat any mere doctrine as we may think fit
Gentlemen ideas are the possession of no man. The reputa
tions of individuals in bygone generations are not the vested
right of men of to-day. If we really believe that no man
who ever existed in the world was possessed of divine attri
butes, then we ought to be as free to impugn, ridicule and
�24
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
caricature what one has done as well as another. If you
should imagine, or believe, or feel thoroughly convinced, that
exception must be made in the case of one reputed man, and
that he had the attributes of divinity, yet, remembering that
you cannot be the judges of others, and that your sentiments
cannot be the criterion of other people’s conduct, I think you
will be disposed to accede the demands of justice, and will
not give the verdict of guilty asked for by the prosecution,
but will return a verdict of not guilty for the defendants.
Another great writer of to-day, Professor Huxley, has. used
language about the dogmas of Christianity, such as, if the
law as explained by the learned counsel for the prosecution
were in force, would lead to his standing in this dock on a
criminal charge ; and if the law were carried out vigorously,
would lead to his incarceration in gaol. Surely, if that be
true, as every reader of the literature of to-day must know,
you have to ask yourselves whether, after all, there is not a
seoret motive behind this prosecution which has induced the
movers in it to select these particular men and to charge them
with blasphemous libel, while others, guilty at law of pre
cisely the same offence, are allowed to go scot free, and are
sometimes even patronised ano praised. You ought to deter
mine that by your verdict you will show that the liberties of
those who seem friendless and poor shall not be rashly im
perilled in the interests of classes, but that every man,
whether poor or rich, and whether he addresses his fellow
men through the medium of a penny paper or a twelve
shilling book has precisely the same rights. I will ask you
to treat the law under which we are being tried as the magis
trate treated the law of maintenance—as obsolete in this
country. It is very often said, and has been said to-day by
the learned counsel for the prosecution, that ridicule is not
allowable, and that learned men who controvert disputed
points of religion or topics of religion refrain from ridi
cule. I might give you the example of Mr. Matthew Arnold,
son of Dr. Arnold, the celebrated head-master of Rugby
School. Lord Derby, the other day at Liverpool, declared that
Mr. Matthew Arnold possessed the title of original thinker if
any one could make that claim. Yet we find him speaking in
a book on “ God and the Bible,” in language which might have f
been used in the “ Freethinker” or any other heretical publi
cation. One of his phrases runs thus
” Given the problem
of getting the infant Christ born without the assist
ance of a Father.” Certainly nothing stronger than
that could have been quoted by the learned counsel, who
had refrained from making any quotation, as if he not only
intended to snatch a verdict, but also to prevent the outside
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
25
world from understanding what the offence charged really
amounted to, and to induce them to think that the libels were
indecent as well as blasphemous. Mr. Matthew Arnold spoke
of the Trinity as “ Three Lord Shaftesburys.” If a poor man
had done this he would have been put on his trial; but Mr.
Matthew Arnold is screened because of his position. I might
give you more from Mr. Matthew Arnold; but I refrain. I
have quoted from Professor Huxley, but there is one passage
in which he distinctly repudiates belief in the fuller part of
the Old Testament, which is alleged to be blasphemously
libelled in one of the drawings of the “ Freethinker.” Pro
fessor Huxley says that people who call themselves Christians,
believe that “Adam was made out of earth somewhere in
Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled
from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two
having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the
summit of Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the
nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have
migrated to their present localities, and have become con
verted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within
that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe
it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man oj
science, or duly instructed person, who does; ” and Professor
Huxley in the same address, has an eloquent fling at
those- who, as he says, would make the myths of the
Hebrews obligatory on the Englishmen of to-day, and who
would. degrade the people of this country to the level of
primitive Judaism. Now, gentlemen, I pass by Professor
Huxley and Mr. Matthew Arnold, and come to Viscount
Amberley.
Mr. J"ustice North: Do you really think you are doing your
self any good by this mode of address to the jury, who have
only to decide the questions which I have pointed out to you
just now p
Mr.. Foote: I do, my lord. Lord Amberley distinctly
repudiates all Christian belief, and says, for instance, with
respect to the subject of the libel which is referred to in the
indictment as to pages 8 and 9 of the “ Freethinker.” [Here
Mr. Foote quoted a passage which shall be given in full in
the last Part.]
Now, gentlemen, is not this language as extreme as any
thing that has been stated or pointed out to you as forming
part of the blasphemous libel before you ? Just one other
quotation.. One of the illustrations which is mentioned as
occuring in this blasphemous libel on page 7 of the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker,” is called “ A back view.”
�26
Iteport of Blasphemy Trials.
That, on the face of it, does not represent a Deity. It
represents a Hebrew myth—a Hebrew legend, if yon prefer
the phrase—which, if one does not believe in its truth as
history, and as matter of fact, is as much a subject of
caricature, of ridicule, and of sarcasm, as the myths of the
Greeks and Romans, or of any other people. Surely,
gentlemen, you are not going to make it an offence to
caricature the myths of Greece and Rome, which were coeval
with the days of the Hebrews, who were much more barbarous
than the Greeks and Romans, because they were much less
informed as to natural laws, and were the most credulous and
ignorant people who ever attracted the notice of the world.
Another writer has said in an expensive book, “ Truly if the
author of Exodus,”—and the quotation under this drawing was
taken from the book of Exodus—“ had been possessed of the
genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the God
of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more ter
ribly true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody
of divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the re
volting details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the
Egyptian nation.” (“ The Evolution of Christianity,” p. 25 ;
William and Norgate ; 1883.)
There are many other paragraphs following, which deal with
other aspects of the character of the same Deity, all breathing
the same sentiment. Gentlemen, so far I have proved my
point, that in expensive books the same kind of heresy, and
the same kind of language are employed, as are to be found in
the publication which is now before you. I ask you, gentlemen,
to believe that there must be some other reason prompting the
prosecutors than those which are ostensibly on the face of
their declarations, and that they are really seeking to
gratify some ulterior design—probably seeking only the same
objects as were sought in the previous prosecution for blas
phemy, which is still pending—namely, an attack on a political
opponent under an obsolete religious law, which was allowed
to slumber until his enemies found it a useful weapon to
employ against him for political ends. Now, gentlemen, I
have given you one or two illustrations of permitted blasphemy
in expensive books, and I will go on to trouble you for a
minute or two with a few instances of permitted blasphemy in
cheap publications which, however, are ignored because they
call themselves Christian, and because those who conduct
them are patronised by ecclesiastical dignitaries. One passage
in a paper I hold in my hand, a Christian paper, says:—
[Here follows a passage from the War Cry, impounded, but
which we hope to give in our last Part.]
Mr. Justice North: Now, Foote, I am going to put a stop to
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
27
this. I will not allow any more of these illustrations of what
you call permitted blasphemy in cheap publications. I decline
to have any more of them put before me.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I will use them for another purpose,
if you will allow me.
Mr. Justice North: You will not use them here at all, sir.
Mr. Foote : May they not be used, my lord, to show that an
equally free use of religious symbols, and religious language,
prevails widely in all classes of literature and society ?
Mr. Justice North : No, they may not. I decline to hear
them read. They are not in evidence, and I refuse to allow
you to quote from such documents as part of your speech.
Mr. Foote : Well, gentlemen, I will now ask your attention
very briefly to another branch of the subj ect—one that 1 have
mentioned before, and one that I wish to dwell upon at greater
length now. The learned counsel for the prosecution told
you—and this I hold is fatal to his case, if it is to be a question
of logic—that discussion on controversial points of religion,
even when they are conducted warmly by learned men, would
not be made the subject of prosecution at law—that nothing
would result from them ; by which I suppose he meant that a
jury would not give a verdict against the prosecuted persons :
thus showing that, in his opinion a jury has a very large dis
cretion in the matter. I submit that this very statement
carries with it a complete refutation of his argument. When
these obsolete laws were being enforced against Richard
Carlile and others, the prosecuted periodicals had a larger
sale, and the society which was promoting them had a larger
accession of strength, and was able to hold its own much
better than before. John Stuart Mill pointed out at that time
in the Westminster Review that, it is absurd to say a subject is
open to discussion, and at the same time to bar one method of
discussion. . Ridicule, gentlemen—what is it ? A logician
would call it the reductio ad absurdum—that is to say, it reduces
a. thing to absurdity. Some of you must know that ridicule
is a most potent form of argument as used by so great a
logician as Euclid. Why then, with respect to controverted
points of religion, should a man be deemed a criminal because
he has applied ridicule to those points, either pictorially, or
in the language of every-day life ? Suppose you look around
and take letters, or politics, or social matters, do you not find,
that ridicule plays an important and growing part in every
one of them?^ Do you not find that the comic journals are
constantly rising, that the rate of the old-established ones is
constantly increasing, and that their influence is constantly
extending ? You do. And why is it you permit ridicule in
controversy on all social matters ? Simply because the whole
�28
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
question is open to the fullest discussion, and you have no
reservations. Ridicule is not a form of argument which is
necessarily used to outrage the feelings of those from whom
we differ, lent to point out absurd conclusion, and to show
more clearly the ridiculous side of a thing. If the illustration
takes the form of pictures instead of letterpress what
essential difference can it make ? It is simply appealing to
the eye instead of the ear, and can make no essential difference.
If you agree with the learned counsel, that discussion on
points of theology is allowable, and the widest difference on
such points is allowable, you cannot logically bring in a person
guilty of blasphemy—simply he differs in a usual way. When
you allow that religion may be discussed without any reser
vation you cannot exclude ridicule, which is only a form of
argument, and has been found one of the most potent forms
not only by philosophers and logicians, but by the greatest
Christians, from Tertullian and other early Fathers, down to
Martin Luther, who was the most practised hand at that, to
our own time, when, if you look at the religious papers, either
High Church or Low Church, you will find that they employ
it most freely one against the other, considering it a fair and
legitimate weapon of controversy. I will ask you to consider
this question of outraging people’s feelings. Whose feelings,
I would ask, have been outraged by the publication of this
alleged blasphemous libel p I am not arguing whether I have
been proved to have been connected with it. That is a
question which I have raised before ; but I ask what evi
dence is there that this publication, notwithstanding all the
denunciations of the learned counsel for the prosecution, has
outraged the feelings of those who differ from the doctrines
propounded in it? The learned counsel may say liis feelings
have been outraged; but, gentlemen, I do not think you will
attach much importance to that. You can get any amount of
denunciation from a prosecuting counsel, and his denunciations
-can generally be measured by the number of guineas marked
upon his brief. But I will put it to the prosecuting couusel—
what feelings have been outraged ? They ought to have pro
duced evidence that the feelings of certain people had been
outraged. The question of outraging people’s feeling is open
to unlimited controversy. If a shot is being fired in a par
ticular direction, you can say what its tendency is. If certain
physical forces are working together, you can say what the
resultant tendency will be, but when you ^y that a thing
tends to outrage the feelings of others, what criterion do you
set up ? No criterion is possible. The only way in which
such a question could be settled, is by producing witnesses.
Probably, this might not be possible or practicable; but this
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
29
is not my fault. Witnesses ought to be produced, who will
either solemnly affirm, or swear, that their feelings have been
outraged by this publication—that it has in any way injured
their digestion and disturbed their sleep. Really, gentlemen,
when people talk of outraged feelings, they ought to consider
that this is a two-edged argument. I do not know that any
persons in this country are called on every time they put pen
to paper, or use their tongues for those who in the main
believe as they do, and agree with their policy—I do not know
that any persons other than Freethinkers, are called upon
every time they speak or write to consider the feelings of
those who differ from them. You know, gentlemen, as well
as I do, that if any person were prosecuted, because, either by
pen or tongue, he had outraged the feelings of Freethinkers—
and, gentlemen, through all grades of society, there are very
many of them—the very idea would be scouted. This talk
about outraging other people’s feelings, is only one way of
cloaking the hideousness of an old persecuting law, only a
mark put before the repulsive features of that persecution,
which has in the past deluged the earth with blood, which is
still capable of depriving a mother of her children, and of
depriving a citizen of his civil and political rights, but which
is happily losing its power day by day, and is destined to lose
its power altogether before long.
Now, gentlemen, I will ask you to consider in a separate
way the question of a breach of the peace. What is the mean
ing of. breach of the peace. It is exactly like the talk about
outraged feelings ; it is only another cloak, another mask.
There has not been the slightest evidence produced that any
thing I have done has led to a breach of the peace or is in any
way likely to do so. There has been no gathering in the
streets, outside shops ; no expulsion from lecture halls—in
fact, there has been absolutely nothing, except the fact that
people who have bought the paper for the purposes of prose
cution dislike it, or say they do, in order to wring a verdict of
guilty from you. A breach of the peace, gentlemen, if it were
actually committed, would be rightly regarded as a grave
offence. It is the active interference with the liberty of
another, the violation of his individual right. If we had
been proved guilty of a breach of the peace what justification
could I offer or make ? None. I have been proved guilty of
nothing of the sort. The language of the indictment is mis
leading. I shall not ask you to go over the ground I tra
versed as to the law of India, but I will ask you to bear it in
mind. India is part of our British Empire. If we hold an
empire I suppose we feel obliged to rule it on principles of
justice, and you cannot divorce justice from truth. Religion
�30
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
can only be upheld by law, and protected by law, in so far as
it is considered necessary for the public peace and safety, or
as it is considered necessary for our eternal salvation, and
that whoever impugns it does so to the danger of others.
But if these reasons are good here, they must be good every
where the British flag flies ; they must be as good and true
for India as for England. But why not attempt to force them
there ? Because the vast majority of the people there are not
Christians. Here the majority of the people are Christians—
by profession, at least—and we have an established religion in
the form of a State Church. It is therefore only a question
of numbers. In India Christians cannot get any special pro
tection—although they are under the same ruler—simply
because they are in a minority ; but here the right is claimed
of crushing out opposition to Christianity because it is in the
majority. But surely such an argument should not prevail;
.and if you think that each man has an equal right with every
other man, and that if he is not trenching on the right of any
other man. he ought not to be punished, you will withhold
a verdict of guilty from the prosecution, and award a verdict
of not guilty to me. Let me say what it is that any Free
thinker could demand. Does he ask for privileges, does he
■demand exceptional advantages for himself ? I for one
should be the very last to make any such claim, but unless
you have evidence before you that this publication has been
forced on the attention of others, unless you have evidence
that it has been surreptitiously placed in their way and that
they have unheedingly fallen into the trap, and have read it
without knowing what they were doing ; unless you have evi
dence that there has been some conspiracy to place this in the
hands of children of Christian parents unknown to those
parents—unless something of this kind can be proved, you
ought to remember that all we ask, and that all I personally
ask, is that you should yield to every other man the right
which you would certainly claim for yourselves. You ought
by a verdict of not guilty to allow it to go forth that you as
twelve Englishmen, free men in a free country, recognise the
grand principle of religious as well as civil liberty, and believe
that every man has a right to say what he pleases to the people
who choose to hear it and write what he pleases to people who
choose to read it. Ho Freethinker could demand more than
that. The whole history of the world, and especially the
history of this country, ought to show you that those who
claim what I have stated, while they demand more, will
never rest satisfied with less.
And now, gentlemen, just one thing more. If blasphemy is
an offence at all it can, I argue, only be an offence against
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
31
the deity blasphemed. In various parts of the world the defi
nitions of blasphemy differ. The Christian in this country says
that to deny the divinity of Christ is blasphemy ; the J ew, that
to affirm his divinity is blasphemy—yet even Jews and Chris
tians, who differ so widely as to the specific character of blas
phemy, are to be seen not only in the same executive branches
of our national life, but even sitting together in the very
legislative body that makes the laws of which we are told
Christianity is part and parcel. You haxe Jews, Christians
and heretics sitting together in the same House and helping
to make our Christian laws 1 I have a great authority to sup
port me in saying that blasphemy can only be committed
against a specific deity in whom we believe.
Mr. Justice North : I am not going to hear any argument
to the effect that blasphemy is not against the law of the land.
I say it is against the law of the land. The question for the
jury will be whether this is blasphemy. I decline to hear
argument that blasphemy is not against the law of the
land.
Mr. Foote: If blasphemy is an offence against the law of
the land might not the jury be influenced in giving their
verdict by the consideration as to whether the person specifi
cally charged with the offence could really be guilty of it.
Mr. Justice North: You may say anything you please on
the question of whether you are guilty of the offence with
which you are charged, or not. But I shall direct the jury
that the alleged libel is against the law of the land.
Mr. Foote: That may be ; I am not now trespassing on that
ground.
Mr. Justice North: Yes, you are, because you are addressing
yourself to the question whether blasphemy ought to be the
law of the land. f That I stopi1Mr. Foote: A great lawyer—no less a person than the late
Lord Brougham—publicly asserted in a book written by him
that, properly speaking, blasphemy is an offence that can
only be committed by a believer in the deity blasphemed,
and, gentlemen, this is a fact which I am desirous of im
pressing upon you. The very statute which the learned judge
will interpret to you, if he deals with it at all, sets forth that
persons brought up in the Christian religion are to be subject
to penalties if they are proved guilty of blasphemy.
Mr. Justice North: You need not address yourself to that.
We have nothing to do with the statute at this moment.
Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord. I am only attempting to
impress on the jury a fact which I think ought to constitute
a part of their consideration when they are forming their
judgment preparatory to giving their verdict—a fact which
�32
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
stands on the great and transcendant authority of a lawyer
like Lord Brougham. Now, gentlemen, I will ask your atten
tion to what is, perhaps, after all the most important thing
to consider, even from the point of view of the prosecution
itself. I affirm, and I have all history to support me, that
these prosecutions necessarily fail in their desired efEect.
Gentlemen, that ought to be a consideration that should
weigh heavily with you. In the book I hold in my hand there
is a poem which a jury declared to be blasphemous, notwith
standing an eloquent defence by Serjeant Talfourd. Did that
stop the sale ? Gentlemen, that poem is included in the col
lected editions of Shelley, published by all sorts of firms, in
every part of the English-speaking world, including our own
country ; and “ Queen Mab ” is far more extensively sold and
read to-day than it ever was before the publishers of it were
prosecuted. There was another book prosecuted again and
again, and its publisher, Richard Carlile, went to gaol year
after year. He spent nine years in gaol, and his wife, sister,
and shopman, went to gaol one after the other, while men
also went to gaol in all parts of the country. You would have
thought that such a sweeping execution of the law would
have stopped the circulation of the book for ever, but, as a
matter of fact, that book enjoys an exceedingly large circula
tion to-day. I am within the truth when I say that consider
ably over 1000 copies are sold every year. The prosecu
tion did not stop its sale, it only gave it a wider circulation ;
and Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason,” with his “Rights of
Man,” which were both the subjects of prosecution, are read
more than they ever would have been if the attempt to sup
press them had not given them a wider publicity, and a more
extensive circle of readers. You will have in your minds, I
am sure, the prosecution instituted against Mr. Bradlaugh
and Mrs. Besant for publishing the book on the population
question ; and it will be well for you to remember that it was
openly stated in court, that while the sale of this little work
had only been about 100 copies a year for thirty or forty years
before, it was absolutely sent up by the prosecution to the
enormous circulation of 150,000. That prosecution did not
succeed in putting down the obnoxious publication. I submit
that no such prosecution can possibly succeed. Prom the
point of view of the prosecutors themselves it is a mistake.
You only give a wider sale; you excite a greater curiosity;
you bring, as it were, within the influence of the ideas dis
seminated. by the publication, a larger number susceptible of
receiving them; and you only tend to enlarge the class
of men, who, if the laws of the land were carried out,
might be treated as outlaws, and deprived of all their civil
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
33
aP’!^ political rights. IP this be so, you have a very serious
thing to consider.
Mr. Justice North Foote, I shall tell the jury that they
have nothing whatever to do with that. If the prosecution is
ill-advised and should lead to a great circulation of these
papers, so much the worse, but that cannot throw any light
whatever on what the jury ought to decide in your case.
Mr. Foote: Gentlemen of the jury, I have only said what
seemed to me necessary to influence your judgment—necessary
for my own defence, necessary to obtain from you a verdict
of Dot guilty. I again repeat that I had no intention of tres
passing on the province of the learned judge. It is perfectly
impossible, however, that a case like mine can be argued
without occasionally something being said which the learned
judge may think outside the province of a defendant, and if I
were a lawyer (ike Sir Hardinge Giffard and had the purse of
the Corporation of the (’ity of London to supply his legal skill,
it might be different, f am too poor to employ such, legal
assistance, and I can only use such arguments as seem to me
to be likely to have their effect on your minds. I have tra
versed a very large space, not only of time but of ground. I
nave uenied utterly that Christianity can be considered in
the sense stated by the learned counsel for the prosecution as
protected by the law. I have denied that I am guilty of the con
crete offences which are stated in this indictment. I deny
that there has been or can be any proof that I have done any
thing to the high displeasure of Almighty God ; I deny that
1 have done anything against the peace of our Lady the
(¿ueen, her Crown, and dignity. I have also stated that this
is an age of intellectual fair-play, that all kinds of argument
eVuI1iK arSuIQeilt absurdum—ridicule—must be tolerated’
and that as it is allowed in politics, literature, philosophy, and’
social matters, it. must be allowed in religion too. I have
argued that no evidence has been adduced to show that there
has been any forcing of this publication on the attention of
people who wish to have nothing to do with it. I have shown
you and there has been no attempt to prove anything to the
contrary, that there was no malignant motive in my mind
and 1 believe none in the minds of either of my co-defendants’
in anything we have ever done. No such evidence has been
tendered, and unless you consider that there has been such
malignant motive, and that we have intended to cause a
breach of the peace, and to forcibly outrage the feelings of
those from whom we happen to differ—unless you believe this
gme me a Ver^^ Of not guilfcF- lf y°u have the
smallest doubt in your minds as to the sufficiency of the evi
dence, 1 ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I ask
�34
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
you to act on the old English maxim that a man is innocent
until he is proved to be guilty.
I told you at the outset that you are the last Court ot
Appeal on all questions affecting the liberty of the press
and the right of free speech and Freethought. When I
say Freethought, I do not refer to specific doctrines that
may pass under that name, but I refer to the great right of
Freethought, that Freethought which is neither low as a
cottage nor lofty as a pyramid, but is like the soaring azure
vault of heaven, which over-arches both with equal ease.
I ask you to affirm the liberty of the press, to show by your
verdict that you are prepared to give to others the same
freedom as you claim for yourselves. I ask you not to be
misled by the statements that have been thrown out by the
prosecution, not to be misled by the authority and influence
of the mighty and rich Corporation which commenced the
action, has found the money for it, and whose very solicitor
was bound over to prosecute. I will ask you not to be
influenced by these considerations, but rather to remember
that this present attack is made upon us probably because we
are connected with those who have been struck at again and
again by some of the very persons who are engaged in the
prosecution; to remember that England is growing day y
day in its humanity and love of freedom; and that, as blas
phemy has been an offence less and less proceeded against
during the past century, so there will probably be fewer and
fewer proceedings against it in the next. Indeed there may
never be another prosecution for blasphemy, and I am sure
you would not like to have it weigh on your minds that you
were the instruments of the last act of persecution, t a you
were the last jury, who sent to be caged like wild beasts, men
against whose honesty there has been no charge. I am quite
sure you will not. allow yourselves to be made the agents of
sending such men to herd with the lowest criminals, to be
subject to all the physical indignities such punishment
involves, but that you will send me as well as my co-defendants,
back to our homes and friends—who do not think the worse of
us for the position in which we stand ; that you will send us
back to them unstained, giving a verdict of not guilty for ma
and my co-defendants, instead of the verdict of guilty for the
prosecution; thus, as English juries have again and again done
before, vindicating the glorious principle of the freedom of
the press, against all the interested, religious, and political
factions that may seek to impugn them for tneir own ends.
(Applause in court.)
,___
Mr. Ramsey then addressed the jury as followsGentlemem
1 stand indicted before you for an alleged blasphemous libel, and
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
35
upon you the law throws the duty of defining what is and what
is not blasphemy at common law. And yet the meaning of the
word blasphemy has strangely changed and varied during the last
250 years, lhen Quakers were held to be blasphemous, and
were punished as such. They were branded and flogged at the
carts tail m the vain attempt to silence their blasphemy and
jury after jury returned verdicts of guilty against men and wrnnen
tor •holdingp the opinions which have proved iiu bar to the
no Mar io cue
■i
•
t i
-a . 7— -------T
admission of John Bright to the Cabinet. Surely this fact alone
should make a modern jury careful how they condemn any form
of thought, even though it be as blasphemous in their eyes as the
opinions of the Quakers were blasphemous in the eyes of the
juries who condemned them, and who are now, in their turn
condemned by every rational person. Later still, Unitarians were
indictable and were punished as blasnhemprs
____
Unitarians are found such names as those of John Milton Dr
Priestley the discoverer of oxygen, and Isaac Newton. Even
now Unitarians are punishable under the same law of blas
phemy under which you are asked to find me guilty, and are at
the mercy of any common informer or over-zealmis
�36
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
from any respectable bookseller throughout the country, while
as to the “ dread of future punishment,” the law is stripped of
thia “ one of its principal sanctions,” by men hke Canon tarrar
preaching, in Westminster Abbey, against the doctrine of eternal
punishment. Will you, gentlemen, add your names to the shame
ful list of those juries who tried—and tried vainly—by verdicts
of “ guilty of blasphemy” to check the progress of free inquiry
and free criticism. Less than a century ago Canon Farrar would
by direction of Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, have been found
guilty of blasphemy. In the last century prosecutions for
heresy or blasphemy were plentiful, but to-day the spread of
education has created a sounder public opinion. In nearly
the last indictment for blasphemy m Middlesex Messrs.
Moxon, the publishers of Shelley’s “Queen Mab, were
found guilty under a similar indictment to that under which
I now stand arraigned; yet to-day you may buy this blas
phemous poem on any- railway bookstall in the country, and
the inane verdict of the jury which condemned it is regarded
with contempt and scorn. Is it in the company of that jury that
your names, gentlemen, are to be recorded? A similar indict
ment might to-day be preferred against Messrs Longmans as the
publishers of the works of Bishop Colenso ; Chapman, Hall an
Co. and Macmillan might equally be indicted for the publication
of many of the essays of the late William Kingdon Clifford; and
your verdict may revive a menace against the utterances of some
of our best known writers and thinkers. It is idle to say that
there is no intention of prosecuting these men ; any one who is
vicious enough and bigoted enough can mdict the most respect
able bookseller for blasphemy, and the law of blasphemy deals
with matter not with manner; the law of blasphemy condemns
equally Professor Clifford’s mocking account of the creation
stories in Genesis, as it may condemn the mocking in the news
paper before you.
Messrs. Macmillan publish as to these
creation stories these words: “One is an account of a wet be
ginning of things, after which the waters were divided by a firm
canopy of sky, and the dry land appeared underneath. Plants
and animals and men were successively formed by the word of
a deity enthroned above the canopy. Another account is ot a
dry beginning of things—namely, a garden, subsequently watered
bv a mist in which there were no plants until a man was put
there to till it. This man was made from the dust of the ground
bv a deity who walked about on the earth, and had divine
associates, jealous of the man for sharing their privilege of
knowing good from evil, and fearful that he would gam that
of immortality also. The deity had taken a rib out of the man,
and made a woman of it.” They publish : “ Now, to condemn
all mankind for the sin of Adam and Eve ; to let the innocent
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
37
suffer for the guilty; to keep any one alive in torture for ever
and ever—these actions are simply magnified copies of what bad
men do. No juggling with ‘ divine justice and mercy ’ can make
them anything else.” Herbert Spencer writes, and King and Co.
publish: “ Here we have theologians who believe that our
national welfare will be endangered if there is not in all our
churches an enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son
and Holy Ghost are each of them almighty; that yet there are
not three Almighties, but one Almighty; that one of the
Almighties suffered on the cross and descended into hell to
pacify another of them.” Objection is raised to the strength of
the language used with respect to God, yet the City does not
prosecute the “Nemesis of Faith,” which says of God:
He ! to have created mankind liable to fall—to have laid them
in the way of a temptation under which he knew they would fall
and then curse them and all who were to come of them, and ali
the world for their sakes ; jealous, passionate, capricious, re
vengeful, punishing children for their father’s sins, tempting men
or at least permitting them to be tempted into blindness and
folly, and then destroying them..............This is not God. This
is a fiend. .... I would sooner perish for ever than stoop down
before a Being who may have power to crush me, but whom my
v air ^orbids me to reverence.” Mr. Matthew Arnold, published
by Messrs. Smith, Elder and Co., describes the Trinity as the three
Shaftesbury s, and terms God the Father £ithe elder Lord
Shaftesbury.” What is therein the “Freethinker ”more outrageous
than this ? John Stuart Mill, published by Longmans, declares
that “The only difference between popular Christianity and
the religion of Ormuzd and Ahriman is that the former pays its
d Creator the bad compliment of having been the maker of
the Devil, and of being at all times able to crush and annihilate
him and his evil deeds and counsels, which nevertheless he does
not do. To all these considerations ought to be added the
extremely imperfect nature of the testimony itself which we
possess for the miracles, real or supposed, which accompanied
the foundation of Christianity and of every other revealed reli
gion. lake it at the best, it is the un-crossexamined testimony
of extremely ignorant people, credulous as such usually are.”
y°u condemn me, remember that your verdict
will be taken as an encouragement for prosecution of all these.
1 have no right to ask you to question the law, because to you and
to the learned judge is given the duty of administering the law
as
? but 1 would respectfully submit that the laws
against blasphemy belong to a period when men foolishly sought
to control opinion by legislation, and that the nower of defining
what is a blasphemous publication lies in your hands. To-day
.eminent men like Lord Shaftesbury condemn as blasphemous
�38
Report of E lasphemy Trials.
the publications of the Salvation Army; and if to bring religion
into mockery and contempt be blasphemy, there is none more
outrageous than that committed by these fanatics. In strong
terms the same Lord Shaftesbury, a few years ago, denounced
as blasphemous the famous volume “ Ecce Homo.’’ This prose
cution challenges really the right of free and unlicensed print
ing, so highly valued in England, and for which Milton so ably
and earnestly pleaded; it assails that spirit of free inquiry,
which is really the basis of all our progress, the spur and aid to
all intellectual effort. I submit that you are not sitting as a
jury to condemn us for want of good taste ; that is a matter for
the wider jury of public opinion ; you are asked to condemn us
as criminals because our opinions on theology differ from yours,
and because jou may dislike our modes of expressing our
opinions; you are asked to send us to undergo a punishment
intended for grave crimes of conduct merely because we do not
share your opinions on speculative matters. However the pro
secution may try to gloss it over, you are asked to revive perse
cution for the sake of gagging opinion, and to send men against
whose lives and characters no fault is alleged to keep company
with the scum of society. It is alleged that the publication of
so-called blasphemy is an outrage; even if that be so it is an
outrage from which no one need suffer save by his own free
will • the persons whose feelings you are asked to guard by
imprisoning us can guard their feelings by not buying the papers
which when bought, and not till then, inflict on them pain.
The use of ridicule and strong words by religionists against
Freethinkers is common enough within the limits of this empne.
The missionaries use mocking words of Hindu and Mahornedan forms of faith. If you would judge fairly of the criminality
of the paper indicted, you should think of the pictures as de
picting some god in whom you do not believe. Those who
would punish with imprisonment the publisher of a print of
Jupiter smoking a pipe might punish us. But no one else should
do so. You may think that a peculiar picture of a pagan god is
in bad taste—many people, Christians and Freethinkers, would
acrree with you. But a man ought scarcely to be punished as a
criminal for a breach of good taste, even admitting that such has
been committed. Whether this be wise or unwise is another
question. My appeal to you is to widen the liberty of speech
enjoyed, not to restrict it. If you hold our methods of utterance
improper in form or in method, your verdict, if it mark us as
criminals, will make mankind look at our punishment rather
than at our error. Every attempt is being made to rouse your
supposed prejudices and to excite your feelings. I ask you to
remember the essential question at issue, and not to allow
yourselves to be blinded by the side issues so skilfully raised to
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
89
conceal the real point. Every attempt hitherto made to suppress
opinion has ended in the wider diffusion of the opinions thus
attacked. Persecution does not silence, it makes of the perse
cuted heroes and martyrs, and gives to them a tenfold strength.
No service will be done to morals by sending us to consort
with criminals, and to you the sole authority is given of doing
with us as three juries in this very building did with William
Hone. He was indicted for blasphemy, and on three separate
trials three verdicts of acquittal did then what I appeal to you
to do now. They left opinion free for opinion to condemn, but
refused to condemn the mere use of hard or mocking words as
crime.
Mr. Justice North, after remarking that Mr. Foote had wasted
the time of the court by devoting a large portion of his address
to matters which the jury had not to consider, that he had
allowed him to read some extracts from books which perhaps he
ought to have stopped, and that the jury must excuse him for not
having done so, because he had been very reluctant to do any
thing which might prevent a defendant saying anything he sup
posed to be of value in his own defence, said: You have nothing
to do with the definition of a blasphemous publication. The
law says what a blasphemous pubheation is, but it is your duty
to say whether the publication in this case is what the law con
siders a blasphemous pubheation or not. The law as to blas
phemy is clear, and I am going to tell you what is sufficient to
constitute blasphemy. The illustrations I am going to give you,
however, will not cover the whole of what may be blasphemy^
Now, if by writing or verbally, any one denies the existence of '
the Deity, or denies the providence of God, if he puts forward
any abuse or contumely or reproach with respect to the
Almighty, or holds up the persons of the Trinity, whether it is
our Savior Christ or anyone else, to contempt, or derision ; or
ridicules the persons of the Trinity, or God Almighty, or ’the
Christian religion, or the Holy Scriptures in any way—that is
what the law considers to be blasphemy. It is for you to say
whether you consider the publication before you as having come
within this definition of blasphemous libel or not. It is said that
the law had better not pay any attention to blasphemy, and should
not deal with it. It is essential that the law should do so,
because blasphemous libels have a strong tendency to subvert
religion and morality, and tend in a great measure to interfere
with the law itself. But I do not dwell on this, because you
will with me accept the law as it is, without hearing reasons for
it. This being the definition of a blasphemous libel, let us con
sider whether this paper comes within the definition. Does it
or does it not scoff at the Almighty, and throw contempt on the
tenets, or views entertained by professors of the Christian religion ?
�40
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
I am not going to call attention in public to the details of the
charge. The learned counsel, who opened this case to you, very
wisely refrained from stating in public the particular matters
which you have to deal with. I shall do the same. I shall not
read them in public or anything of the sort. I must, however,
make a few remarks in respect to the questions you must put to
yourselves regarding each. Now, the first count relates to what
appears on pages 8, 9, and 10 of this publication, pages 8 and 9
being occupied entirely with pictures, and there being over the
top of page 10 two pictures more. Now, just look at those
pictures for yourselves. Look on page 9, at the top, on the left,
on the picture below that. Look at the others in the left-hand
column. Look at the first, I might say, and look at the last,
and consider in looking at them whether they or any of them
throw contempt on religion, or treat with derision the Holy
Scriptures, the Christian religion, or the Deity. The second
count relates to the woodcut on page 7. In connection with
that, is the stanza below—the nine lines beginning with the
words, “Now Moses,” which I daresay you have read. Now just
look at the whole of that, looking at the picture and the words
below it, and those nine lines below. What do you say to that?
Then again the third is at page 8, near the bottom of the right-hand
column, the third paragraph from the bottom. It begins with the
word“ converted.” Now, just look at that. What, gentlemen, do
you think of that? Something has been said about the right
of free discussion, the right of controversy about matters
of religion, in respect to which persons may take different
views, and the right of conveying your own ideas to others.
Look at that paragraph and consider whether that can
possibly be justified on the ground of its being controversy or
discussion or anything like it. Now look at the fourth ; the fourth
is at pages 4 and 5. It purports to be an account of a trial for a
blasphemous libel. If you read the first four lines you will see
who the alleged prisoners are ; I daresay you may have seen the
contents of it. I will ask you in particular to look at the second
paragraph, beginning at the words “ The indictment.” It is after
the first four lines stating who the parties are, and then comes
the first paragraph “ The indictment.” There is one other part I
will just call your attention to there. In the middle of the first
column of page 5 you see the words “ This concluded the case
for the prosecution.” Now look at the eight or ten lines follow
ing that. I myself, gentlemen, have read the whole of these
pages through. I do not call your attention to these pages as
being worse than the rest, but as being what seems to be a fair
sample of the rest. At any rate, they are found there. The
sixth count relates to a passage at page 14, the second column,
the second paragraph from the top. It begins with the word
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
41
“ Holyyou see what I refer to. I ask you to consider, gentle
men, whether the proper term for that would be controversy or
free discussion on a point to be reasonably considered, or whether
the proper description of that would not be rather a piece of
ribald obscenity. Then, gentlemen, there is only one other count,
six, and that is really putting the first in a different way. After
the time that has been taken up, I am not going to waste your
time, and I am not going to give to this paper any of that
notoriety which its authors would desire for it by dwelling on
it at any length. I am not going to insult your understandings
by supposing that any one of you requires any further explanation
from me to enable you to form an opinion as to whether these
are or are not blasphemous libels, having regard to that which I
have told you as to what a blasphemous libel is—that is to say,
whether this is a case of contumelious reproach or profane scoff
ing against God Almighty, or the Persons of the Trinity, or the
Holy Scriptures, or the Christian religion. As to that, gentlemen,
I will say no more, but will leave it to you to consider. That is
the first part of the case—and the question you have there to
consider is, whether, having regard to this definition, these differ
ent paragraphs are libels or not. I am proceeding now to the
second point—but if you find that they are not libels, of course
the result would be that the prisoners would be acquitted, but
if you find that they are, the result would be that to that extent
the prisoners are guilty. Their cases stand somewhat differently.
I take Kemp first, as his learned counsel has not thought it neces
sary to address you. He said very properly that as the evidence
showed beyond a doubt that Kemp was proved to have sold
the papers he would not address you on that point. You
will recollect in regard to Kemp also that it is quite clear that on
the 2nd of August, 1882, he signed the register of the news
paper as the printer and publisher. Therefore, as regards
Kemp, the only question is whether you are of opinion that
it was a blasphemous libel or not. That he sold it is
quite out of the question. Then next I take the case of Ramsey.
What is his position ? As regards that, the law requires that
newspapers should be registered, and it says—after providing for
the way in which registration is to be made, which has been
carried out as regards this paper by the documents produced
here to-day—that every copy and extract from the registry of
these documents shall be received as conclusive evidence of the
contents of the register itself, so far as the same appears in the
copy or extract. I read to you from the original, which has no
magic force, but a copy of it is in evidence before you, and
that copy is made by the statute sufficient evidence of the
matters and things therein appearing. What appears ? As
regards Ramsey, what appears is this, that when the “Free
�42
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
thinker” is first registered, on the 6th of November, 1881,
Ramsey is the person who goes to the registry and who appears
in the register as proprietor of the paper, and he signs his name
at the bottom, stating that he is the printer and publisher also.
On the 2nd of August, 1882, a change takes place. But before
going to that, perhaps I should call your attention to these copies
of the “ Freethinker ”—the first batch that were purchased before
the proceedings at the Mansion House in July last, and of these
I only take the first and last. It appears they are said to be
edited by Foote, and in the notice to correspondents appears,
“All business communications to be addressed to Mr. W. J.
Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. ; literary communications
to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9 South Crescent, Bedford
Square, London, W.C.” At the foot of the last page is,
“Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter
Street.” Then, in August, 1882, a change takes place, and the
register shows that Ramsey is continued as proprietor, but the
printer and publisher then is Kemp. He is the one who signs
the register as printer and publisher, but Ramsey is continued as
proprietor down to and after Christmas 1882, while this Christ
mas publication is issued ; in fact, down to February 7th, 1883.
On that day a change takes place. Foote effects a new registra
tion, from which it appears that Ramsey ceases to be proprietor
of the paper, and Foote becomes proprietor. That is the history of
the paper as it stands, so that Ramsey’s connexion is that he
was proprietor from April, 1881, down to the 7th of February,
1883. That is his position. The proprietor of a newspaper is and
was liable for all libels that appear in that paper. The theory was
and is that if he is the person who prints and publishes the news
paper himself he is responsible for the contents of it, and that
if he does not do it himself he is responsible for the person who
does it for him. That sometimes worked very hardly on the pro
prietor, as he was found guilty of the offences of other persons.
The law in this respect was therefore changed, and now the
proprietor is not liable in that case. If in an indictment for the
trial of a libel a plea is put in by the proprietor that he is not
guilty, and evidence is given, and the evidence established a case
against him by the act of any other person, it is competent for
him to prove that the publication was made without his autho
rity, consent, or knowledge, and that it did not arise from want
of due care or caution on his part. In the present case there
has been no attempt whatever made by Ramsey to prove any of
these things. He has not attempted to escape from his primary
responsibility by proving that this was done without his know
ledge or consent, or that there was wanting due care on his
part, and therefore, though the proprietor, might have satisfied
you that although he was proprietor you ought not to find
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
- 43
him guil ty; no attempt has been made to do so. He might
have shown that the state of things appearing from this certi
ficate was not correct, and that he was not proprietor ; but he
has not done so, nor has he attempted to show that for some
reason, to be proved by him, he is not responsible as proprietor
for what a proprietor, generally speaking, would be responsible
for—unless he proved that proper care and caution had been
taken by him. Therefore, it being beyond all question that
he was proprietor at that date, there is nothing whatever to
show that he was not responsible. It goes further than
that, because it is shown that he was connected with the par
ticular premises, and was often there, and that he paid
the rates. Well, there remains Foote ; and Foote is in a different
position to that, and the question is whether you are satisfied that
be has committed an offence in printing, publishing, or causing
or permitting to be printed or published this paper. What is
the position of things ? First of all, he says there is no evidence
whatever to show that he had anything whatever to do with this
particular Christmas Number, and you may recollect that he
asked three or four persons who said that they had seen letters
addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker,” whether they
had ever seen letters or documents addressed to him as editor of
the Christmas “Freethinker” or the Christmas Number of the
“Freethinker.” Of course they said no. One could hardly
imagine any circumstances under which such letters should be
so addressed. What is the “Freethinker”? It is apparently
a^weekly paper. I find here a number of the 23rd of April,
and a number of the 30th of April. This purports to be, on
the face of it, the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker”
for 1883, price 3(7.
On the face of it, these words indi
cate that it is one of a series. The Christmas Number of the
“ Graphic ” or the “ Illustrated London News ”—what would you
understand by that ?—not a separately sold paper, but the number
for Christmas of a publication coming out in numbers. Take the
Christmas Number of “All the Year Round,” In considering
who is the editor of this particular number, is there any reason
for supposing that the editor of this number is a different person
from the editor of the “ Freethinker,” which is coming out in
numbers ? We find Mr. Foote’s name as editor on this number
of the “ Freethinker.” It might be that it was put there with
out his authority, and it is not enough to prove and show that
he is editor because it stated on the face of it that he is. It
might have your name or mine on it, and it would be a monstrous
thing to say that, simply because your name or mine appears on it,
we had placed it there. That, I say, is not enough in itself, but
it is one of several pieces of evidence to which I am going to call
your attention. On the first page we have “The Christmas
�44
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Number of the ‘Freethinker,’ Edited by G. W. Foote.”
Another thing is, that if you turn to the end you get a reference
to his publications. You have “Mr. Foote’s Publications,” and
then you have “ Blasphemy no Crime. The whole question
fully treated with special reference to the prosecution of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ” That is one of the documents put forward with
reference to Mr. Foote’s publications. Then there is this
additional proof to show that the prisoner Foote is editor of this
and other documents. These copies of the “ Freethinker,” from
the 6th of March, down to the middle of June, state, every one
of them, that the “Freethinker” is edited by Mr. G. W. Foote,
and in the middle, in the page which I called your attention just
now, besides the direction that business communications were to
be directed to the manager, is one that literary communications
were to be directed to Mr. G. W. Foote. It is possible that
this might be done without his authority and knowledge, but
it is not likely. But what is there to bring it home to him ?
There is direct evidence that a trial took place at the Mansion
House in July last, and it appears from the evidence of Kellan,
who bought these numbers, and from whose custody they came,
that he was examined as a witness in July last at the Mansion
House. Ramsey and Foote were two of the defendants then,
and Kellan proved the purchase of these numbers, all of which
have “Edited by G. W. Foote,” and printed and published by
Ramsey. He said attention was then drawn to these matters in
the presence of Foote and Ramsey. Therefore, if you believe
him, you have this fact, that it was called to Foote’s attention
that these documents purported to be edited by him. If,
knowing that it was stated they were edited by him, he does
not choose to contradict it, it is very strong proof that it was
done with his authority. We have the other batch of copies of
this production, commencing on the 6th of August, 1882, and
ending in January, 1883, and in these it appears in the same
way from beginning to end, “ Edited by G. W. Foote.” Then
we have “Printed and published by H. A. Kemp,” and then
what appears to be precisely the same words as before, “All
business communications to be addressed to the publisher ;
literary communications to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9
South Orescent, Bedford Square, W.C.” Then what other
evidence is there? You have this fact, that the woman in whose
house he lodges, and the servant, both speak of having seen
letters addressed to him as editor—sometimes with and some
times without his name ; letters and parcels addressed to him as
editor of the “ Freethinker,” and the poBtman gave as the
reason why it should be pressed more on their attention than in
usual cases—that several parcels came in that way that could not
be put in through the door, and thad to be .handed in to the
�Report of. Blasphemy Trials.
45
person who answered the bell. You have the evidence of these
four or five persons, all stating teat letters addressed to Foote
at that place were delivered there, left there, and were not
taken away. There is another thing. He has defended himself.
Has he denied that he is editor, or has he attempted to justify
his opinions? Do you believe that he was defending a publica
tion of his own or not, that the arguments he used were con
sistent with the contention that he is responsible for it as editor
or not? There is one other thing 1 should say. There is
evidence of this one particular number of the publication being
seen in his room. That is particular evidence as regards him. I
ask you to say, taking these facts into consideration, whether
he published or printed, or composed this document, or caused
it to be published or printed, or composed. If he was the editor
of it—if you come to the conclusion on the facts that he was
editor of it—you must find that he published or printed, or com
posed it, or caused it to be published, printed, or composed.
Some remarks have been addressed to you about interfering
with the liberty of the press, Freethinking, and so on. Do you
suppose that in confining the authors of this infamous publica
tion you will be interfering with the liberty of the press ? bl oh for a
moment. Do you think you will be interfering with the right of
free expression ? Not for a moment. We do not live in a country
of unbridled license, where a man has a right to say anything he
chooses to anybody. Laws are necessary in a civilised com
munity, and if it is said that we are approaching a smte of thingsin which a man may say that he has a right to say anything in all
places, it might also be said that two women in the street at
night might go on abusing one another to their heart’s content,
and were to be allowed to go on if they liked. It seems to me
to be much more serious to say that persons should have the
right of placarding and holding up to the public gaze, and
asking persons to come and look at things of this kind, in order
that they may be induced to buy them. If such a state of
things existed, it would not be Freethought, but would be un
bridled license. I do not think I need dwell on this further.
You will hardly require being told that in finding persons guilty
who did this, you would not be in the slightest degree interfering
with the right of free speech or free discussion in any way.
Something was said about the terms of the indictment. The
prisoner Foote commented a good deal on the particular form of
the indictment. He said, among other things, a certain thing
which.seemed to me to be
. Well, I would rather not touch
upon it. He also said that it had not been proved that this act
was a breach of the peace. T he form of the indictment is pub
lishing these documents and tending to a breach of the peace.
That formal part need not take any consideration. That is the
�46
Report -ef Blasphemy Trials.
legal result indicated. If you find that he did publish the libels,
that is the formal conclusion arrived at. There is one thing
further. It has been said that a prosecution of this sort does
not answer any useful purpose, but that it leads to the dissemi
nation of the libel. That is a very serious consideration for
persons commencing proceedings of this sort, and no doubt it
has been, carefully considered by the persons who instituted
these proceedings. But such a state of things may be reached
that one cannot refrain from taking action. The question for
you is not what the result of this will be. The fact is that you
are asked to say they are Not Guilty, because it can be of no use
to find them Guilty, and it will perhaps increase the harm
instead of decreasing it. That you have nothing whatever to do
with. This prosecution has been commenced not without serious
consideration whether it would be effectual or not. If the
result is such as the prisoner Foote has indicated, that would be
a matter we should all regret. Putting that out of sight, do
you consider that this document is a blasphemous libel ? and,
having regard to the evidence which has been given, do you
think that the defendants have been proved to have taken part
in publishing it ? I merely say, in conclusion, as to the way in
which the prisoners have held themselves up as if they were
being treated rather as what people call martyrs, that the question
is whether they have committed the offence or not.
The jury retired at ten minutes to five o’clock, and remained
out until five minutes past seven, when
The learned Judge caused them to be called into court, and
asked them if he could in any way assist them by explaining the
law again to them.
The Foreman replied they all understood the law, but he
tho ught there was no chance of their agreeing.
The learned Judge—Would not a further consultation be at
all likely to lead you to a conclusion ?
The Foreman—I am afraid not, my lord.
The learned Judge—Then I am very sorry to say I must dis
charge you, and have the case tried again. (To the Clerk of
Arraigns) I will attend here on Monday and try the case again
with a different jury.
Mr. Foote applied to be allowed out on bail, but
The learned Judge peremptorily and very harshly refused the
request.
At the conclusion of the case, and on the learned Judge leav
ing the bench, a large number of sympathisers of the defendants
ran forward and shook hands with them over the dock-rail, and
there were some cries of “Cheer up!” and “Bravo jury!”
The court was, however, soon cleared.
�THE
SECOND TRIAL.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY.
Monday, March 5th, 1883.
{Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.)
George William Foote (the editor), William James Ramsey
and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher of the “Free
thinker,” were brought upto undergo a fresh trial on a charge of
having published a number of blasphemous libels in the Christmas
Number of that journal. It will be remembered that on the
previous Thursday the jury were unable to agree to a verdict on
the charge against the defendants, and were accordingly dis
charged.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q..C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. F. H. Lewis
prosecuted for Sir Thomas Nelson, the City Solicitor (instructed
by the Public Prosecutor) ; Mr. Horace Avory defended Kemp •
and Mr. Cluer watched the legal points of the case for Foote and
Ramsey, who otherwise conducted their own defence.
Long before the opening of the court, large numbers of
persons waited patiently in the street, and when the doors were
thrown open there was a rush to obtain seats, the gallery and
body of the building being crowded within a period of two
lmnutes.
During a portion of the day, Aiderman Fowler, M.P. a
member of the Corporation of the City of London, occupied a
seat on the bench, as he visibly winced when Mr. Foote pointedly
referred to his presence and denounced the prosecution instituted
by the City Authorities.
On the learned judge taking his seat,
Mr Cluer said: My lord, I am retained, on behalf of the
defendants Foote and Ramsey, to argue points of law only •
generally they defend themselves. In accordance with the
�48
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
practise laid down in the case of King against. Parkins, I am
here merely to address the court on technical points. The first
point is, that your lordship should quash this indictment entirely
on the ground that it is substantially bad in charging, these tlmee
persons together in committing one crime, whereas,. in fact, it is
a distinct offence in the case of each of them, and it is contrary
to the usual course of justice to put prisoners on their trial
together, and so prevent them calling one another as witnesses
in their defence when that can be done.
.
Mr. Justice North: You say the three ought to be indicted
separately?
. .
,
Mr. Cluer: Separately, my lord. I rely principally upon the
case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, reported in 12th Cox,
page 87), and the words of the Lord Chief Justice are at page
93. That case, my lord, was a charge of conspiracy.
Mr. Justice North: Are the other cases you refer to in the
books belonging to the court?
. .
Mr. Cluer : I am going to refer to one which is in court, ana
it is reported in Archibald. The case of the Queen against
Bolton and Park was an indictment. The learned counsel having
read the language of the late Lord Chief Justice. Cockburn,
proceeded—That, my lord, merely states the Lord Chief Justice, s
opinion as to the procedure that should have been adopted m
that case, and that was a case of conspiracy in which the law
does allow great latitude to the prosecution in the way of joining
proceedings together. He has also expressed his disapproval of
doing so in a case of conspiracy. The strongest case m my favor
is that of King against Tucker (4th Burrows, page 97), that is for
exercising a trade, and it was held that it was a distinct offence
and could not therefore be made the subject of a joint prose
cution. This, I submit, is a joint prosecution, and the evidence
distinct evidence on the part of each of the prisoners, and there
fore, I move your lordship to quash the indictment, or call upon
the prosecution to elect against which of the prisoners they will
now proceed.
Sii- Hardinge Giffard: It is a perfectly elementary proposition
that in all misdemeanors they are co-defendants, and are so
indicted. Where there are distinct and separate acts which may
or may not form evidence of a conspiracy, it is not necessary to
go into a particular act. They are charged for the purpose of
showing that they conspired. It was sought to show in the case
to which my friend has referred that each of them had com
mitted a felony, and the nature of the felony was one in which
it was impossible that more than two of them could be parties
to the felony. The Lord Chief Justice expresses his opinion
that it was undesirable, while he sought to establish a case, of
conspiracy, to attempt to prove that by a case of felony, which
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
49
ought to be made the subject of a specific indictment. What
relation has that to this case, or the indictment before you ?
Mr. Justice North: The case against those for conspiracy
against trade was a misdemeanor.
Sir H. Giffard: Without the facts of that case before me, I
am not prepared to say what may be the meaning of the obser
vation. I dare say it will be found to be a very intelligible
matter. As plainly dealt with by Archibald it is an elementary
proposition. Your lordship will find on page 70, where several
persons join in the commission of an offence the whole of them
may be indicted for it, or each separately.
Mr. Cluer: What authority have you for that, Sir Hardinge ?
Sir H. Giffard: Pray don’t interrupt. What has been urged
on your lordship is the nature of the indictment. For this
purpose your lordship knows nothing about the indictment.
Mr. Justice North: I won’t trouble you, Sir Hardinge.
Mr. Cluer: This is a distinct offence in each person. I think
the case of King v. Tucker applies.
Mr. Justice North: Tell me the name of the case nearest to
the passage, that I may find it.
Sir H. Giffard: The first authority quoted, the King against
Atkinson. This Subject was made the subject of specific
argument.
Mr. Cluer: Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephens both
agreed this was a proper question to bring before vour lordshin
at the trial, and not one they could deal with.
P
Mr. Justice North: It is quite a proper matter to bring
before me, but 1 cannot accede to it. It seems to me that the
prisoners may be properly charged conjointly; and having
regard to the facts put before me a few days ago, I don’t see
how any of them can be prejudiced by being tried collectively
instead of separately.
J
The Deputy Clerk of Arraigns (Mr. Avory) then proceeded to
CaTr°UXthe names of the Jury> and the prisoner Foote challenged
a Mr. Thomas Jackson, who was on the list,
n ir’ Jackson was accordingly put in the witness-box and asked
by Mr. Cluer: Have you expressed an opinion adverse to the
defendants m this case ?—Yes.
Mr. Cluer: Thank you.
The learned Judge: Sir Hardinge, is it not better to with
draw this juryman at once ? Whatever the verdict of the jury,
1 should be sorry to have a man among them who had expressed
himself as prejudiced.
1
SiF Hardinge Giffard: Oh yes, my lord; I withdraw him.
It will be much more satisfactory to the Crown and everybody
else concerned.
J
J
Mr. Jackson accordingly withdrew.
D
�50
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Sir Hardinge Giffard then proceeded to open the case for the
prosecution in similar terms to those he employed in the previous
TWe do not propose to repeat the evidence of the whole of the
witnesses, which was substantially the same as that given in the
first prosecution, and shall confine ourselves substantially to their
cross-examination.]
The first witness called was
Robert Sagar, who was cross-examined by Mr. Avory.
This shop is an ordinary bookseller's shop ?—Yes.
With many other publications of different kinds there?—
Yes.
Did you say for what purpose you wanted this?—No.
Or on a subsequent occasion?—No, sir.
Mr. Foote : You purchased the first two copies of the Christ
mas Number on the 16th December ?—Yes.
Who told you to purchase them?—I had instructions from my
superiors.
.
From your superior officer?—Yes.
Who was that?—Detective Inspector McWilliams..
Who gave you the money to purchase them ?—I paid for them
out of my own pocket.
Who paid you back again?—No one yet.
Do you expect to be refunded ?—Yes.
.
When you went a second time to purchase the two copies, who
sent you then—the same gentleman?—Yes.
Did he give you any money then ?—No.
Have you had any since ?—Not for those copies..
What then, have you had money for ?—Travelling expenses.
Do you expect to be refunded for those second two copies ?—
Yes
Have you any idea where the money will come from for your
superiors to pay you with?—Yes.
Where ?—The City Solicitor.
Sir Thomas Nelson?—Yes.
The gentleman who is in court now ?—Yes.
When you purchased the first two copies did you see me in
the shop?—Ko.
. „
Did you see me when you purchased the second two copies?
_ hJo
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsay : Do you remember having
any conversation with me about this case ?—You spoke once or
twice about it.
.
Do you remember me saying the City were spending plenty
of money in engaging Sir Hardinge Giffard, who would not come
without a large fee?—Fes.
_ n
.
□
Do you remember saying the City had plenty of money, ana
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
51
■were quite prepared to spend it ?—I don’t remember saying
that.
Will you swear you did not?—No. I may have said so-.
Have you any recollection?—None at all. I recollect you
mentioning Sir Hardinge Giffard’s name.
Don't you remember saying the City had plenty of money, and
were not afraid to spend it ?—No.
You may have said so ?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: McWilliams is your superior
.officer ?—Yes.
You were acting under his instructions in this matter?—Yes.
When you purchased the copies in the shop, do you say there
was a stock in the shop ?—I saw a pile of them.
When was it you saw Foote in the shop ?—After I purchased
the two second copies on the 20th of January.
Lewis John Lowe was cross-examined as follows:—
By Mr. Avory: Whose name was on the rate-book?—Charles
Bradlaugh and Annie Besant.
Mr. Justice North : The names, you mean, that were then on
the rate-book ?—Yes, my lord.
By Mr. Avory: My question to you is, Whose name is there
now?—The same names are still there.
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: The rate is dated 5th of Octo
ber ?—Yes.
The cheque that you received was in payment of that particular
rate ?—Yes.
How long is a rate made for?—For six months.
The usual demand note is sent in?—Yes.
This cheque is for the full rate ?—Yes, up to the end of this
month.
I suppose the practice is, when you get notice of change of
occupation to alter the rate-book ?—Yes.
William John Norrish was cross-examined by Mr. Avory as
follows :—
Were you there at Stonecutter Street as a weekly servant?—
I was.
You were there in the service of the Freethought Publishing
Company at a weekly salary ?—Yes.
Did you act there simply as a shopman to sell ?—Simply as a
shopman.
Under orders in everything you did ?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You have seen me, Mr.
Norrish, only occasionally at Stonecutter Street ?—Only occa
sionally.
The “Freethinker,” I believe, had been sold at Stonecutter
Street a considerable time before you removed to the employ
ment of the Freethought Company ?—Yes.
�52
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
And during the period it was so sold did you often see me
there?—No.
.
Did you ever see me transact any business there ?—JN ever.
Had you any reason to suppose I was transacting business
there?—None whatever.
By Mr. Ramsey: Was I manager of the Freethought Publish
ing Company at the time you lived at Stonecutter Street?—You
Was I manager when you went to Fleet Street ?—You were.
Am I manager now ?—You are.
Did we remove to Fleet Street in consequence of requiring
larger premises ?—We did.
Was I entirely engaged in Fleet Street in managing the busi
ness of the Company?—Not entirely.
By Mr. Avory : Was there any facility for printing at Stone
cutter Street?—None whatever.
The learned Judge: I think you said the other day no print
ing whatever was done there ?
Witness: Yes, my lord.
By Mr. Poland: When Foote came to Stonecutter Street, did
he remain in the shop or go into a private part of the house ?
Sometimes he would visit my own apartments.
That is in a private part of the house-—the rooms you occu
pied?—Yes.
Mr. Justice North : That is what you mean ?
Witness: Yes, my lord.
.
.
Mr. Poland: I suppose Ramsey would sometimes be m the
shop and sometimes in that part of the house ?
Witness: Yes.
.
Mr. Janies Barber, who proved the registration of the “ free
thinker,” was not cross-examined. _
.
Okehampsted, an officer in the City police detective depart
ment, was being shown a number of the “Freethinker” dated
18th of February, and asked whether he purchased the copy at
Stonecutter Street, when
Mr. Cluer said: I object to this evidence.
The learned Judge : On what ground ?
Mr. Cluer: I submit he has no right to produce the paper.
The learned Judge: How can I say he cannot produce a
PaMr.' Cluer: The date has been mentioned. My friend can
read to the jury as evidence of the Christmas Number.
Mr. Justice North: It can be used in that way. It doesn’t
follow it is in evidence in that case.
Mr. Cluer: I was obliged to interfere in order that it should
not be tendered to the jury.
The learned Judge : I cannot say it is not evidence. It would.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
53
not be evidence if used as indicated by Mr. Cluer, but it might
be evidence in other ways. I cannot reject it.
Air. Poland: When did you purchase it?—On the 16th of
February.
Mr. Poland: Of whom?—Of the defendant Kemp.
Mr. Poland : At the shop in Stonecutter Street ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: I propose to put that in evidence. I think I
have established my right.
The learned Judge: You are going to read a certain para
graph. Show it to Mr. Cluer, and if he has any legal objection
I will hear him.
Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend has no power to put this in
evidence against all the prisoners. It only, shows what very
learned judges have held the extreme indiscretion of binding the
prisoners altogether. There is no power to put this in against
all the prisoners. He must state against whom it is directed, and
he must prove who are the persons referred to in this paragraph,
and who are the publisher and proprietor and printer of this par
ticular number.
The learned Judge: Look at the end.
Mr. Cluer : That is in evidence. My name might be printed
there as publisher unknown. It is published on February 18th,
and bought on February 16th by this witness. I have no right
to cross-examine the witness. I submit the witness has con
tradicted himself as to this. I want my friend to prove who are
the publisher, printer, and proprietor.
Mr. Poland : I submit I have proved that already.
Mr. Cluer : It was bought on the 16th of February.
Mr. Poland: I tender it as evidence against Foote.
Mr. Cluer : It was published before he was proprietor.
The learned Judge: It is bought from Kemp ; and I consider
it evidence against Foote.
Mr. Cluer : It was purchased by this witness on the 16th.
The learned Judge : It is published whenever it is issued. It
was proved it was handed to the witness on the 16th of
February.
Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend cannot contradict his own
evidence. He puts before the jury February 18th.
Mr. Justice North: He proves a paper dated the 18th of Feb
ruary was handed to the witness on the 16th.
Mr. Poland : You made this note that you had bought it?
Mr. Justice North: That is in evidence.
Mr. Poland : Are you sure?
Witness : I am positive. You can get them on a Thursday.
They are all dated up to the Sunday following in each week.
Mr. Justice North: Is this a Sunday paper?—It is dated for
Sunday.
�54
Report of Blaspli&my Trials.
Mr. Poland : I propose to put this in evidence. The para
graphs I think it necessary to read are those beginning with the
words “ The Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ has had an
incredible sale,” etc. (To witness) I think you said you bought
that of Mr. Kemp ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: Just look at this notice (produced). Did you
serve a notice, of which that is a copy, on Mr. Foote, by leaving
it at 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, on February 22nd?—
Yes.
The learned Judge : There was another notice this witness
produced. That, however, is not material.
Mr. Poland : That is not material, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: All that is proved at present is that this
notice was left at Foote’s house.
Mr. Foote : The prosecution seem to have forgotten that they
have joined us in one indictment. (To witness) With whom
did you leave this notice? The servant, Mary Finter—Miss
Finter.
You did not see me at that time ?—I did not.
Have you been doing anything in this case besides serving
notices and subpoenas?—Yes, buying some numbers.
Who told you to buy them?—My inspector.
Inspector McWilliams?—Yes.
Did he give you money to purchase them?—No.
You expect he will?—No, I don’t expect he will.
Mr. Justice North: You advanced it yourself, and you expect
it will be repaid ?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Foote : That is what I asked you. He said, my lord, he
did not expect to be repaid.
Witness: Not from Inspector McWilliams.
Mr. Foote : You expect to be paid at some time from some
body ?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge : I put it more shortly, Foote. You expect
to be paid at some time from somebody ?
Witness: Yes.
By Mr. Foote : Have you any idea when?—Not when.
Have you any idea from whom?—Yes.
From whom ?—The City Solicitor.
_
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: Have you any idea where the
funds are to come from for this prosecution?—Not further than
from the City Solicitor.
Do you think he is finding it out of his own pocket ?—1 have
no idea.
You cannot answer ?—I cannot answer.
Mrs. Curie was not cross-examined ; she did not add anything
to her evidence on the previous occasion. Mr. Lewis examined
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
55
her as follows Have you a-servant named Mary Finter ?—Yes.
She waits upon Mr. Foote.
...
0
Did you as his landlady occasionally go into his room?—
Occasionally; very seldom.
The learned Judge : Does he live there down to the present
time?—Yes.
.
.
Mr Lewis: Did you see the Christmas Number of rhe free
thinker ” in Mr. Foote’s room ?—I would not swear. I did not
notice any book particularly.
To the best of your belief ?—I may have seen it.
To the best of your belief have you seen the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker ” there ?—I would not swear.
The learned Judge: You are asked whether to the best of
your belief you have or have not.—I could not swear.
The learned Judge : That will not do. You are asked as to
the best of your belief.
Witness: I have seen divers colored books there.
Mr. Lewis: Have you to the best of your belief seen a number
of the »Freethinker” there with that yellow cover ?—I have seen
that cover or one the color of it.
Containing a Number of the “Freethinker ” ?—Not a number
of the “ Freethinker,” to my knowledge.
Have you seen copies of the “Freethinker” m his room?—1
may have done.
What is your belief. To the best of your belief have you seen
there numbers of the “Freethinker”?—! may have done, but I
could not swear to it.
T mean something like that in that particular number . 1 may
have seen that. I am not interested in it. I have never examined
any book.
The learned Judge : The question is whether, to the best of
your belief, you have or have not seen a number of the “Free
thinker ” there ?
Witness: I have seen the color.
The learned Judge: We are not speaking to you about the
color, but about the document handed to you.
Witness: I could not swear.
Mary Finter, the servant to the last witness, was examined in
chief by Mr. Poland as to having seen numbers of the “Free
thinker ” in Mr. Foote's room, and as to the reception of letters
addressed to Mr. Foote, and
Mr. Poland called upon Mr. Foote to produce the letters m
which he was described as “ G. W. Foote, ‘ Freethinker,’ ” or
“ G. W. Foote, Editor, ‘ Freethinker,’ 9 South Crescent, Bedford
Square.”
Mr. Cluer: I object, my lord, to that.
The learned Judge: I don’t trouble you, Mr. Poland, about
�56
Jieport of Blasphemy Trials.
the words addressed to hiiti, but as to the rest of the notice I
will hear Mr. Cluer.
Mr. Cluer: It is not proved this notice has been served on
Foote.
The learned Judge: He has lived at this house.
Mr. Cluer : That is not enough.
The learned Judge : Not to produce the documents?
Mr. Cluer: Certainly not, my lord.
The learned Judge: Do you wish to ask him any more
questions ?
Mr. Poland: No, rhy lord.
Mr. Cluer: It is hot even proved this is Foote’s servant.
The learned Judge : I will hear all your objections.
Mr. Cluer: My objections, my lord, are, first, that it is not
sufficient service; secondly, that my friend has not proved that
.the defendant was there at the time it was served.
The learned Judge : What do you mean by not being there?
Mr. Cluer : My learned friend does not ask any question as to
whether Foote was there at the time, and whether the notice was
handed to the defendant or not.
The learned Judge : It is unnecessary to hand it to him if the
first service was properly effected.
Mr. Cluer: The second point is that the notice to produce
letters involves describing him as “Mr. G. W. Foote, ‘Free
thinker,’” or “ G. W. Foote, Editor ‘ Freethinker? ” My
friend is not entitled to produce these in evidence against the
defendant.
The learned Judge : They are not proved yet.
Mr. Cluer: There’is another objection. The notice was served
too late, last Tuesday the 27th.
The learned Judge : Six days ago.
Mr. Cluer: No, my lord; it was served only thirty-six hours
before the trial.
The learned Judge : That took place last Tuesday.
Mr. Cluer: The notice must be served a reasonable time
before the trial. They cannot rely upon this being served now.
The learned Judge : As to the length of notice, I don’t trouble
you. What do you say about the service?
Mr. Poland: It is proved defendant was living at this place at
this timé, and notice was delivered to the servant who attends
on him at the house at which he is living. It is not necessary to
prove personal service.
The learned Judge : It might be served on a solicitor.
Mr. Poland : It might be served on a solicitor if proof be
given he is his solicitor at the time.
The learned Judge : It need not be personal service.
Mr. Poland: The question is whether there is reasonable
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
57
ground for believing it would find its way to his possession.
I submit that is the usual way of serving notice. That is
sufficient if it is proved he is living there at the time.
Mr. Cluer: That has not been proved.
The learned Judge: That is in evidence.
Mr. Oluer: That it was served on him is not proved, and
that he lives there up to the present day is positively untrue.
Mr. Poland: It was served on his servant.
Mr. Cluer: Not on his servant.
Mr. Poland: The servant to Mrs. Curie.
The learned Judge : The person who waits upon him.
Mr. Poland : I submit, my lord, that is reasonable service.
The learned Judge : I don’t think there is sufficient notice.
Mr. Poland: Very well, then, my lord, I shall ask a further
question upon that. (To witness Finter) Was defendant living
at this address last week ?
Witness : Yes.
Until the trial, did he sleep there every night ?—I cannot
say.
Was he there every day ?—Yes.
When papers are left for him, what do you do ?—I take
them and put them in his room.
Do you remember the witness Okehampsted giving you a
paper last week ?—Yes.
What did you do with it P—I took it up to Mr. Foote’s
room.
You remember going down to the trial last week ?—Yes.
Did Mr. Foote sleep in the house the night before the trial ?
—Yes.
The learned Judge: You mean Foote slept in the house last
Wednesday night?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge : This is put in his room.
Mr. Cluer : I submit it is not proved it is served properly.
It must be served a certain time according to law. My
learned friend must prove that it was served before a certain
hour. That is not proved yet. Is it proved conclusively that
this has come to the defendant’s knowledge ? It is said it
was put in his sitting-room, but that is not sufficient.
The learned Judge: When did you put it in his room ?
Witness: Directly it was given to me.
The learned Judge : About what time?
Witness : About half-past five in the afternoon.
Mr. Oluer: Would your lordship ask if Foote slept there
on Tuesday night ?
The learned Judge: Yes, certainly. Do you remember if
he slept there the night before ?
�58
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Witness : I don’t think he did.
Mr. Cluer: I submit that is not sufficient service. The
servant only says that she left it in his room on the Thursday,
and on the Tuesday night he did not sleep there.
The learned Judge: I think that is sufficient.
Mr. Cluer : She is not his servant.
The learned Judge: She is the person who waits upon him.
It does not appear he had a settled servant of his own. I
presume he is a lodger there, who pays for lodging.
Examination of witness continued by Mr. Poland :—
I suppose there is a letter-box at your house?
Witness: Yes.
Do you take out the letters in the morning ?—Yes sir.
What do you do with letters addressed to Mr. Foote P—I
put them on the hall table.
Are his rooms on the ground floor, or on the first floor ?
On the third floor.
How were those letters addressed to Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Cluer: I object to that question, my lord. I submit
that whatever he may have been called, or whether he was
addressed as editor of the “ Freethinker,” would be no evidence
against the defendant. If a person chooses to address me as
Bachelor of Arts, it is no proof.
The learned Judge : If letters are addressed to you as editor
of a newspaper, and you receive them, is not that evidence P
Mr. Cluer : I submit, my lord, it is not the sort of evidence
in a criminal case that should go to the jury. I think your
lordship should withdraw such evidence from the jury..
The learned Judge: Receiving letters so addressed without
objection on his part would be evidence to submit to them
for what it is worth.
Examination continued by Mr. Poland: How were letters
addressed there?—Some to Gr. W. Foote, 9 South .Crescent,
Bedford Square, and some were addressed to the editor of the
“ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge: Tell me that again. .
t
Witness: Some were addressed to the editor of the ‘ Free
thinker,” but very seldom.
Mr. Foote : She said, my lord, that letters were addressed
to me as Mr. Foote, and that letters were also addressed to the
editor of the “ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge : There are some letters, but very seldom
addressed to you as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
Mr. Foote: No, my lord, that is not so.
The learned Judge : Tell me what you say. Had some Mr.
Foote’s name as editor p
Witness : Some had, and some had not.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
59
Mr. Cluer: Your lordship rules that the continuous reception
of letters is evidence ?
.
The learned Judge: There is always difficulty in dealing
with the admissibility of evidence in connexion with letters
one has not heard of. I only put to you the case.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You could not say you had
seen more than one copy of the Christmas Number of the
“ Freethinker ” in my room.
Witness : I could not.
You don’t believe you have ?—No.
You have seen in my room papers of all shapes, sizes, and
colors ?—Yes sir.
. , ,
,
Did you ever see any letter or envelope with the words
“ Editor of the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ”
on ?—No sir. Never.
Could you swear that you saw any envelope or any document addressed as “Editor of the ‘ Freethinker,”’between
the 16th of November and the 16th of December ?—I cannot
SaYou are quite certain that you had only occasionally, and
indeed but seldom, seen letters addressed to the editor of the
“ Freethinker?
The learned Judge : Very seldom is what she said.
Mr. Foote: In order that there may be no doubt as to the
witness understanding, I ask, Have you ever seen an envelope
addressed to Gr. W. Foote, and also on the same envelope the
words “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ” ?
Witness : I have seen it.
Mr. Foe q e: Am I entitled to ask this witness a question
arising out of her examination, as to my being at 9 South
Crescent in time to receive the notice a witness said he
served ?
The learned Judge : Certainly to ask any question relevant
in any way. You mnst make it relevant to that case. Subject to that there is no limit.
Mr. Foote : You received this notice to produce about five
on Tuesday afternoon ?
The learned Judge: This matter has been gone into by your
counsel; it has been exhausted, but I won’t stop you. You
may put any question you like.
Mr. Foote : It is only a question to show the time.
The learned Judge: I am allowing you to put it.
Mr. Foote: Did you see me at any time between the receipt
of that notice and the following morning ?—I cannot say.
To the best of your belief was I in the house between the
serving of that notice to produce and the following morning?
—You may have been, but I did not see you myself.
�60
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
You. didn’t see me ?—No.
You answer the door, do you not ?—Yes, sir.
Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord, I wish to ask.
Mr. Poland: You answer the door, do you P
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Poland: Do lodgers have keys to let themselves in p
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Poland : Had Mr. Foote a latch key ?
Witness: Yes.
Thomas James Alford, in the employment of the PostmasterGeneral, proved delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, Bed
ford Square, addressed “ G. W. Foote, Esq., Editor of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ”
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Did you ever make any
memorandum at any time of a delivery to 9 South Crescent,
of letters addressed to me as editor of the ‘ ‘ Freethinker ” ?—
I have since Christmas.
You have no memorandum before Christmas ?—No.
By Christmas of course you mean the 25th of December ?
—Most decidedly.
Who served you with your subpoena ?—The police-officer
Okehampsted.
Had you seen him before he served you with the subpoena?
—Yes.
Had you any conversation with him about this prosecution?
—No.
Will you swear you have had no conversation with him
upon this prosecution ?—He called at the office.
What office ?—Our district office.
The post-office?—Yes. I was called upstairs to see the dis
trict postmaster.
Was this gentleman who served you with a subpoena there
then?—Yes. ’
Will you tell us what took place in his presence ?—The
Postmaster asked me several questions. He asked me if I
new Mr. Foote. I said I did. He also asked me if I had
delivered any letters addressed 9 South Crescent.
Did he ask you if you had delivered any letters addressed
to the editor of the “ Freethinker”?—No.
When did this interview take place ?—I cannot say.
The learned Judge: How long since about ? How many
weeks since ?—It is about a month back.
Mr. Foote: Had you had any conversation with any one
about this prosecution before the interview ?—No.
What induced you then to make a memorandum of the
delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ?—If I am in
structed by my superior officer I must do it.
�Ilcport of Blasphemy Trials.
61
You. were instructed to do this by your superior officers ?
—Yes.
The learned Judge : When ?
Witness: I should say about a month ago.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I must go back on the question. (To
witness) I ask you again, as you have only given me in reply
something which took place about a month ago, what it was
induced you to make memoranda or a memorandum of a
delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ?
The learned Judge: He has not said he began to make
memoranda at Christmas. It is only since Christmas he
began.
Mr. Foote: The words would certainly bear that meaning.
You only began making these memoranda after that interview
with the person who served you with a subpoena and after the
orders of your superior officer ?—Just so.
And that is about a month ago ?—I should say about a
month ago.
You have no memorandum going further back than that ?
—No.
The learned Judge: Have you got the book here ?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge: Well you can tell us the day on which
you made the first memorandum.
Witness: The 10th of February.
Thomas Campbell, another letter-carrier, gave evidence as
to delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, some of which
were addressed “ G-. W. Foote, Esq.,” and others “ Mr. Gr. W.
Foote, editor of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ”
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Have you ever made any
memorandum of the delivery of letters addressed to me at
9 South Orescent ?—I have since I saw the detective who
served me with the subpoena.
How long ago was that?—I believe on the 9th of last
month.
The 9th of last month is the earliest day of any memo
randum you have ?—I did not make any memorandum on that
day. The first I took was on the 10th.
Do you often deliver letters or packets to the editor of the
“ Freethinker ” ?—I often recollect letters, but I only recol
lect one packet.
You had often seen on letters “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ”?
—Yes.
What made you so particularly notice this large packet ?—
It is the only large packet I can recollect delivering with the
address on. It was too large to put through the box, and I
had to wait for the servant to answer the door.
�•62
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
This happened three or four months ago ?—Yes.
Could you say-whether it is nearer three or four?—Might
it not be as long as four months ?—Yes.
Might it not be longer?—Yes, it might be longer.
Will you swear you delivered any letter, packet, or document
of any kind, addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker,” 9
South Crescent, Bedford Square, any time between the 16th
of November, and the 16th of December?—I cannot swear
that I have, because I didn’t take any notice.
You would not be at all surprised to learn that you hadn’t?—
I should be rather surprised to learn that I hadn’t.
W’hy ?—Because my belief is, I have delivered letters pretty
well every week to you so addressed.
But you could not swear as to that individually ?—No, I
could not.
How long before the subpoena was served upon you had
you any conversation about this prosecution?—I believe it was
’ on.the 9th of Febraury.
That was the first time you had any conversation upon the
subject ?—Yes.
You have not been paid anything to come here to-day ?—I
expect to be paid my expenses. It has cost me six shillings to
come here.
I have no doubt you will get it. Have you been paid any
thing besides P^-I received half a crown the night my subpoena
was served.
Anything besides ?—Nothing else besides.
William Loy, a constable, proved that he knew all the
defendants, and was examined as follows :—
Mr. Lewis : When did you last see Kemp on the premises
in Stonecutter Street?—On Wednesday last.
:
And Foote: On the 16th of February.
And Ramsey: On Tuesday or Wednesday last.
In a general way, how long have you seen any of the
defendants at the shop ?
Mr. Cluer: I object to that.
Mr. Lewis: How long have you seen Kemp there ?—Several
m >nths.
And Foote : Four or five months.
And Ramsey : I have seen Ramsey for the last two years.
By Mr. Avory: Where have you seen Kemp ?—-I have seen
Kemp serving customers.
Standing behind the counter acting as shopman?—Yes, sir.
What is the earliest time in the morning you have been
oub?—Six o’clock.
lave you ever seen Kemp come to open the shop ?—I cannot
say that he has opened the shop.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
63
Have you ever seen anyone open the shop ?—Yes.
Within the last three or four months?—Yes.
Can you say who closed it ?—I have seen a boy.
How many times ?—I cannot say.
As far as you know within the last few months, has anyone
slept there ?—Not to my knowledge.
Have- you seen Kemp there serving persons who went into
the shop with books and publications of different kinds P—Yes.
Books and other publications ?—Papers generally.
Have you seen books in the shop for sale ?—Yes.
Can you fix the earliest day when you saw Kemp there at
all ?—I cannot say.
Well approximately ?—Four or five months back.
I understand four or five months back is the earliest time
you saw him there ?—Yes, it may have been, but I cannot fix
the date.
The learned Judge : How far was it back ?
Witness : Four or five months to the best of my recollection.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You say you have seen me
at Stonecutter Street occasionally ?—Yes.
How many times might that be altogether —Four or five
times.
How long is it since the first time you saw me there ?—I
cannot fix the earliest date.
But about ?—The earliest day I remember was on the 28th
of January, but I had seen you before that time.
The learned Judge: Without fixing the date, how far back
do you think P
Witness : About four or five months.
The learned Judge: You cannot exactly fix the date P
Witness : No, my lord.
Mr. Foote: What you mean is, you have seen me in Stone
cutter Street three or four times during the past four or five
months ?
The learned Judge : Four or five times.
Mr. Foote : My estimate as to three or four times was
very excusable. Do you remember how many times
you said you had seen me in your evidence before the
Lord Mayor ? Do you remember how many times you said
you had seen me in Stonecutter Street in your deposition
before the magistrate ?—Four or five times, I think.
You would not be surprised to hear after all it was three
or four times P—It might be three or four times.
Instead of four or five ?—Yes.
Do you know what you deposed before the magistrates as
to the period of time over which those three or four times
extended ?—Several months.
�64
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
In your deposition before the magistrates you told them
that these three or four times extended over two or three
years. You now tell us you have seen me four or five times
instead of three or four, and that that occurred during the
last three or four months.
The learned Judge: Four or five months.
Mr. Foote: How do you explain this tremendous discre
pancy?
* <
Witness: I have seen you there once since the first hearing
before the magistrates.
Mr. Foote : You now say you have seen me a certain .num
ber of times during a certain number of months^ and before
the magistrates you say you saw me three times during a
period of two or three years.
The learned Judge: He answered that by telling you
three or four times, and he has seen you once since the trial.
Mr Foote: That does not explain the difference between
the months and the years.
The learned Judge: As to one, he has explained. As to
the other, he has not, and you have a right to get it.
Mr. Foote : How do you explain this discrepancy between
four and five months and two or three years ?
Witness: I had been on duty there two or three years.
Mr Foote: The words, my lord, are very plain: “ I saw
you three or four times.” Did you say this then ?
Witness : Three or four then, and four or five now.
Mr. Foote: You don’t know whether it was during four or
five months or two or three years ?
Mr Poland: You had no special reason for watching ?
Witness: No.
.
.
Mr. Poland: And do you account for the difference m that
way?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Foote : Can you offer any explanation as to this vast
difference ?
.Witness: I had no special reason for taking dates.
Mr. Foote: I am speaking of the period over which the
times are distributed.
Witness: I have no further explanation to offer.
Mr. Foote : What was the last time you saw me there ?
Witness: 16th of February.
Mr. Foote: You have no precise recollection of the first
time ?
Witness : I have not.
Mr Foote: Have you seen me during any of those unfixable times transacting what looked to be business ?
Witness : No, I have not.
�65
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote: You have seen me go into the shop and come
out of it ?—Yes.
Were my stays long, do you know ?—That I cannot say.
By Mr. Ramsey: Do a large number of people go in and
out ?—Yes.
A great number of books and papers are sold there ?—I saw
a great number in the shop. I cannot say what are sold out.
You have seen a number of people go in and out ?—Yes.
You have seen me go in and out ?—Yes.
Like the others ?—Yes.
Who instructed you to watch the premises?—Detective
Sager spoke to me on the subject a week or ten days before
the first hearing. He said, “ Just take notice of whom you
see go in and out.”
Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to
Ramsey going in here ”?—No.
Did you depose to that effect before the magistrate?—I
don’t remember.
Is it true ?—I don’t remember it.
Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to
Ramsey going in there ”?—I don’t remember.
Did he or did he not say so ?—I don’t remember.
Will you swear he did not say so ?—He may have said so.
You won’t swear he didn’t ?—No, and I won’t swear he did.
If you said in your deposition before the magistrate you
would be wanted to give evidence, would that have been
true ? Supposing you said so before the magistrate, was that
true? Would it have been true if you had deposed that
before the magistrate ?—I don’t remember.
Mr. Ramsey ■ My lord, I am putting a very plain question.
The learned Judge : Oh yes, it is quite plain enough, and
he says he doesn’t know.
Witness : I don’t remember.
John Edward Kelland, clerk to Messrs. Batten, and Co.,
solicitors, of Victoria Street, Westminster, said in reply to
Mr. PolandDuring the last year, I went frequently to the
house in Stonecutter Street and purchased there weekly
numbers of the “Freethinker.” I know the whole of the
defendants. I have seen them at Stonecutter Street. In
July I purchased copies of the “ Freethinker” from Ramsey,
I have got the numbers I purchased from Ramsey. Each of
these I produce was purchased from Ramsey. Ramsey was
one of the defendants examined at the Mansion House in July.
Foote was also there, but Kemp was not. The numbers I
purchased were given in evidence in the presence of the two
defendants. Attention was called to the fact that they
appeared to be edited by G. W. Foote.
The notice to
K
�66
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
correspondents, which directed letters and literary communi
cations to be sent to G-. W. Foote, editor, 9 South Crescent, was
also called attention to. That notice appeared in these numbers,
and at the end is a statement that they were printed and
published by Ramsey at Stonecutter Street. The first I pro
duce is dated March 26th, 1882, and the last, June 18th, 1882.
After that occasion at the Mansion House, I purchased
various other numbers at the same shop, the majority of them
from Kemp. Those begin August 6th, and run on every week
to December. In the number for December 3rd, the Christmas
Humber of the “ Freethinker” is advertised. In the Number
it says, “ Ready next week the Christmas Number of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ”
The learned Judge: Tell me what the date of the latest
number of that parcel is.
Witness : January 28th, my lord.
The learned Judge : Do you remember about what time you
saw Mr. Foote at Stonecutter Street?
Witness : On the 16th of April.
Examined by Mr. Avory : What was the earliest day you
saw Kemp there ?—I cannot say the precise day. It was soon
after the prosecution at the Mansion House.
When did you purchase the first copy from Kemp ?—I can
not say.
May it have been two or three months after the first prose
cution p—Before then I should say.
Would y ou swear you ever purchased one until September ?—
I cannot say the precise date.
You were clerk to the solicitor who was prosecuting the
matter in July p—Yes.
Did you ever ask Kemp for anything else except the “ Free
thinker ?”—Yes the “ National Reformer.”
Anything else P—No other papers.
Did you see other things there?—Yes a great number of
other books and publications.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : When did you first see me
at Stonecutter Street ?—On the 16th of February.
Did you ever purchase a copy of rhe Christmas Number of
the “ Freethinker ” in my presence ?—No.
How do you recognise the numbers of the “ Freethinker”
you have put in p
Witness : I don’t understand what you mean.
The learned judge : Where do they come from ?
Witness : From Stonecutter Street.
Mr. Justice North: They were handed in at the Mansion
House p
Witness: Yes.
�Bepori of Blasphemy Trials.
67
Mr. Justice North: In whose custody were they before
they were handed in ?
Witness: In the custody of the solicitors to the first prose
cution.
By Mr. Foote : What leads you to recognise these as the
copies you purchased when they are put before you?—My
signature.
Did you put your signature on them at the time of pur
chase?—I did.
Inside the shop ?—At the office.
Did anyone see you sign them ?—No, not particularly.
Did you make any note of the fact ?—No.
In any memorandum book ?—No.
Did you make any memorandum of the purchase ?—No.
You are with Messrs. Batten and Co.?—I am a clerk in
their office.
They are solicitors to Sir H. Tyler ?—They are. _
The firm gave you money to purchase these copies?—Yes.
You have reason to suppose Sir H. Tyler will refund the
money?—That I know nothing about.
Do you make out bills of costs ?—I don’t.
Do you see them when they are made out ?—No.
Messrs. Batten are still Sir H. T} ler’s solicitors ?—Yes.
How did you come to put these numbers into the hands of
the prosecution in this case?—Because I was subpoenaed to do
so.
Had you any conversation with any of them before you
were subpoenaed ?—No.
No conversation about the numbers which you have pur
chased since the first prosecution?—No,, only when Mr.
Poland asks me to produce them I do.
Are you aware how Mr. Poland became aware of your
possession of them?—I am not.
Do you think it is likely your employers tendered them ?—
No they didn’t tender them at all.
Do you think it is likely they informed the prosecution
where they could be had ?—I cannot say ; it has nothing to do
with me.
To the best of your belief has there been any interview or
correspondence between your employers (Sir H. Tyler’s solici
tors) and the prosecutors in this case ?—There may have been.
But are you aware whether there has or not ?—There were
two or three letters.
There have been letters ?—There may have been. 1 cannot
say; I don’t look after the letters.
Mr. Foote: You just said there had been.
The learned judge: There might have been.
�68
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote: He said some letters passed. He said there
had been two or three letters.
The learned judge: He said there had been some letters
passed.
Mr. Foote : Had there been p
Witness: I cannot say; there might have been.
Mr. Foote : You could not swear that letters had not passed ?
Witness: No.
_
_
.
Mr. Foote : Have you any idea in your mind, speaking with
out reservation, as to how the prosecution became aware of
the fact that your employers had deposited with them copies
of the “ Freethinker,” since the first prosecution, which you
have purchased ?
'
Witness: I don’t know, I am sure.
Mr. Foote: Will you get any extra payment for this case?
Witness : That I don’t know.
Mr. Foote: Do you expect any ?
Witness: I don’t know whether I expect any or whether I
don’t.
Mr. Foote: You expect to be treated liberally?
Witness: Yes, I suppose I may say so.
Mr. Foote: Then that is all, my lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you have pur
chased copies of the “ Freethinker ’’ before July last—I under
stand you to say—chiefly from me ?—Yes, that is so.
Was I in the habit of being in the shop when you came ?—
Yes.
Serving behind the counter ?—Yes.
,
Have you bought any since July of me ?—I don t think 1
have of you.
. ,
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: In July you were examined
before the Lord Mayor ?—Yes.
Sir H. Tyler was the prosecutor ?—Yes.
That related to some of these numbers ?—Yes.
Did you give your evidence in open court in the ordinary
way ?—Yes.
„
And were your depositions taken and signed, r x es.
Were you examined on the 28th of July and various other
days ?—Yes.
.
Were you called more than once and the depositions taken
on such occasion ?—Yes.
.
Do you attend by subpoena in this case P—Yes.
And it was tendered in the ordinary way ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: That, my lord is the case on the part of the
prosecuti
: As regards the defendant Ramsey I submit
there is no evidence to go to the jury on any single count on
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
6»
the charge brought against him. The only evidence, as far as
I can gather from the notes, is that he was not the registered
proprietor at any time, but that he was the manager of the
Freethought Publishing Company before and after removal.
The learned Judge: Are you aware he is the registered
proprietor from 1881 to 1883 ? That is in his own hand
writing.
Mr. Oluer: I beg your lordship’s pardon. My bad sight has
led me wrong. Beyond that there is absolutely no evidence
whatever.
The learned Judge: What more do you want ?
Mr. Cluer: That does not connect him with this Christmas
Number.
The learned Judge: Doesn’t it ?
Mr. Cluer: The prosecution must prove it is published in
order to prove their case. They must prove that they com
posed, printed and published, or caused and procured to be
published, the libel in question. The only evidence there is
to go to the jury that Ramsey had anything to do withit is the
certificate of the registration to him as proprietor of the
journal and nothing else.
The learned Judge: Assuming there is nothing else, what
more is wanted for this action ?
Mr. Cluer : There is no publication proved, my lord.
The learned Judge: There is ample evidence of publica
tion.
Mr. Cluer: If there is it must be pointed out to me. It has
not been shown. It is a matter of the person who published.
I submit all that has been proved is that this was sold by
Kemp on two occasions, two numbers each time. It is said
that Kemp was a servant of Ramsey’s. It seems to me that
the sole facts that the prosecution have proved against
Ramsey, are that he was registered as proprietor and that the
policeman sometimes saw him enter the shop in Stonecutter
Street during the last two years, and that copies were bought
®f him by the last witness. As regards Ramsey I submit
there is no case to go to the jury.
The learned Judge: I think there is ample evidence to go
to the jury, Mr. Cluer.Mr. Cluer: I have to submit on this indictment that your
lordship should call upon the prosecution to elect against
whom they will proceed.
The learned Judge: I have already decided that.
Mr. Cluer: I am moving after evidence has been given. I
was then moving as to whether the indictment should be
quashed as it stood. I am now moving that the prosecution
should be called upon to elect whether they will proceed
�70
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
against Kemp, Ramsey, or Foote. I base my application
upon the fact that the evidence is insufficient, and I think
that it is exceedingly clear.
The learned Judge: Don’t mind what you think about it,
Mr. Cluer.
Mr Cluer: The charge is a joint offence. They are charged
jointly with a joint offence. They are not charged separately
with having committed an offence, but charged jointly with
having published blasphemous libels in the Christmas Num
ber of the “ Freethinker.” I ask to be shown any word of
evidence that supports that charge of a joint offence in pub
lishing, writing, or composing this Christmas Number. In
the case of the King against Lynn and Daveney, reported in
Carrington and Payne, which was a case of obstruction of
the highway, there was evidence of obstruction separately,
although the parties were charged jointly; and the learned
udge said the prosecution should elect against which they
would proceed. I submit there is no evidence of a joint
offence. If they are charged jointly the evidence must be
proved jointly. I deny that the prosecution has proved any
thing of the kind, and on the authority of this case I ask
your lordship to call upon the prosecution to elect against
which they will proceed.
The learned Judge: My opinion is against you.
Mr. Cluer: Will your lordship reserve the point P
The learned Judge: I see no reason.. No. I forbear
giving my reasons because I could not give them without
Slating my opinion of the evidence, and that I wish to avoid.
Mr. Cluer : Will your lordship reserve this point, because
I consider this one of importance ?
The learned Judge: I don’t think it is.
Mr Cluer: Will you consider it ? I think it is a fit case.
The learned Judge : I don’t want you to tell me what you
think. I know it is only your way of speaking. I see no
similarity between this case and the one you have quoted.
Mr. Cluer: They were charged with a joint offence.
The learned Judge: No, I don’t reserve anything on that.
Mr. Cluer: I ask you to withdraw the case from the jury
as regards Foote.
The learned Judge: Your first point is on behalf of Ramsey
alone ; your last point was on behalf of both. Now it is on
hehalf of Foote.
Mr. Cluer: The evidence is that of the detective Sagar, who
produced two certificates of the registration of the “Free
thinker,” and the second one of February 7th, 1883, shows it
was transferred to Foote as proprietor. The other evidence is
that of Norrish, who had only occasionally seen Foote at
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
71
Stonecutter Street. He did not see him often or see him
transact business, nor had he reason to suppose he transacted
business. The only other evidence I can find, is the fact of^
letters being addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
I have to submit that that is not sufficient to convict him of
having published this particular number on which he is in
dieted jointly with the other defendants. The evidence goes
to this, that he has been seen at the place and that the paper
bears his name as editor of the “ Freethinker.
That I sub
mit is not to be taken as an admission by the defendant in any
way of the prosecution having proved he was editor, or trans
acted any business, or did anything to show that he wrote or
published the print. I submit the prosecution have failed to
prove that Foote has in any way published this Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge: I think there is evidence to go to the
jury upon the point. Portions of the evidence that bear upon
Foote I will point out by and bye.
,
Mr. Avory: With regard to the defendant Kemp, I don t
feel in a position to contest' the fact that he has been selling
these papers over the counter, and his share in the responsi
bility is rather a question for your lordship. The general
question I leave to be dealt with by the other defendants.
Mr. Foote in a most eloquent and able address said: Gentle
men of the jury, I stand in a position of great difficulty and dis
advantage. On Thursday last I defended myself against the
very same charges in the very same indictment. The case lasted
nearly seven hours, and tne jury retired for more than two hours
without being able to come to an agreement. They were then
discharged, and the learned judge said he would try the case
again on Monday with a new jury. As I had been out on bail
from my committal, and as I stood in the same position after
that abortive trial as before it commenced, I asked the learned
judge to renew my bail, but he refused. I pleaded that I should
have no opportunity to prepare my defence, and I was peremp
torily told I should have the same opportunity as I had had that
day. Well, gentlemen, I have enjoyed the learned judge’s
opportunity. I have spent all the weary hours since Thursday,
with the exception of the three allowed for bodily exercise
during the whole interval, in a small prison-cell six feet wide,
and so dark that I could neither write nor read at midday with
out the aid of gaslight. There was around me no sign of the
animated life I am accustomed to, nothing but the loathsome
sights and sounds of prison life. And in these trying and de
pressing circumstances I have had to prepare to defend myself in
a new trial against two junior counsel and a senior counsel, who
have had no difficulties to contend with, who have behind them
�12
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
the wealth and authority of the greatest and richest Corporation
in the world, and who might even walk out of court in the
perfect assurance that the prosecution would not be allowed to
suffer in their absence. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I want
you to bear in mind who it is, or rather who they are, that insti
gated this prosecution, commenced it, have found all the money
for it, and are still carrying it on. There can be no doubt in
your minds after the examination and cross-examination you
have listened to, that all the money for this prosecution will be
found by the Corporation of the City of London, a body which
seems to have more money than it knows what to do with, a fact,
however, which will not surprise you when you consider that
such a body can go to the expense of £30,000 to give a dinner to
a prince. Some of you may have noticed within the precincts
of the City of London—holy as they are—certain publications
hawked about the streets, with which there is no interference;
publications hawked about in a manner intended to excite
prurient curiosity on the part of the people who purchase them.
These periodicals are not interfered with, while the periodical
which is before you, or rather the publication which is before
you, considering the small publicity that appears to have been
given to it before the Corporation of London gave it such a
splendid advertisement, seems to have been ferreted out from
comparative obscurity in order that a ground of indictment may
be found against those who are alleged to be connected with
it, and in order that the City of London may show—before the
Government absorbs it into a larger and, I hope, more effective
and beneficent Corporation—a last remnant of its old character;
may go back for fifty years of its own history to apply again
principles that have never been appealed to since the prosecu
tion in London of the Rev. Robert Taylor; may show to the
whole of the Kingdom that the City of London, with almost its
last breath, is determined to uphold those principles which are,
I have no doubt, at its base in the past, and to show how
much evil it can do before it is abolished for ever. It is
alleged I am the editor of the “ Freethinker.” Supposing it were
true, I am not in the witness-box and I am not here to give evi
dence. Neither affirmations nor denials are my business. Sup
pose I had edited every number of the “ Freethinker,” that would
not give you sufficient proof to warrant you putting me in peril
of the grave penalties that your verdict of Guilty would render
me liable to. Even that would not show I was really responsible
for the publication which lies before you. Again I say you must
judge from what evidence has been tendered by the prosecution.
Of course if men may be committed for trial on speculation
and sent to gaol on suspicion, it may be pleaded that there are
many old precedents which would even justify such a course as
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
73
that, but I think, gentlemen, you will agree with me that such
a course ought not to be, and shall not be justified, if you have
any power of deciding this by the verdict you give. The evidence
against me, technically speaking, is rubbish. You have one or
two witnesses that really speak as if they mean all they say, and
all the evidence they can give against me is that I have been
seen at Stonecutter Street a few times, amounting, as one wit
ness said, to four or five times, over a period of several years.
Some other persons who say they have seen me go in and out are
very shaky in their evidence, and if the policeman is only as
shaky on his legs as in his evidence, it is a wonder to me he can
continue to be an efficient officer of the force. What value is
there in the testimony of a witness like this, who deposes before
one court that there are four or five times extending over as
many months, and in another court that there are three or four,
extending over two years? You have the fact alleged, and it
may be considered proved, I supposed, by the learned counsel for
the prosecution—I don’t know whether he takes that view of it
or not—that on the 6th of February there was a change made
in the registration of the proprietorship of the “ Freethinker,”
and from that time I stood in the position of proprietor. That
is a considerable distance from the 16th of December, when,
according to the indictment, the blasphemous libels are said to
have been committed. Tne reference which has been read to
you from a recent number is one which in continuity of business
would evidently be made by anybody concerned in it. These
things don’t call for public statements to readers of papers. What
is said in a police court or criminal court like this is naturally
authoritative. What is said in newspapers is only with a view to
the interest of the publication and the just curiosity of the readers
in certain matters and certain words. Evidence has been ten
dered that letters addressed to me as editor of the “Freethinker”
have been delivered at South Crescent to me, but neither of the
two postmen can swear he delivered any document so addressed
to me between the 16th of November and the 16th of December,
when you would naturally say any editorial work connected with
the publication would have to be done. The evidence of the
servant girl Finter is that she saw one copy of the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker ” in my room. She admits that
she saw, and has seen in my room, papers of all shapes, sizes,
and colors. The learned counsel for the prosecution read you
an extract from a number of the “ Freethinker ” to the effect
that it had a large circulation, and I feel quite sure in my own
mind that no Christmas Number nor any other Freethought pub
lication would be interfered with unless it had a large sale. So
long as a Freethought publication has a small sale there is no
danger; it is only when it thrives and when its principles are
�74
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
beginning to permeate large sections of society that men think it
necessary to interfere on behalf of their own threatened interests.
All indications point to the fact that this publication would have a
large sale, and it would not be a wonderful thing if a copy of the
paper were found in the room of a man whose room is littered
with papers of all sorts, colors, and sizes. I make no statements
or denials; I merely deal with the evidence. I say there is not
a shred of evidence which would justify you in your position,
having to give a grave legal verdict, to say in that position and
capacity that I am responsible for this or any blasphemous libel
which can be found within the corners of the publication.
I will leave all that. It is not a kind of business in
which I am particularly skilled or interested. I respect thetalent, ability and character of the learned gentlemen, but I
should not care to make it my business to participate in such
work as they have to do. I will proceed with what to me is of
more interest, the consideration of the grounds of this prosecution,
not from a technical point of view as the evidence concerns my
self, but: rom the broader point as it may concern myself and co
defendants alike. What is it? Were I in your position, and a
man were brought before me on a grave criminal charge, I should
ask this question—Under what statute is he prosecuted ? I am
perfectly aware you will get your legal directions as to the law
as it now stands from the learned judge, but I am not less aware
that in defending myself I have all the privileges of a counsel,
that I have a right to deal with everything included within the
borders of the indictment; and I submit if there is any dis
tinction to be made between a counsel in the law pleading for his
elient, and a defendant who can only plead for himself, because
his purse is not long enough to purchase that legal defence—if
any such distinction is to be made, it should be made in favor of
the man who stands in such a position of danger as I have the
misfortune to stand in now. If you ask under what statute I am
prosecuted, you will have as an answer, no statute. This is an.
indictment at common law. Common law is what ? Judge-made
law. I have the very highest respect for the intellectual power,
the legal accomplishments, and the character of the learned judges
who occupy our bench, but I do say that all judges—no matter
what their position might be; no matter however wise or
disinterested their judgments may be on ordinary criminals—
necessarily from their position, are inheritors of that old and
bad tradition of the priority of the Crown in all Crown prosecutions,
especially when they touch the liberty of the press or the liberty
of association, and the fight of free speech, bad traditions which
have, unfortunately, as every reader of Government-allowed pro
secutions during the last 150 years knows, stained our legal
records and too often turned courts of justice into halls of
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
75
oppression. Now, gentlemen, I am making no invidious com
ments ; I am only stating general principles and general facts ;
and it is because of these facts and the principles which are implied
in them that I want to impress upon you, the necessity of not
allowing yourselves to be enmeshed by merely legal cobwebs. You
have to give a decision on this very grave question, which I shall
have to show you later on in my address, will have far reaching
consequences whichever way your verdict goes, to give that
decision on the broad, grounds of common sense and equity,
with a due regard to what I have to say and a full regard to what
the learned judge may have to say to you in his direction. J
said the common law was judge-made law. We have been told
by the learned counsel for .the prosecution, that we cannot
permit insults to the Christian religion, that we may permit dis
cussion on controverted points of religion, but we cannot allow
insults to Christianity. I have to complain that while the
language of old decisions is referred to, absolute and accurate
language is not cited. I defy anybody to point out a single case
in which any man has been prosecuted, much less in which any
man has been convicted and sentenced, on a charge of merely
bringing the true religion into contempt. The word contempt
has always been coupled with the word unbelief or disbelief—to
bring the Christian religion into disbelief or contempt. You must
see the reasonableness of so coupling it. You must couple the
truth of the thing with its immunity from insult, and so in all
decisions the word disbelief was used with contempt. The phrase,
“ controverted points of religion ” has never been used. It was held
by Lord Justice Abbot, that while no general attack on Christianity
could be permitted or tolerated, discussion on controverted points
was allowable. Now, the learned counsel for the prosecution
did not even dare to put the language of the learned judges to
you in its old and, as I think, hideous nakedness; but he used
the word religion, implying you were to believe that contro
verted points of religion in general were to be discussed, but
that no religion was to be insulted. I affirm broadly, and I don’t
think it can be contradicted, that it is only religion established
by law which has any standing in this country.
In proof of this, Mr. Foote quoted the case of the Scorton
Nunnery, reported at page 196 in the third volume of “Russell
•n Crimes,” and proceeded:—
So that you see here the learned judge lays it down that
Mahomedans, Jews, and even Roman Catholics, may be insulted
with impunity, so long as you only insult the latter sects on those
points on which they happen to differ from the religion esta
blished by law in our own country. Does not that show that
we are dealing simply with a judge-made law, called common
law, for the protection of the Church as by law established?
�76
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Some very grave remarks on that will occur a little later on. I
ask you to consider, what is it really that lies behind all this?
There can be no doubt whatever that the basis of all law against
blasphemy, whether statute or common law, is priestcraft. It is
a commonplace of the history of English law, as well indeed as
of the law of Christendom at large, that all laws against heresy
were originally not only punishable by, but tryable by, ecclesias
tical courts. I don’t mean that the ecclesiastical courts punished
the offender, but they pronounced sentence upon him, and then
handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according
to the judgment of the Church. Mr. Justice Stephens says that
law is not abolished yet; but what I want to show you is that
the common law was really brought effectively into operation
after the abolition of the writ de heretico comburendo in the
reign of Charles II., that the common law is the after glow of
the setting sun of persecution, and that the judges brought it
in not to serve the public, but to serve the Church. Who was
the first man who used the words that “ Christianity is part and
parcel of the law of England ” ? Sir Matthew. Hale was the first
judge who used those words. Without refering anybody to the
statute on which he relied, the judge sentenced people to be
burnt to death for witchcraft, or to be hung ; and no doubt his
common sense was quite as great in the one case as the other.
What is the prosecution of Freethinkers but the outcome of the
same superstition which in the old days burnt and hanged .poor
women and children for a crime we know now to be impossible ?
And the time will come when we shall recognise the crime of
blasphemy to be impossible. When a great Roman Emperor,
Tiberius, was asked by an informer to allow a prosecution for
an offence against the gods, his reply was that the wrongs against
the gods must be dealt with by the gods. *1 hat is a point you
will have to consider more fully when you come to the indict
ment. The spirit which underlies all prosecutions for blasphemy
has its origin in priestcraft in the past, and the credulity and
ignorance thus engendered support it to-day. Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, the poet, well said that the statement that Christianity
is part and parcel of the law of the land is as absurd as if one
were to say—supposing there to be a law to. protect carpenter«
and builders in the exercise of their profession—that architec
ture was a part of the British Constitution. Let us see if
Christianity can be declared to be part and parcel of the law of
the land. What is the source of law ? The House of Commons
and the House of Lords, and the Crown giving its assent, to bills
passed by those two Houses. The House of Commons initiates
matters of legislation. But are all the members of that House
Christians ? The Christian oath every member was obliged to
take before he took his seat—-the oath of allegiance—has been
�Ileport of Blasphemy Trials.
77
broken down for many years, and a theistic oath substituted, for
it; so that we have in the House of Commons—Jews, who cer
tainly are not Christians, whose ancestors crucified Jesus Christ,
whom Christians believe to have been, and to be, God,—Jews,
who believed that Jesus Christ was not God, and that he was a
blasphemer—and they have a hand in making the laws of the
country in which Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
the land ! There are many men inside the House of Commons
who had not the same odium and obloquy to encounter as Mr.
Bradlaugh, but who still, in secret, are known to be sharers in
his views. We had lately returned to the House of Commons, as
member for Newcastle, Mr. .Morley. He is well known as a
Positivist. A Positivist is one who believes in Auguste Comte’s
philosophy, a man whom the late Léon Gambetta declared to
have been the greatest thinker of the 19th century. What was
the object of Comte's philosophy? It was to reorganise society
by the systematic cultivation of humanity. Mr. Morley is a
believer in that. Mr. Morley took to spelling god with a small
g, and the Spectator, in retaliation, printed Mr. Morley’s name Í
with a small m. Mr. John Morley is returned by the electors of |
Newcastle, and takes his seat in the House of Commons to help ■
to make the laws of the country in which Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land! You have not only Jews
and heretics in that House, but you have men shaky in their
religious belief. I suppose if one said several of the Radical
members of the House were Christians, one would be asked if
he had been dining too much. There are men of all shades of
opinion, not only of opposite opinions, but opinions antagonistic
to Christianity, sitting in our national Legislature, helping to
make the laws of the land. How, therefore, can it be said that
Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land? It has
been said, and said in this court—not to-day, but on a previous
trial—under this very same indictment, that a belief in the
divinity of Jesus Christ as lord and savior,- and many other
doctrines of Christianity, are necessary, because without them
you have no guarantee for morality, and you have without them
no guarantee as to the evidence tendered in a court. The phi ase
used was that it interfered with the proper administration of the
law. How can a disbelief in Christianity interfere with the
administration of the law? The judgeshave over and over again
said that the great sanction of the oath was a belief in future
rewards and punishments. I scarcely condescended to examine
such an argument, which makes—
“ The fear of hell the hangman’s whip
To hold the wretch in order,”
and which degrades a being far below the level at which I would
�78
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
call him a man. I scorn to examine such an argument, but I
want you to see this. If a belief in the doctrine is the great sanc
tion of the oath, the oath has been practically abolished by legis
lation, because though it is true the oath is taken in a court of
justice, it is also true that the oath may be replaced by
an affirmation; and the prosecution know very well that
the evidence of the men given on affirmation is as good as that
o-iven on oath. It is clear that there is no compulsory oath now,
and that consequently there is no reason whatever for saying
that if certain doctrines be perverted, the sanctity of the oath is
«■one too. You know there is a large amount of perjury takes
place in the courts of justice. Who are tie perjurers—the people
who give their evidence on oath or who give it on affirmation ?
Gentlemen, it is a fact that the perjurers don’t come from those
who give evidence on affirmation, but from those who give it on
oath, so that the sanctity of the oath may be one thing, and the
sanctity of a man’s word another thing. Just glance for a
moment over one or two instances of prosecution that have
occurred under these laws. I will carry you back to the time of
Naylor who, for blasphemy, was brought up beiore Lord Com.
missioner Whitelocke. They had whipped him, imprisoned him,
and they wished to put him to death. Lord Whitelocke gave it
as his opinion that the time had passed for putting people to
death. He said the power has lapsed, and Naylor was not put to
death' So that you see what is considered blasphemy in one
age and for which a man may be put to death, in another age
may not be so considered, clearly showing that blasphemy is a
matter of opinion amongst rival contending sects, and that those
who have the upper hand would make a denial of their doctrines
blasphemy. I want you to bear that carefully m mind. 1 now
come to the last century. Woolston was sent to gaol and lmo-ered there for years, because he did not believe that the five
books of the Pentateuch were inspired. Bishop Colenso can prove
the same thing to day without refutation, aud still remain a
Bishop of the English Church. We have changed very much, I
think, since then. Peter Annett was sentenced to a month m
Newgate, ordered to stand in the pillory twice, had to undergo
a year’s imprisonment, and was brought back toNewgate until he
found sureties for his good behavior. . What was his offence?
His offence was denying the authenticity of the Pentateuch.
The same thing is done by the Bishop of Exeter, one of the con
tributors to “Essays and Reviews,” which Lord Shaftesbury
declared to be blasphemous productions vomited forth from
hell You, gentlemen, have heard the name of Gibbon, who
said that the religions of the ancients were thought by the
philosophers as equally false, by the people as equally rue, and
by the statesman as equally useful. Gibbon was a sceptic, xou
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
79
know of Hume, one of the greatest metaphysicians that ever
lived, and of Bolingbroke, the great orator and statesmen, both
■of whom were Freethinkers. These men’s writings, all men of
learning and leisure read. Nobody ever thought of’ interfering
with them, but when the men of the people come and utter the
same doctrines they propounded, and sell them at the people’s
price, in the language of the people, it is called blasphemy—thus
clearly showing that blasphemy only means heresy written for
the people at the people’s price. You have always had blas
phemy prosecutions against cheap papers, showing the clear
motive in the minds of those who institute those proceedings.
The seller of the works of Thomas Paine was prosecuted^
Richard Carlile spent nine years in gaol for selling prosecuted
publications, but in the end he triumphed; and I say that the
exertions of that man and those who took part in the strugo-le
with him, gave us more than a generation of peaceful enjoyment
of one of the grandest principles—the liberty of the press, which
is seriously threatened by proceedings like this. For if you get a
verdict against one paper for one offence, you may bring prose
cutions against other publications; and I see there is an*3associa
tion started with a live secretary, whose object it is, seeing that
the monster of Persecution has been roused out of its lair, to
prosecute such writers as Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall,
Mr. Herbert Spencer, and others of that class. It is therefore
clear that these bigots will be overjoyed if you give a verdict
against us, because they know that ttien bigotry in this country
will become active and give them support, so that they may
crush down those who turn back from the darkness of the past
and throw out the effulgent light of the sun of knowledge and
progress, in whose meridian beam will bask the generations
of those who follow us. Supposing you believe there is proof
of publication against me and my co-defendants of the alleo-ed
blasphemous libel which lies before you, still the proof of publi
cation does not suffice. You have to bear in mind that belief
on your part that this is a blasphemous libel does not suffice.
You have to find there was malice in the case. Our indictment
charges us with having wickedly published this, so that you must
find theie was malice in the case before you can brin.tr jjx &
verdict of Guilty.
°
T
from Folkard On the “Law of Slander and
Label Mr. Foote proceeded: We, as the defendants, say that
there has been no malice whatever. There has been no evidence
tendered as to malice. There is plenty of money behind the pro
secution ; plenty of detectives have been engaged; plenty of
spies may be purchased at a price. Those spies may have been
paid to follow us, to listen to our conversation, to hear what we
say, and whether we ever stated our object was to outrage public
�gO
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
feelings or to make malicious insults. Nothing of that sort has
been done, for the simple reason that no such evidence ever
existed and could not be proved by any number of spies or
detectives. There has been no malice proved, and 1 don t know
that it is necessary to do anything except to draw your attentio
to Folkard, who says malice must be proved before you can bring
in a verdict of Guilty. It has not only not been proved, but
there has been no evidence tendered; therefore you are h°und
to believe there has been no malice, and bring m a verdict of Not
Guilty, and withhold your verdict of Guilty from theprosecutors,
who have the Corporation of the City of London behind them
One of the members (Aiderman Fowler) of the Corporation is
now sitting on the bench while the case is being tried. Now
gentlemen^ when we talk about outraging people s f eelings I
want to know whose feelings are referred to. Does e p .
cution really think it can get you to believe that the^jmlemical
language of Christian controversies is not as outrageous to the
feehngs of those they are opposed to as anything you can^find
in the pages of that publication? If I give you a few choice
epithets Ised by Christian polemists, you will agree there
isPnothing exceptmnal. The following epithets are all extracted
from onegecclesiastical historian, and as he was a Christian you can
find no fault with him there. In Mosheim we find the lofiowmg
choice epithets:-“ A set of^iserable and
“ Malignant and superficial reasoners.
That refers
thinkers. When you remember that there was no prosecution o
this language and when you remember it has been said that the
Wood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, andnoticethe persistent
use by Christians of weapons of ridicule against Paganism, which
was the established religion of the Roman people, then yoube
able to measure at its true value the charge against us—that we
have used ridicule and malice in our attack on religion estabSa by law in our own land. Some of these phrases whmh
were applied to the Romans were “servile; . perfidious,
“ bloodsuckers ;” “ ignorant, wretched ;” “ exercised unna, ur
lusts-” “procuring abortion;” consecrated brothels to divmitíí"
stupidity;” ferocious;” olieentmus people;”
“bigoted multitude;” savage tyranny of Ro“a“i.1^Pfer®2v
Here is a description of Christians :—fhey are “guilty of man}
forgeries •” have “ given us a series of fables;” their martyrologies
beXmaAsof “ignorance and falsehood;” the early history of
the apostles is “loaded with fables, doubts and difficulties,
shortly after Christs death there were “several historiansfull
of pious frauds and fabulous wonders; they were super
stitious*” “ignorant;” Christian books were “corrupted and
interpolated by Christians;” men have “forged books in_the
name*of Christ and his apostles.” These beautiful descnptio
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
81
are to be found in “Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History,” and
give a good idea of how Christians treat their enemies or those
who differ from them in religion. Mr. Foote next submitted, from
the same book, Christian descriptions of ancient philosophers:_
“ Enslaved to superstition;” “perfidious accusers;” “virulent;”
had recourse to “ wild fictionsand romantic fables;” “ malignant
calumniators;” “trifling cavillers;” “supercilious;” “volup
tuous;” “ sensual.” Christian description of heretics and their
beliefs : “ None had real piety at heart;” “wild and fanatical ;”
“ monstrously abused Christian religion to the encouragement
of their vices;” “pretended reformers;” having “licentious
imaginations;” “delusion;” “folly;” “impious;” “extrava
gant;” had “fictitious writings;” “blasphemers;” “fictitious
miracles;” “vile impostors;” “pernicious;” “odious magicians ;” “lunatics;” “fornicators;” “grossly immoral;” believed
in a “multitude of fictions;” “ impious doctrines ; ” favored the
“lusts and passions ” and “all sorts of wickedness;” “impious,
blasphemous, absurd notions ;” “full of impiety ;” “ most horrid,
licentiousness;” “enormous wickedness;” “ignorant fanatics.”
Christian description of priests of other religions: “Licen
tious ;” ministered to “vice,” “cunning;” “crafty;” “cheats-”
“ lazy and selfish ;” “ rabble ;” “ perfidious ;” “ virulent ;” “ bloody
priesthood ;” “ bloodthirsty ;” “ little better than atheists.” Chris
tian descriptions of Jews: “ Gave vigor to every sinful desire;”
“sunk in ignorance;” “profligate wickedness;” “licentious;”
“hypocrites;” “virulent and malignant;” “abandoned people;”
“inhuman;” “perfidious.” Christian description of the sacred
things of the Jews: “Extravagant and idle fancies ;”“ idolatry."
Christian ridicule of the religion of others : “ Grossest idolatry •”
offered “prayers void of piety and sense;” transacted tiling
“ contrary to modesty and decency ;” “ object of ridicule and
contempt;” “wretched theology;” “inhuman rites;” “vulgar
superstition;” “corrupt and most abominable system of super
stition ;” “fables of the priests ;” “superstition of the heathen
priests.’ Christians description of gods of other people:
“ Famous for their vices ;” “egregious criminals.” Christian de
scription of Roman magistrates : “ Suborned false accusers •”
were “corrupt judges. Mr. Foote continued as follows:—
When one sees all the sects have been doing and saying of one
another, one can only settle as to which to believe by adopting
Voltaires plan, who, when he saw two old ladies quarrelling
said, u Well, I believe them both.’* In all ages contending parties
have reviled each other. Lucian lampooned the Christians, and
they were as severe on the Pagans. The “Octavius” of
Minutius Felix is a dialogue in which, while Cæcilius (the heathen)
complains that Christians spit on Pagan gods, Octavius (the
Christian) satirises the Pagans for, of all things, what think you?
v
�g2
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
—for worshipping the cross with a man upon it. Iren seus calls
his opponente ‘‘slimy serpents” and many abusive epithets,
Scules the ceons. Tertullian abuses Marcion and Herbe seen in Gibbon's account of the Anan
^Mother of God controversy. It was the same wi h Clement
of Alexandria and other writers against heretics. A <^e num
ber of Lollard ballads, writings, and prints were satirical, an
in the times of the Reformation caricatures on religious subjects
were common. Erasmus’ -Praise of Folly,” which was Ulusfra+ed bv Holbein who caricatured the Pope, is full of gwis
iTisar« This work, says D’Aubigne, did more than any
thin o- else to confirm the sacerdotal tendency of the age. I he
Catholics said Erasmus, laid the egg and Luther batched it. The
Reformers were treated with the grossest abuse and scunrl.ty
wh ch they amply repaid. D’Aubigne, in his “ History of the
Reformation of the 16th Century,” saysLuther s name
X^std^
pasXTof IjeopfSCalled
fortnight or a mOnth at most,’ said they, ‘ and this notorious
heretic will be burnt.’ ” Luther wrote, but did not publish, a
little treatise “De Execranda Venere Romanorum which I
thtek W best be left untranslated. Luther was a Protestant
and Henry VIII. became a Protestant too, after quai idling with
Se Pope bocanse he would not gratify his lust
I will show myself -“^^XVhorei Iwd) tuTmLe^on
SmgOai waiepr'ovoke Satan until he falls down lifeloss and
the weapons they are Pow ^“^^“Tliai Aquinas?'
TTnll in his “Modern Infidelity” says of mfadels .— rmy rov«
darkness rather than lmht, because their deeds are evil (pieface).
3s£i»ienTeVS°“^
notltog to 2osPe youtside of. the churches and creeds. If you
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
83
take up the journals devoted to the promulgation and mainten
ance of rival ideas, you will find they are full of abuse of each
other, the Protestant papers speaking of the Roman Catholics as
being professors of a religion which they describe as the ___ _
1 wiil not use the strong expression they employ~the scarlet lady
of Babylon. Do not they call Catholics idolators and blasphemers
and do not the Roman Catholics turn round and call the Pro
testants heretics and blasphemers? Do not men callin»• them
selves the Salvation Army go about and use the symbols and the
time-honored expressions of the creed, and associate them with
the most brutal language of military camps; yet, because they
wear the label of Cnnstians, they are not blasphemers. Nobody in
this country, whatever his religion, is called upon to respect the
feelings of anyoody else. It is only the Freethinker who is
told to respect the feelings of people from whom he differs
and to respect them how ? To respect not when he enters the
place of their worship, not when he stands side by side with
them m the public streets in the business or pleasure of life but
to respect their feelings even when he reads only what is in
tended to be read, by Freethinkers without even knowing that a
single pair of Christian eyes is to scan the page. Is not that
similar to what is attempted here ? I think you will agree that
it is. Whose feelings have been outraged ? Would it not have
been well to have put some one in that box who was prepared to
swear that his feelings had been outraged ? With the wealth of
the Corporation of the City of London a quantity of any feelinoof outrage against this or any other publication can b A manufac°
tured. Whose feelings have been outraged by the publication
which lies before you? It bears its name outside ■ th-re is
nothing, surreptitious about it; anybody who purchased it would
do so with his eyes open ; those who purchase it must want it •
it is not thrust into their hands by some one who said “ I am a
Freethinker, I want your feelings outraged, your ’sense of
decency scarified, and therefore I put this into your hand ”
Nothing of the sort has been done, nothing of the kind Las
been proved. Those who purchased the paper have done so by
going for it into the shops themselves. Whose feelinp-s there
fore have been injured? Nobody's except those who went into
the shops to purchase copies of the paper to prosecute, and whose
feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Come for a
moment to. the question of ridicule. Take the comic papers.
I hey contain sometimes ridicule of a serious nature You mns*
never suppose because a man pulls a long face that he is wiser
and better than others. You must never imagine because a man
has a serious look that his judgment is better than that of a
happy-looking person. Often the finest wit in the world haa
been summed up in an epigram, and some of the greatest men
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
g4
who have ever contributedIt. ft. ^ptogressrf mankind
^ponente t"'“so th^’bad no wit
&g that made Voltaire hated was tart Only recently
Cl d’Sone't ?X\’eXmX dXivesareP looking after.
Didthe Liberal Party on that subject say •‘We ™t a —s
• i +u„ odiMr of that paper because our feelings nave oceu
SXdeXleem^
^°c^
X^o^^w^^^^obU«
we can ridicule people.
.rxrrj„„ ufP
Why is this?
Because
how^idteulcms^t1^ the consequence isthathe begins torecognise
Its absurdity. Suppose you were to take the
poi
f
pictures called A back vie
.
Looked at from the
view of the Freethinker,
Christian whose state of
point of view of the s>mPle c*e ™ Christians of the middle ages
Hd ^?:^"ddev» j“X holy ghost and
to depict god and Jesus ana
,g in pictures and on
vi^1D’
impassive • but looked§at from the point of view
walls, it may be impressive,
matter of scripture
of the Freethinker, put W
P absurdity For it is prebefore you, you reduce^it to an utter
h
when the
posterousm an age like thrs to be neve si .
fuU q{
foundations of the old fait
„rotten bv no one knows whom,
scholarship, to believe in writings writtenby no one know^
at a time no one knows when, an
P
in the old Hebrew
It is impossible, I say that any one can be
t
the
myth ridiculed in that picture. Cai\y0nVboimd to believe he
infinite, the spirit of the universe as y <
a ppj and sent
is if you are theists, ever stopped o
stav a few days with
S“C“e^
Sy^cd”"iJto^
own creatures, and that the man kep
hia
i£ man
.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
85
to see his back parts ? I shall not trouble you with any comic
-extracts from the Bible, but I might give you plenty of illus
trations of ridicule from the Bible. Don’t you remember that
altercation that took place between the prophet Elijah and
the priests of Baal? They built altars and they called
respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cried and
cut themselves, but the fire would not come. What did
Elijah do? Did he say “I have been reading your philo
sophical treatise on the subject of Baal, and I find there
a difficulty in the way of accepting your creed?” Did he
say “ there are controverted points which I think we ought to
dispute about and settle”? -Nothing of the sort; he turned to
them with the gravest irony and said: “ Where is your god? Is
he asleep? Has he gone on a journey?” Gentlemen, that is the
.language of ridicule, and if what the learned counsel for the pro
secution has told you to-day be true, the priests of Baal would
have been perfectly justified in turning upon the prophet Elijah
and settling him upon the spot; but they seemed to have more
sympathy than even the learned counsel for the prosecution.
Ridicule is only irksome to priests and preachers of religion.
They are the only people who ask to be protected from ridicule.
Did you ever hear of a man going to a court and asking for a
summons for ridiculing an astronomer ? Did you ever hear of
a summons being demanded for ridiculing a geologist? You
never, heard of such a thing as an astronomer, a geologist,
chemist, or man of science, asking to be protected from ridicule.
If you went to a physiologist like Professor Huxley and laughed
at the truth of his deductions he would say “ Laugh away, but it
doesn’t touch the truththerefore he would never think of seek
ing protection. Why ?—because he has got the truth, and the
truth can protect itself. These men don’t dread ridicule because
they know they have the truth and can prove it to every in
quiring mind. It is only priests and preachers of religion who
claim protection. I am a Freethinker, but I know my Bible
well, and perhaps knowing it so well has made me a Freethinker;
and I know, gentlemen, the life recorded in that book of the
founder of Christianity. I know, gentlemen, whatever failings or
flaws Freethinkers may think they find, not so much in his cha
racter as in his teaching, and which I can quite understand as he
was not in the possession of the knowledge of to-day, yet wo
can say this, that he never gave any instructions to his dis
ciples to bring men who differ from them or who would
not receive their doctrine before the magistrate. He never
told them to spend their money in employing learned counsel
to prosecute those men before the judges and juries in order
to cast them into gaol or cripple them by fine. He tells his dis
ciples all were to agree together, and that the separating of th©
�86
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
wheat from the tares was to be left to a greater wisdom than
theirs. From the Atheist point of view that is the true doctrine.
Surely god must know his need! Surely he is powerful enough
to avenge an insult against himself! Surely the all-searching
eye of him, who you believe can pierce into the recesses of
other men’s ’hearts and know all, must disapprove of avenging
his insulted majesty by bringing an impeachment against men
such as befits those who lived in barbarous times, and who were
excluded from the light of science and scholarship which we
enjoy to-day! It is only priests and teachers of religion who
claim protection, because they feel that their authority depends
upon privilege. They feel that unless they make a bold stand
for their hold upon law, their hold upon the people may slip.
They feel that it is necessary to guard their dogmas from the
rough approach of common sense, and therefore those laws
are always enforced in their interests. I ask you whether^ it is
not a ghastly mockery to say when after 1800 years of Chnstianity^which is supposed to be divine, there are men who not
only disbelieve it, and men in growing numbers who. disbelieve
it, men who can actually assail it as they think in the interests of
the salvation of mankind, that there should be such a prosecu
tion as this ? Surely the god who said, “ Let there be light and
there was light,” when he sent religion, would know of its effectupon the world: and the fact that the world is not convinced is
to my mind conclusive proof that god has not spoken, for if he
had no one could have resisted his voice. Why may not Chris
tianity take its chance ? If it is argued against let it defend
itself, not by the policeman’s truncheon ; let it defend an artistic
or intellectual attack by intellectual or artistic weapons, and not
confess itself beaten and then rush to drag its adversaries before
judges, just as the Jews and Pagans dragged Christians ?v“en
they could not put them down. The time has passed for
certain ideas to be privileged, and every doctrine must
take its chance. You will find that we are charged in
the indictment with “publishing blasphemous libels against
the Christian religion, to the high displeasure of almighty
god, to the scandal and reproach of the Christian pro
fession, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her
Crown, and dignity.” The high displeasure of almighty S0“^3
a matter you will not touch. If you believe in god, and the
words of your oath imply you do, then you know he is omnipo
tent, that he is all-seeing, that he is all-wise, all-just, and you
must leave to that high tribunal the punishment or the forgive
ness of any offence against itself. It has often been said in books
of law that it is not for the protection of god, or even for theprotection of the Christian religion as such that these blasphemy
laws are applied,' but to prevent the scandalising of the name o
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
87
almighty god, ■which, tends to a breach of the peace. That is the
last clause stated here. The high displeasure, of almighty god
we dismiss. The reproach to the Christian religion we may also
dismiss pretty briefly. As a matter of fact, the reproach to the
Christian religion is being carried on to-day by the leading
scholars and scientific men, not only of England but of every
country in the civilised world. It is as well you should reflect
upon this. I have already mentioned certain names selected
by the Protestant Prosecution Society to be proceeded against:
Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Mr. Morley, and others.
These men are all writing to the scandal of the Christian
religion. Is it not a greater scandal to religion to say it is
false than to laugh at it? Is it not worse to call a man a
liar than to laugh at him? There can be no greater offence
to Christianity, if it is to be fenced about by law, than that
which nine-tenths of the leading writers in every country are
committing. The clergy bewail it every year; the bishops are
constantly lamenting the decline of religion, and one of them
has said that god is being pushed from our popular life, and
that the intellect of the nation instead of supporting the
Christian religion is arrayed against it. What greater scandal
can there be than that ? I can understand the logical bigotry
of the men who want to prosecute leading blasphemers. John
Stuart Mill, who was brought up without any Christian belief,
whose father said that the idea of deity which the Christian
religion taught was the highest conception of wickedness—John
Stuart Mill disbelieved Christianity. He has left it on record in
his autobiography, and in the “ Essays on Atheism ” published
since his death. Those are two instances. Herbert Spencer
speaks in the freest way in his books about the Trinity, in which
one person is offended for the sins of persons outside the
Trinity, and another person of the Trinity makes atonement,
and yet all three are one. In his “ Sociology ” he cites many in
stances of the lengths to which bigotry and credulity have gone.
He illustrates the absurdity of the Trinity by three persons
endeavoring to stand on one chair. If the “Freethinker '’ made
a drawing of that kind to show the absurdity of the Trinity it
would be a blasphemy, but a Christian, although a philosopher,
is not a blasphemer when he gives the illustration I have men
tioned. As reading quotations is a weariness of spirit to the
reader and listener, I shall only trouble you with a few, but I
shall run over the cases of one or two men outside the
churches, and I will go to two dead men besides John Stuart
Mill I speak of them as of to-day because their writings are of
to-day, and the spirit of their works lives with us. You have
heard of Shelley's “ Queen Mab.” That work has been sold for
a generation and is being sold now by the leading publishers of
�88
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
England and America. No person would think of prosecuting
for the sale of Shelley’s “ Queen Mab ” now, and yet it is full of
the completest dissent from, and reproach to, the Christian reli
gion and all religion. I don’t propose to read you any extract
from that. Mr. Foote having referred to Byron’s poem in reply
to Southey’s, in which the king is described as slipping into
heaven, and concluding with the lines—
“ When the tumult dwindled to a calm,
He left him practising the Hundredth Psalm,”
he remarked that nobody ever thought of proceeding against the
sale of Byron’s works. He next proceeded to refer to Professor
Huxley’s works, and quoted the following from his “Lay Ser
mons” : “Themyths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus,
and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the know
ledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the
coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Pales
tine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted
by every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet
shared their fate, but, even at this day, are regarded by ninetenths of the civilised world as the authoritative standard of fact
and the criterion of the justice of scientific conclusions, in all
that relates to the origin of things, and among them, of species.
In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical
science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the
incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox.”
Having referred to the “Evolution of Christianity,” from which
he read an extract, Mr. Foote read the following two quotations
from “Mill on Liberty”: “No Christian more firmly believes
that Atheism is false, and tends to the dissolution of society, than
Marcus Aurelius believed the same things of Christianity; he
who, of all men then living, might have been thought the most
capable of appreciating it. Unless anyone who approves of
punishment, for the promulgation of opinions flatters himself that
he is a wiser and a better man than Marcus Aurelius—-more
deeply versed in the wisdom of his time, more elevated in his
intellect above it, more earnest in his search for truth, or more
single-minded in his devotion to it when found ; let him abstain
from that assumption of the joint infallibility of himself and the
multitudes which the great Antonius made with so unfortunate a
result. . . . The man who left on the memory of those who wit
nessed his life and conversation such an impression of his moral
grandeur, that eighteen subsequent centuries have done homage
to him as the almighty in person, was ignominiously put to
death, as what ?—as a blasphemer. Men did not merely mistake
their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of
what he was, and treated him as that prodigy of impiety which
�'Report of Blasphemy Trials.
89
they themselves are now held to be, for their treatment of him.”
Mr. Foote also quoted in support of his argument from Mr.
Leslie Stephens, who, in the current number of the “Nineteenth
Century,” contended that there ought to be no interference with
expressions in papers or from platforms of opinions on religious
matters, even when expressed in an abusive or ridiculous manner,
because everybody had the remedy in his own hands.
Mr. Justice North: Be good enough to tell me the name of
the book you are now quoting from ?
Mr. Foote: “Essays in Freethinking,” my lord. He pro
ceeded further to refer to Professor Huxley, who, speaking of
the story of the creation, said: “There are those who represent
the most numerous, respectable, and would-be orthodox of the
public, and are what may be called ‘Adamites,’ pure and simple.
They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in
Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled from
one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been
reduced to the eight persons who were landed on the summit of
Mount Ararat after a universal deluge, all the nations of the
earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their
present localities, and have become converted into Negroes,
Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of
the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism, as if it
were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and
I am not acquainted with any man of science or duly in
structed person who does.” Mr. Foote quoted from Mr.
Matthew Arnold, who said that the personages of the Christian
confession and their conversations were no more a matter of
fact than the persons of the Greek Olympus and their conver
sation. Viscount Amberley, speaking of the incarnation of Jesus,
says: “ That some among these many female followers were
drawn to him by that sentiment of love is, at least, highly probable.
Whether Jesus entertained any such feelings towards one of them
it is impossible to guess, for the human side of his nature has
been carefully suppressed in the extant legend.” Again, the
same writer remarked: “ As to the god of Israel, one of these
two charges he cannot escape. Either he knew when he created
Adam and Eve, that their nature was such that they would
disobey, or he did not. In the first case he knowingly formed
them liable to fall, knowingly placed them amid conditions which
rendered their fall inevitable ; and then punished them for the
catastrophe he had all along foreseen, as the necessary result of the
character he had bestowed on them. In the second case, he was
ignorant and short-sighted, being unable to guess what would be
the nature of his own handiwork; and should not have under
taken tasks which were obviously beyond the scope of his faculties.”
He did not .believe in the perfection of the character of Jesus
�90
. Report of Blasphemy Trials.
even as a man, and he believed the gospel narrative not to be
divine but to have been put in human form. Professor Clifford,
and the Duke of Somerset might be added to the list of writers
he had quoted from. Those should satisfy them that belief
in the old testament as a piece of mythology was common in the
highest circles of literature, and though they had not been made
the subject of reproach, yet thosi who expressed the same thing
in plain language, by plain illustration, were prosecuted. The
defendant quoted a very amusing passage from the works of
Colonel Ingersoll, to show how ridicule was used, and went on
to ask, why are we singled out for prosecution? You will
remember hearing me ask one of the witnesses, Kelland, in whose
employ he was, and his answer was Messrs. Batten and Co.,
solicitors. They are the solicitors to Sir Henry Tyler. Sir'
Henry Tyler is a man whose name you are somewhat familiar
with by this time. All sorts of rumors have been flying about
with reference to this gentleman. He has relinquished his
position as president of the Brush Light Company. He is, a man
of excessive piety, although it is true the shareholders don t like
him much. In the House of Commons he made himself especially
obnoxious—not to Mr. Bradlaugh personally, but to the House
generally, and the members of his own Conservative party marked
their disapproval of his conduct by walking out of the House and
leaving him alone, when he put his question, not in his glory but
in his shame. He put questions with reference to ladies
associated with Mr. Bradlaugh by ties of blood, knowing that
owing to the discreditable interference with the right of an
English constituency—Mr. Bradlaugh would not be in his place
in the House to speak, and knowing also that the ladies were
not present. Sir Henry Tyler is a very pious man, who
considers that blasphemy should be put down. He supported a
former prosecution against the “Freethinker,’ but he was par
ticularly careful to drag into the prosecution the name of Mr.
Bradlaugh, although there was no evidence that he had been
editor, publisher, proprietor, or in any way connected with it
Sir H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh s, and Mr.
Bradlaugh was therefore, in the most unwarrantable manner,,
involved in an expensive litigation. Mr. Newdegate was sueing
him at the same time for £500 not due and not yet paid. I he
suit was very protracted, and Sir H. Tyler and other personages
thought if Mr. Bradlaugh could only be brought in Guilty of a
blasphemous libel, and if the penalties of the statute of
■William IV. could be imposed upon him, he would not only be
deprived of his position in the House of Commons, but would be
declared without right for the rest of his life to be a Party *o
any suit—so that this would be a disfranchisement under the.
statute, and Mr. Newdegate would get his £500 and costs. Sir
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
91
H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh’s, and a
political opponent of the most pronounced type; and when
political opponents of the most pronounced type take to de
nouncing each other on a charge of blasphemy, you can under
stand very readily that the motive is not so much religious as
political, and it is pretty sure that if they can only cripple him
in a political point of view, they will not trouble themselves
about his religion. Sir T. Nelson (the City solicitor) and Sir H.
Tyler are working together amicably, and it occurs to me there
may be a malicious motive behind this prosecution, a motive of
political animosity, and that- it is sought to strike at Mr. Brad-.
laugh through men known to be connected with him in public
and other work. May it not be hoped by these very political
adversaries, that if a verdict of Guilty can be snatched in this
case, which is being hurried on with such indecent haste, it will
be easier to get a verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh in the other
case, and that then he may be crippled in political life—a desire
that his enemies wish so ardently to see realised. I hope you
will decide, whatever may be the opinions of the prosecutor or
others in this case, on the striptly legal merits, without being in
fluenced by any religious or political considerations. I hope
you will show by your verdict that you are not going to allow
yourselves to be made the prosecuting instruments in a political
fight,, but that you will let them fight it out in the arena of
politics without recourse to the political weapons which they put
in your hands, when they are afraid to strike themselves. Our
indictment says we have done what ?—we have done something
to the displeasure of almighty god and to the danger of the peace.
A breach of the peace is a very serious and grave thing, and it quite
justifies Mr. Justice Stephens in putting in a clause of reserva
tion at the end of a sentence in which he disapproves of blas
phemy prosecutions in his “ Digest of the Criminal Law ” (quota
tion read). Here we have one of the very highest judges, who
says he thinks no temporal punishment should be inflicted on a
charge of blasphemy unless it can be shown that the blasphemy
tends to a breach of the peace. That is a perfectly reasonable
reservation. Then if it be a reasonable reservation it is only
proper that its condition should be fulfilled by the prosecution.
There has been no evidence to show that anything we have done
has tended to a breach of the peace. You must not understand
as tending to a breach of the peace something which differs
from what you hold and that you may dislike. Before you come
to the conclusion that a thing has a tendency to a breach of the
peace you must be perfectly satisfied it would lead to an actual
breach of the peace. What breach of the peace could the offence
with which we are charged lead to ? There has been no allega
tion that even a crowd assembled to look at it. The “Free-
�92
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
thinker ” was exposed for sale in shop-windows, but the prose
cution don’t show that anybody was tempted to break a pane of
glass in consequence. There has been no allegation of tumult in
the street. Not even a boy has snatched another boy’s hat over
the subject; there has not been a single blow struck, not a single
disturbance or obstruction of thoroughfare; and if that be so,
and there be no evidence tending to show anything to the con
trary, you ought, considering there has been no breach of the
peace, and no probability of any breach of the peace occurring,
to pronounce your judgment on this very reasonable reservation,
and say, that as its conditions have not been complied with, you
will not give a verdict of Guilty but one of Not Guilty, and show
that the time has arrived for the abolition of temporal punish
ment for a spiritual offence. There is good, reason to believe
that most people of any liberality of mind object to prosecutions
of this kind. Dr. Hynes stated, on the 19th of May, 1819, that
these Acts being enforced against Richard Carlile and others, did
not stop the publications. He further said that Christianity dis
claims them, that reason was every day gaining ground, and that
they ought to abandon those prosecuting statutes, fit only to bind
demons. Jeremy Bentham, in his “Letters to Count Lor eno on
the Proposed Penal Code of the Spanish Cortes, speaking of
blasphemies, said : “ To no end could I think of applying punish
ment in any shape for such an offence.” Bentham further speaks
of “theliberty of the press as the foundation of all other liberties.
Let me give you the opinion of Professor Hunter, Professor of
Roman Law at University College, London. Professor Hunter, in a
letter to the “ Daily News,” says: “ The English law on the sub
ject of blasphemy is a relic of barbarism and folly. It owes its
place in our law-book simply to the fact that it has been a dead
letter. To enforce it is to invoke all that is just and honorable
in public opinion to demand its destruction. It is a weapon
always ready to the hand of mischievous fools or designing
knaves.” I don’t know in which category he would place this
prosecution, whether that of mischievous fools or designing
knaves. Buckle took exactly the same view. Mill, in an,article
on Religious Prosecution, in the “Westminster Review, July,
1824, shows that “the line between argument and reviling is too
difficult for even legal acuteness to draw ; that he who disbe
lieves and attempts to disprove Christianity can put his arguments
into no form which may not be pronounced calumnious and ille
gal ; and that therefore the only mode of securing free inquiry is
to tolerate the one as well as the other. ’ He aiso says: lo
declare that an act is legal but with the proviso that it be per
formed in a gentle and decorous manner, is opening a wide door
for arbitrary discretion on the one part and dissatisfaction on
the other. The difficulty is greatly increased when the act itself
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
93
is offensive to those who sit in judgment upon the manner of its
performance.” Carlyle, in “Sartor Resartus,” says: “Wise man
was he who counselled that speculation should have free course,
and look fearlessly towards all the thirty-two points of the compass,
whithersoever and howsoever it listed.” Sir W. Harcourt, reply
ing to Mr. Freshfield, said: “I think it has been the view for a
great many years of all persons responsible in these matters that
more harm than advantage is produced to public morals by
Government prosecutions in cases of this kind.” Again the
Home Secretary, in reply to Mr. Redmond, observed: “Istated
the other day that I thought it not wise to proceed legally
against such publications.”- Mill speaks of the injustice of
debarring “a man who may have a comprehensive and vigorous,
though a vulgar and coarse mind, from publishing his speculalations on theological topics because his style lacks the polish of
that of Hume and Gibbon.” Again, says the same writer: “If
the proposition that Christianity is untrue may be legally con
veyed to the mind, what can be more absurd than to say that to
express that proposition by certain undefined and undefinable
selections of terms, shall constitute a crime ?” No infidel socalled—a name every Freethinker disclaims—would disclaim any
such protection as that which Mill pleads for. All we demand is
equality—equal right with all our fellow citizens. We are with
them citizens of one State, and should be equal in the eye of the
law. Our lives are as public as other men’s, and is it found we
are worse than other men ? In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, you
know that everything that malice could invent has been invented
with reference to him since he was elected to represent North
ampton ; but although the fierce light of scandal has beaten upon
him, yet even scandal, however vicious, and calumny however
unfounded, has never been able to fasten upon a single foul spot
in his life which could be held up for the reproach and the indig
nation of mankind. Our lives are as good as the lives of others.
Our doctrines may be different, but they are ours. If we speak
in our homes, nobody need cross the thresholds ; if we write in
papers we don’t give them away—people who want them must buy
them. Everybody outraged has his remedy : he need not buy our
paper; he need not listen to our doctrines or read them; and
why should people who did not force their publications on
him not be allowed the enjoyment of their tastes ? There is one
thing I wish to call your attention to, and that is that these pro
secutions never succeed. It has been said that the blood of the
martyrs is the seed of the Church. Although one doesn’t want to pose
as a martyr, still this prosecution is nothing less than martyrdom.
It is not we who stand here of our own free will; it is not we
who sought incarceration ever since Thursday in the dungeons
behind. We would much rather have been about our business
�94
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
and our pleasure. We only wish, for freedom to do what we
think is right. These prosecutions never succeed ; it is impossible
that they should. In his article in the “Nineteenth Century,”
Mr. Leslie Stepens says, and says truly, that there is only one
form of persecution that you can justify on grounds of policy
if you believe in the principle which underlies it, and that is
extermination. Heresy may be treated by the orthodox Chris
tian as he pleases, but then you cannot stamp out the disease by
attacking a person here and there ; unless you can stamp out
the germ you can do nothing. Lou cannot crush out a patty
which numbers its tens of thousands by prosecutions of this de
scription, while adherents are found from one end of the country
to the other ; you cannot crush out a party here whose repre
sentatives in France are actually in possession of the governmental
affairs of that country. You cannot expect to crush out a party
so multitudinous as that unless you exterminate it. It is im
possible to succeed thus. In attempting it you would only deal
a blow at your own faith and general liberty, and as for the men
who are thrown into gaol or crippled by fine, do you think your
treatment would strongly and favorably impress them with the
reasonableness of your faith? You don t teach in that way now.
You cannot, as in the old days, thrash ideas into children with
the stick. The policy doesn’t succeed ; and endeavoring to thrash
Christianity into people by means of a foulsome prison and a
crippling fine, is worthy only of the times when the policy was
adopted of enforcing argument on children, as it has been aptly
described a posteriori, instead of trying to put argument into the
child’s brains through the eyes and ears. Gentlemen, that policy
will not succeed, and yon must know that it won’t. I ask you
by your verdict of Not Guilty to show that you believe it, and to
send us back to work, to take our part in the business of li.e,
and to do what is incumbent upon us in our relationships as
brothers, sons, husbands, citizens. Gentlemen, carry your minds
back across the chasm of eighteen centuries and a half. You
are in Jerusalem. A young Jew is haled along the street to the
place of judgment. He is brought before his judge. 1 here is
nothing repulsive about his lineaments. People who knew him
_ not the people who were prosecuting him—loved him; and
their verdict after all is the right one.. There is even the fire
of genius smouldering in his eyes, notwithstanding.the depressing
circumstances around him. He stands before his judge ; he is
accused—of what, gentlemen? You know what he is accused
of_ the word must be springing to your lips—Blasphemy!
Every Christian among you knows that >our founder, Jesus
Christ, .was crucified after being charged with blasphemy ;. and,
gentlemen, it seems to me that no Christian should ever bring in
a verdict of blasphemy after that, but that the very word ought
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
95
to be wiped from your vocabulary, as a reproach and a scandal
to Jesus Christ. Surely, Christians, your founder was murdered
as a blasphemer, for, although done judicially, it was still a
murder. Surely you will not, when you have secured the
possession of power, imitate the bad example of those who
killed your founder, violate men's liberties, rob them of all
that is perhaps dearest to them, and brand them with a stigma
of public infamy by a verdict from the jury-box! Surely,
gentlemen, it is impossible that you can do that! Who are we?
Three poor men. Are we wicked? No, there is no proof of
the charge. Our honor and honesty are unimpeached. It is not
for us to play the Pharisee and say that we are better than other
men. We only say that we are no worse. Our honor and our
honesty are unimpeached. What have we done to be classed
with thieves and felons, and dragged from our homes and sub
mitted to the indignities of a life so loathsome and hideous, that
it is even revolting to the spirits of the men who have to exercise
-authority within the precincts of the gaol? You know we have
done nothing to merit such a punishment. Therefore you ought
to return a verdict of Not Guilty against us, because the prose
cution have not given you sufficient evidence as to the fact; be
cause whatever shred there is to gain from the decisions of judges
in the past must be treated as obsolete, as the London magistrate
treated the law of maintenance. On the ground that we have
done nothing, as the indictment states, against the peace ; on the
ground that our proceedings have led to no tumult in the streets
no interference with the liberty of any man, his person or pro
perty ; on the ground, gentlemen, that no evidence has been
tendered to you of any malice in our case ; that there is no wicked
motive animating anything we have done ; on the ground, if you
-are Christians, that the founder of your own creed was murdered
on a very similar charge to that of which we stand accused now;
and. lastly, on the ground that you should in this third quarter of
the nineteenth century, assert once and for ever the great principle
of the absolute freedom of each man, unless he trench on the
equal freedom of another, assert the great principle of the
liberty of the press, liberty of the platform, liberty of free thouo-lit
and liberty of free speech; I ask you to prevent such prosecu
tions as are hinted at in the Times this morning; not to allow
sects once more to be hurling anathemas against each other, and
flying to the magistrates to settle questions which should be
settled by intellectual means and moral suasion; not to open a
discreditable chapter of English history that ought to have been
closed for ever; but to give us a verdict of Not Guilty, to send
us back home and to stamp your brand of disapprobation on the
prosecution in this case, that is I say in certain interests of re
ligion, and is degrading religion by associating it with all that
�g6
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
• ™„al obstructive, and loathsome ; to stamp that prosecution
with the brand of your condemnation; to allow us to go away
tarn tere free meni and so make it impossible that there over
Hoi once Ld for ever, and associate your names on the page of
Sy S liberty, ¿regress, and -e^^eV’ "
xL’Sl.rrv:
!aES;^~=^~Ss
&nd
peculiar clrcunXnces u^de/which it has
rSfx’Ssii»“«
S=KWS=S=
men charged with a ballabie , d de’clared themselves unable
S .‘•--K 1
4
St
iron grating within earshot of a police offic •
tirrender
position has always been allowed to come b“«“d surrender
S^pie^uX:i, Ld up»“ yoi the law Uws the
�97
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
duty of defining what is and what is not blasphemy at com
mon law; and I desire, gentlemen, with all due respect to
the court to press upon you that on you by statute lies the
responsibility of making this decision. It is by statute for
you to say whether the publication indicted comes or does not
come within the definition of blasphemy. In the long struggle
for civil and religious liberty 111 this country the gradual
emancipation of thought and action has been largely/rouX
by English juries. They have gradually widened our freedom
by refusing to find men guilty for publishing specula^
opinions, and have thus rendered obsolete ba?barous laws
passed in savage and persecuting times ; they have stood
between prisoners and j’udges pressing for a harsh constru/
tion of a harsh law, and have delivered from cruel sentences
over and over again men of untainted moral character but of
heretical opinions. Your deliverance is here supreme but
your verdict once spoken your power is gone. If bv brii^in J
m a verdict of Guilty you hand us over to the lawf then?hat
law, cruel as it is, can be exercised in its full severity, and no
disapproval on your part of a vindictive sentence will be of
the smallest avail. That sentence will really be of your in
feting, for you know what the law permits as punishment for
heretical thought, and you have the power to prevent the
infliction by returning a verdict of acquittal. Already one
jury has refused to hand us over to such punishment Ldl
press upon you at least not to fall below the level of their
yerdict. You are not dealing here with a crime of conduct ■
you are dealing with an alleged crime of speculative thought
and of the expression of that thought
° l
Mr. Ramsey then urged the arguments used in his speech
to the former jury, and concluded by saying: Gentlemen I
ask of you a yerdict of deliverance from this cruel law—a law
born of religious persecution, which has caused more misery
broken more hearts, and ruined more lives, than the woX
war ever waged. Supposing all was proved that the p™
cation allege to what does it amount ? That I have permitted
a paper, of which I was the registered proprietor, to be used
for the purpose not of attacking Ohristianity-for that of
itself, the counsel for the prosecution has told you, would not
be prosecuted—but of attacking it in a manner which over
stepped the bounds of good taste. Surely such torture 2 I
have undergone during the last few days is far more than all
the pain this paper has inflicted-to be caged like some wUd
beast m a den. Think what it is to one, to whom freedom! d
liberty are dearer than life itself, to be surrounded wub an
atmosphere of crime, to herd with wretches whose very presence
is like some noxious pestilence. All this is loathsome to the
G
�gg
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
last decree. Think, gentlemen, of what it is to pace a narrow
cell thinking, thinking of the anxious, loved ones at home
until the heart aches with very weariness. I would not plead
thus gentlemen, if we ha<j. done wrong to anyone if we had
Jobbed if we had injured; but we have not. We are not
criminals—we are not of that class of wretches who prey on
their fellow-men. Like all who have been persec uted by these
hateful lais we are honest, sober, peaceful citizens. Hismy
nrkle and ¿Toast, which I will keep till I die, that, through
out mv life of nearly forty years, I have never wronged, never
Tnhiied never slandered I human being, nor made an enemy
of3an honest man. We are men to whom the ties of home rf
love of friendship, are the very essence of our lives. Think
of lying on a wretched pallet unable to close your eyes all
nieht from the knowledge that other eyes are sleepless and
Tearful on your account, that little lips have gone sobbing to
bed because you were not there to kiss them good-night, and
then ask yourselves whether all the annoyance that this paper
JeSd nSv have caused can equal one hour of this. I ask
vou gentlemen, for a verdict of deliverance from this cruel
law’fhat we may return to our homes and make them once
more happy ; to our friends and make them once more glad.
I ask yon to say that you will not permit the serpent of r ligious persecution to again rear its head. It has lain dorrrMnt for fifty years, and some of us hoped, for the credit
humanity tWit was dead; but bigotry has warmed it into
h?e again, and now, gentlemen, it is for you to place your
heel upon it, and crush it for ever.
,,
Many remarks were made by persons in court as to the
marked inattention shown by the jury during the defence.
Mr Justice North: Gentlemen of the jury, it is now the
usual'hour ^ o’clock, for the rising of the court. Would
you prefer’ that I should address you now or to morrow
“ TWForeman of the Jury: We should prefer your lordship
U£r°CJust?c°eWNorth: Very well, gentlemen.' A great many
toWs have been introduced and urged upon you very elo
quently and powerfully with which you have Whmg; to do,
and which you must dismiss entirely from your attention.
Whatyou have to consider is not what the law ought to be,
but what the law is. The two questions you have to ask are—
First whether these passages from this paper which are the
subject of the present indictment, are or are not bJasPhe™°™
libels • then, in the second place, whet her each of the prisoners
respectively is responsible for its publication. Those are the
two questions for your consideration. A passage has
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
99
read from the introduction by a living and learned iud»e to
what he calls a “ Digest of the Criminal Lawa statement as
to what the law is, or rather what he considers it is. It is
his suggestion, and in the course? of that he states what he
considers the law is. The passage he quoted was not fully
quoted. The learned judge having read the whole, proceeded:
This prosecution could not have been instituted without the
sanction of the person appointed to look after prosecutions of
this description, whose consent is rendered necessary by
the Act passed s>nce that time. The consent not only
■pf the Attorney-General but also of the Public Prosecutor
ns requisite. 1 hat has been obtained for this prosecution.
You have to consider whether this document is or is not
a blasphemous publication, and that is the opinion he
gives—that is what he says is the law now, as distinguished
from the suggestion put forward as to what the law ou°-ht to
be and how it should be altered. To put it shortly as regards
the definition, what you have to consider is—Is there any
contumelious or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture ? I
leave out the otner parts. Is there any contumelious reproach
or profane scoffing against, the Holy Scriptures, or anything
^e Holy Scriptures to ridicule, contempt, or derision?
that is the question you have to put to yourselves. Are any
of those passages put before you calculated to expose to ridi
cule, to contempt or derision the Holy Scriptures or the Chris
tian religion ? I must ask you to look at the passages, because
1 am not going to read to you any of the contents. I will
only refer to tnem incidentally as they are all before you. I
will ask you to look at the pictures on pages 8 and 9.
There you will find the words “ A New Life of Christ.” One
of the prisoners said that he was familiar with his Bible and
knew what was staged in the Scriptures with respect to Christ
and the Christian religion. What we know is this. He went
home with his parents and was subject to them. Look at
picture number 5 on page 8 in the left hand column, and con
sider whether you find anything in the volume referred to
that enables you to—I won’t say justify—say that it is fair
honest criticism, with respect to the topic to which that pic
ture refers. Look again at any one of the pictures in either
of those pages, and asx yourselves whether it is contumelious
contempt or profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures and the
Christian religion. Look at the second page : look at pictures
10 and 11; those are the two at the top, and ask yourselves
again, is that fair or honest argument upon a point that
might be open to controversy *? You have heard a good
many extracts read from various publications written by some
very eminent men. Has anything been quoted from those
�2Q0-
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
works corresponding with the passages you find here ? Has
anything like it. been produced from any source ? Look again
at page 10 : look at the first of those pictures. We know the
history that is given to us, and the way m which the ¿lsclPjes
acted at a time of extreme sadness and tribulation, at a time
in which they believed they had lost a person for whom they
had respect. Look at that ; look at our savior and say, gentle
men what you think of that. The next is that at page 7.
That is one upon which one of the prisoners has made certain
remarks to you. The picture at the top you also see—those
clouds, or whatever they are, and then you come to a P1®0®
poetry, with reference to which I ask you, first of all, to look
at the title, “ Jocular Jehovah.” Then omitting the first mi e
lines, which are not the subject of a particular count the.next
nine lines are the subject ot the second cpunt-thatis a thing
which is said to be a blasphemous libel. I don t know
whether you have read those nine lines, but if you have not I
would ask you to do so. Look at the last line but one m par
ticular and say what you think of that. Then the next is at
page 3’ I think. There you will see a greater portion of two
columns is taken up with a piece of poetry. At the bottom
of the second column there are four paragraphs. The second
of these paragraphs is the subject of the third count
that suggest no meaning? Is it argument? Is it reason
able? Is it a fair putting forward of the view a man may
take upon a matter in dispuie, or is it profane scoffing • N
turn over to page 4. There is a picture at the top of page 4,
and then comes what purports to be a report of a trlai.
vou look at the first lour lines you will see who the prisoners
are described to be. Then look at the next paragraph begin
ning with the words ” the indictment.
1 hen again theie
is another passage I call your
theie
the middle of the first column of page 5. You will see tnere
is a reference to a certain person, who on rising stated so and
so Just look at the first two lines of that. I callyour atten
tion to these passages and desire you to pay them special
attention. The* subject of the other count is to be found op
pagi u In the second column there are notices to corres
pondents I ask your attention particularly to the name of
So eo^poMeut5 (Holy Gh-i). Just loot: at.the next but
two notices to that, and say what you
hire
attention to these, not because it is the libel charged here,
but it
in the Axwvr. to Ct > reapondonta and you may
legitimately use it. 1 ou see that ».egmnmg One of the Wise
Men ” I ask you to 1 ead that. Look at the one after, begmX‘with the words •• Long-faced Christians? There is one
other 1 would ask you to look at; it is the fifth below that,
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
101
«beginning with the words “ Happv Sal.” I ask you a<>ain to
put to yourselves the question—Is it or is it not a contu
melious reproach or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture
and the Christian religion? A few observations I must make
Ujion the topics that have been urged upon you. It has been
said you are the persons who are to say what the law of libel
is. It is nothing of the kind. What you are to say is, taking
the law from me, whether these particular things are or are
uot blasphemous libels, having regard to the definition of a
blasphemous libel. It is said you are the arbiters as to whether
these persons are to suffer sentence or not. You are nothin^
of the kind. You are simply to answer the question, Are or
are not these documents blasphemous libels? It is said that
these prosecutions are a mistake, that they should never have
been commenced and that they do harm. As to that I may
^ay that it is open to considerable doubt. It is said that
these prosecutions only gain for the parties additional noto
riety, and that it would have been better to have allowed them
to wallow in their own filth. This is a serious matter to take
into consideration. Something has been said about the real
prosecutor, and reference has been made to his antecedents,
lhe real prosecutor is her Majesty the Queen, and the person
■by whom this prosecution is instituted is the Public Prose- j
cutor without whose sanction it could not have been com- '
menced. It has been, you may rely upon it, considered most
senously whether it would or wouid not be wise to prosecute
the parties who publish this paper, and whether it would not
be better to prevent them obtaining any notorietv that a
prosecution of this nature might give them. You may think
ttat the prosecution is a mistake, that it would have been
better to have left it alone and better if nothing had been done
Ao give it notoriety. There may be other persons who take
the viewthat feelings ought not to be outraged with impunity in
the thoroughfares of London, and that the authorities should
use their best endeavors to put such down and brine the per
sons responsible for it to justice. What I want to put before
you is this—you have nothing whatever to do with that. We
are not responsible for this prosecution. We have not com
menced it; we cannot prevent it. All that is to bedone by you is
not tor you to consider whether it was wisely or unadvisedly
■commenced. It is brought here and it is for you to say whether
having been brought here, it is what I have defined to be a
-blasphemous libel. A good deal has been said of the effect
1C
v^dict would have upon liberty of speech, liberty of
thought, liberty of the press, and other things of that kind.
A good many fine phrases have been brought into play, but
.uhese are not material to the purposes of this inquiry. It is
�102
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
for you. to consider what the document is. Do you suppose
that any of the public writers whose works have been referred
to ever used such arguments, such a mode of putting their
views before the public in their books—many of them con
taining expressions of opinion with which you may or may
not agree ? From some of them you may differ or you may
agree with them. At any rate they have been put forward
by persons with a feeling of responsibility, and the fact that
they have expressed their views stronglv is perhaps not a
matter for which they are to be blamed. They have expressed
them in a decent manner, and not in such a manner as. to
outrage the community. Are the passages like those to which
I have directed your attention in this publication ? You may
depend upon it that, whatever the view you take, there
is not a respectable paper in the country that would
have sullied its pages with these passages. Whether justi
fiable or not you need hardly say that such matters as
these should not be put forward. It has been suggested
that it has not been proved that what has been done here
is done wickedly and corruptly. It is said it is not done
with malice. Is this a document that ought to have been
published? Is the document such as I have described to you
one that ought to be published or not? If it is not, the mere
fact of its being such as I have described is enough to show
malice. Maliciousness in point of law is that it is dime. Has
anv legal justification been produced here ? Further, it is
said it is not done unlawfully. It is said it is not
contrary to the peace or likely to lead to a breach of
the peace With respect to that, any libel is likely to
lead to a breach of the peace, and that is the reason it is
stated. As to the words “ wickedly and corruptly, those are
words which if you think the libel is such as I have described
a blasphemous libel to be, you will have to consider in con
nexion with the illustrations to which I have drawn your
attention. Then again it is said these are published with an
object. If it is for an object, is it such fair discussion as
may peaceably be allowed? If it is not, then the reason for
which they are put forward cannot matter. Supposing a per
son publishes an obscene libel in the street he would be tried
for the crime. I just remind you of this, that m the ^mtment it is not an obscene libel. The fact that you may think
some of them are obscene is not any ground for thinking
persons guilty unless they are blasphemous With these
remarks I shall leave this part of the case. If you say these
are not blasphemous libels you will acquit the prisoners. If
VOU think they are blasphemous libels, then the question is
whether each of the prisoners respectively is responsible tor
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
103
them. With respect to that I take first of all the simplest
©ase, that of Kemp. He is defended by counsel. His counsel
will say that the proof of sale was too clear to be resisted and
that it could not leave any doubt. You have got the fact
that there is a publication,by reason of the sale of copies. As
far therefore as you are concerned, do you think the docu
ments blasphemous libels ? The next case is that of Ramsey.
Newspapers have now to be registered, and on November 26th,
1881, the “ Freethinker ” was registered. It was presented
for registration by Ramsey. He gave his name as proprietor,
and he also describes himself as a publisher, of 28 Stonecutter
Street, London. At the bottom of the form is a place for the
printer and publisher to sign, and that is signed November,
1881. . The next registration is on August 2nd, 18s2, when it
is registered, not by Ramsey, but by Kemp, and the registra
tion is'altered for that reason. Kemp is the person who pre
sents it, and his name appears as printer and publisher, but
the name of the proprietor remains the same. Then the next
change took place on February 7th, 1883—that is after this
Christmas Number is published. Then Ramsey ceases to be
proprietor, and the registration is effected by Foote, who
describes himself as of Stonecutter Street. Ramsey’s name
is given in the column of persons who cease to be proprietors
and Foote’s name is inserted as proprietor. Foote is described
as a journalist of Stonecutter Street, London, and his resi
dence as 9 South Crescent, London. That is signed by Foote
on February 7th, 1883. Ramsey was proprietor of the paper
to February 7th, 1883, during the period that this document
was published. There is to be remembered also, if it were
necessary to go into it, that it is proved he paid rates with
respect to this house in Stonecutter Street. As regards this,
under the Act of Parliament I have referred to, I shall tell
you that registry is in itself sufficient prima, facie evidence.
Therefore that document itself proves the proprietorship
during the period when this was in preparation and execution.
Though the contrary was set up, no attempt has been made
to show the contrary. I will tell you this, further: the pro
prietor of a newspaper is liable for what appears in it. It is
his business to take care that the contents are such as they
ought to be ; and if he allows through neglect or insufficient
editorial supervision, or from whatever reason, an indecent
libel to appear, he is criminally responsible for it. In one or
two cases that has undoubtedly produced hardship. A man
was held criminally liable although he was not in the country
at the time the libel was published. Therefore, to obviate
that hardship, the law was altered thirty years ago. It is
proved that Ramsey was the proprietor of the paper at the
�104
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
iime these passages were published, and if they were put in
without his exercising due care or caution he is criminally
responsible. The next case is that of Foote, because you
understand one might be guilty and the other not. First of
all it was contended that there was nothing to show he was
the editor of this particular number; and you may recollect
he asked a question, of one of those persons who left letters,
for the purpose of eliciting whether he had delivered any
letter addressed to Mr. Foote as editor of the Christmas
Number of the paper. You will recollect this paper is the
Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” for 1882. It is not
an isolated publication; it is a number published in connexion
with something published in a series, as the Christmas Num
ber of the “ Graphic,” “ Illustrated London News,” or the
Christmas number of “ Belgravia.” Here you have got the
Christmas Number for 1882. You have got proof that it is a
weekly publication a little before Christmas. In one of the
numbers it states the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ”
will be ready next week. It states what the articles are and
the illustrations. Is not that a subject of the libel ? I will
now call your attention to the contents. The advertisement is
connecting it with the regular publication. You may have
noticed it states at the top of the “ Freethinker ”—“ edited by
G W. Foote and on the outside, though that is perhaps of
minor importance, there appears an advertisement showing
Foote's publications. The statement at the top of it is not
of itself conclusive evidence about it, because it is possible
the name of one of you might have been put there. For
instance, it might be that Foote could show he had nothing to
do with it. Ttie question is whether you find anything to show
he was editor of it. With respect to that there are several
matters. First, you recollect that it is proved that he and
Ramsey, and two other* persons, were prosecuted the July
previous. Copies of the “ Freethinker ” published incidentally
at the time were part of the charge, and proved in evidence.
The fact that these were edited by Foote was drawn to his
attention, and the notice at the foot as to printing and pub
lishing. In each of those notices to correspondents what
appears is, that all business communications are to be addressed
to Ramsey, and literary7 communications to Foote. At the
end it appears, “ Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, at
28 Stonecutter Street.” It is the same in the whole of those
papers. Therefore you have this fact—that at this time, at
the top of the first page, were the words, “ edited by G. W.
Foote;” that this is brought to his attention and put in evi
dence against him in July, and therefore he knows all about
it. No alteration takes place, because that continues the
�Be,port of Blasphemy Trials.
105
same down to February. One change ultimately took place.
“ Notices to correspondents ” was changed to “ literary commu
nications to the editor, G. W. Footeand at the end there is
an alteration made in the printing. That is now by Kemp
and not by Ramsey. After Foote’s attention had been called
to it, the notices to correspondents remained the same. Tben
you have this also : letters are received by the servant de
livered by the postmen at the address, and naturally enough
their recollection is hazy ; but one of them, when pressed by
the prisoner Foote, spoke about a parcel being too large to go
into the letter-box, and that while waiting there for the ser
vant to open the door he looked carefully at the address. You
have the fact that during the few months preceding the issue
■of this number Foote is receiving letters addressed to him as
editor. That is a matter for your consideration. There is a
circumstance which is rather material, and that is the paper
proved to have been seen in his room. That; would not go far
by itself, but the possession of a paper in his room in which
he is described as editor is another matter, and it is hardly
•likely he would not know of it. On February 7th he became
proprietor^ and publisher, and the paper is proved dated
February 18th, purchased on the 16th, which states, “ edited
and printed by G. W. Foote,” and the notice to correspondents
is the same as it is when the paper contains this passage at
the time Foote is proprietor and editor; and what he says is
this: that “ the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ had
an incredible sale, and yet, notwithstanding the enormous
sale, they were actually several pounds out of pocket. I ask
you whether you believe it to be proved that Foote was editor
or not. If he is editor, the charge against him is of print
ing and publishing, and causing—and you must be satisfied
that he did print, or cause to be printed, and published, and
composed—this paper before you can convict. In his address
he justifies the publication. That is a matter you are entitled
to take into consideration, whether he is not one of the
persons who composed this. With these remarks I leave the
case in your hands to say whether in your opinion these are
blasphemous libels, and to say, if they are, whether these
prisoners are. liable for the publication. I ought to say
gentlemen, this paper of February 18th dees not affect Ramsey
in any way—it was published by Kemp. Objection was taken
as to its being evidence against Ramsey.
The jury then considered their verdict, and after a consul
tation of about two minutes returned a verdict of “ Guilty ”
against all three prisoners. This announcement was received
with a murmer of surprise from the gallery, which was filled
with sympathisers of the defendants. The murmurs quickly
�106
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
turned to loud groans and hisses, in the mist of which a young
woman, from whom a loud cry had broken, was carried out
in a hysterical fit. Order having been with some difficulty
restored ; after his lordship had threatened to have the court
cleared,
Mr. Avory said: With regard to Kemp, my lord, I hope I
have not been understood as admitting anything more with
regard to him.
The learned Judge: You admitted the publication was so
clear you could not contest it.
Mr. Avory: I hope I have not been understood to say any
thing more than that he was a shopman and sold the papers in
theshop in the ordinary way. He was nothing more nor less than
a paid servant. He is a married man with a family ; he was
paid a weekly salary, and he was simply acting under the
influence of the other prisoners. As to his name appearing
on the papers, it was put there—Kemp’s name was substituted
there as the nominee of those paying him, and afterwards, when
he is brought into difficulty by his name being there, his name
is taken out. He acceded to his name being put there no
doubt, without any idea of making himself responsible. Of
oourse, the object of the Newspaper Act is to have some one
primarily liable for the publication of this matter, but it is
not intended to include such men as Kemp. Norrish, wlu>
practically occupied the same position as Kemp, is here as a
witness for the prosecution. He has been there only for a
few months, and Norrish was there for five years. This man
must have lost his place if he had refused to sell anything.
There is no suggestion that he derived any profit from the
sale; he received nothing beyond his salary. Ou these
grounds I hope your lordship will say this is a case to be
dealt with differently from one in which you supposed he
was deriving any profit from this matter. I may say,
your lordship, any undertaking your lordship would impose
upon him not to sell this again would be cheerfully agreed
to by him.
Mr. Justice North addressing Foote, said : George William
Foote, you have been found Guilty by the jury of publishing
these blasphemous libels. This trial has been to me a very
painful one. I regret extremely to find a person of your
undoubted intelligence, a man gifted by god with such great
ability, should have chosen to prostitute his talents to the
services of the Devil. I consider this paper totally different
from any of the works you have brought before me in every
way, and the sentence I now pass upon you is one of imprison
ment for twelve calendar months.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials,
107
Immediately upon the passing of this sentence a scene of the
greatest excitement and tumult ensued in the gallery before
mentioned as being full of the prisoners’ friends. Rising, as
it seemed with one accord, they burst forth into a storm of
hissing, groaning, and derisive cries. The prisoner Foote
brought about a momentary lull, as, looking towards the
Bench, he cried, “ My Lord, I thank you; it is worthy of your
creed!” But immediately afterwards the uproar became worse
than ever, several persons calling out “ Christians, indeed 1”
“ Scroggs ” and ‘‘ Judge Jeffries.” It being found impossible
for the officers of the court to obtain anything like decent
order from the defiant audience in the gallery, the judge
ordered that portion of the court to be summarily cleared,
which was done after some little trouble by the police, and
even then the roar of the crowd in the street could» be plainly
heard inside.
Addressing Ramsey, the learned Judge said:—William
James Ramsey, you have been found guilty of publishing these
same libels, but I don’t look upon you as deserving so severe
a punishment as Foote, because I look upon you as more an
agent to other persons. I don’t think the documents we have
seen have emanated from you, for they show marks of intel
ligence and ability, however perverted. But you are the
person who has been the proprietor of the paper, and it is
necessary that it should be known that a proprietor is respon
sible if he publishes libels in his paper. I sentence you to
nine months’ imprisonment. (Slight hissing at the back of
the court, which was promptly suppressed.)
The learned Judge, addressing Kemp, said:—Henry Arthur
Kemp, you are the seller of this paper. You for some time
were the printer and publisher, and you are the person who
had the conduct of the sale of it. I think you less responsible
for it than either of the other two, and I shall pass upon you
a lighter sentence. At the same time, it is to be known that
persons in your position are liable to punishment, and I
hope that this will be a lesson to you and others. The
sentence I pass upon you is imprisonment for three calendar
months.
THE CASE OF MR. CATTELL.
Cattell, the Fleet Street newspaper agent, who had been
oonvicted on Thursday last of selling the Christmas Number
of the “ Freethinker,” was then put into the dock to receive
sentence. Mr. Keith Frith addressed the court in mitigation
of punishment, and the prisoner was ordered to enter into his
�108
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
own recognisances in £200, and to find one surety in £100. to
•come up for judgment when called upon.
For a considerable time after the court rose crowds remained
in the streets discussing the sentences passed, and much
indignation was expressed at what were regarded as harsh
and unmerited treatment.
MEMORIAL.
“ To the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home
Department.
“The Humble Memorial of the undersigned.
Sheweth
“ That George William Foote, William James Ramsey,
and Henry Kemp were on Monday, March 5th, found guilty
of blasphemy at common law and sentenced to imprisonment,
respectively, G. W. Foote, 12 months; W. J. Ramsey,
9 months ; and H. Kemp, 3 months.
“Your memorialists respectfully submit that such an
enforcement of laws against Blasphemy is out of accord
with the spirit of the age, and humbly pray the mercy of
the Crown in remission of the sentences imposed.”
Friends will do good work by copying this out and obtain
ing as many signatures as possible to each copy. The
Memorial and the signatures should be sent to the Home
Secretary as speedily as possible. It is particularly requested
that no other form may be used than the one given above.
�PRISON
NOTES.
I have been addressing the jury for half-an-hour when the
judge adjourns for lunch. A friend runs across the way to ordei
in a plateful of something for me and my co-defendants. While
he is gone, we—Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Kemp, and I—are invited to
retire down the dock stairs to a subterranean refectory. We
enter a gaslit passage with a dark cell on either side. Into one
of these miserable holes we go. The aged janitor, who holds
the keys and looks very much like St. Peter, gazes reproachfully
as though our descent into his Inferno were full proofs of our
criminality. As we cross the threshold something stirs in the
darkness. Is it a dog or a rat? No, it is Mr. Cattell. He hasbeen shivering there ever since ten o’clock, and it is now halfpast one. He is very glad to see us, and almost as glad to get a
sup from our bottle of claret. Our platefuls of meat and vege
tables look nice and smell nice ; our appetites are keen, and our
stomachs empty, but there are no knives and forks. Stay, there
are forks, but no knives. These lethal instruments are forbidden
lest prisoners should cut their throats. Throughout the gaol
similar precautions are taken. I am even writing with a quill
(fortunately my preference) instead of a steel pen, because the
latter is dangerous. A prisoner here once stabbed away at his
windpipe with one, and they had much trouble in saving his life.
These elaborate precautions and my own experience, although
so brief, convince me that even in a House of Detention more
than half the prisoners would commit suicide if they could.
But revenons a nos moutons, or rather to our forks. We split
the meat and gnaw it after the fashion of our primitive ancestors.
The vegetables disappear somehow, and somehow we all denounce
the miserably small capacity of the claret bottle. Then we feel
cold in our subterranean dungeon, which never will be warm
until the Day of Judgment. We walk up and down (it’s about
three steps each way) like the panthers in the Zoo,- or rush round
in Indian file like braves on the war-trail. We speculate how
many laps to the mile. By way of stimulating my imagination,
I suggest a million. The other beasts in the opposite den, whose
mostly stupid faces we catch a glimpse of through the bars, evi
�110
Prison Notes.
dently regard us as imbeciles by the way they grin. St. Peter
suddenly appears at the gate. We are summoned to the dock,
and I must resume my address to the jury. It is two o’clock.
It is four o’clock, I have concluded my address, and sit down
a bit tired. Mr. Ramsey has a shott innings of about twenty
minutes, reading from manuscript, every word to the point.
Then the judge sums up in his peculiar prosecuting style. The
jury retire ; and we pop half way down the dock stairs to make
room for Mr. Cattell, who now takes the trial he has waited for
all day. When his jury have delivered their verdict, the judge
defers sentence until our jury return. We again descend to the
Inferno. Minute after minute goes by, and we are half dis
tracted with expectation. It is a mild agony of suspense. Our
janitor gives us water to drink; we taste it, anti find a little
goes a long way. The summons comes at last, after two hours
and ten minutes waiting. There is profound silence in court.
The judge tells the jury he has sent for them to know if he can
assist them. I see what he means, and fear that the foreman
may commit himself. But in quiet, firm tones he replies that
the judge cannot help them; that they all know the law as well
as the fact, and that there is no hope of their agreeing. Reluc
tantly, very reluctantly, the judge discharges them. Then I ask
him for bail. In bitter, vindictive tones he refuses, and we are
marched off by an underground passage to Newgate Gaol.
Newgate appears to be a large rambling structure. There are
courtyards and offices in profusion, but the cells seem to be all
together. Tier above tier of them, with galleries and staircases,
look down the great hall, which commands a view of every door.
We inscribe our names in a big book, and a dapper little officer,
with a queer mixture of authority and respectfulness, writes out
a description as though he were filling up a passport. All money,
keys, pencils, etc., we are requested to give up, but I am allowed
to retain my eyeglass. I am taken to cell Number One, which
they tell me is about the best they have. It is asphalted on the
floor and white-washed everywhere else ; height about nine feet,
length ten, and breadth six, I am a little taken aback. Of
course I knew that a cell was small, but the realisation was a bit
rough. Here, thought I is a den for a blasphemer! Hell i»
hotter, but more commodious. Why don't they send me there at
once ? The head-warder comes to tell me that my friend with
the big head has just called to do what he can for us. This is
his facetious way of describing the junior member for North
ampton. The honorable gentleman has ordered our meals to be
sent in from across the way. After consuming a little coffee and
�Prison Notes.
Ill
toast I retire to—anything but sleep. My bed is a rough ham
mock strapped from side to side of the cell. It is very narrow,
so that my shoulders abut on eitLer side. The clothes keep
slipping off. and I keep imitating them. At last I find a good firm
position, and lie still, clutching the refractory sheets and blankets.
For a while my brain is busy. The thought of one or two I love
most makes me womanish. But soon a recollection of the malig
nant judge mak< s me clench my teeth, and with a phantas
magoria of the trial before my eyes I gradually sink into a rest
less sleep.
Ding, ding—ding, ding—ding, ding! I open my eyes half
startled. It is pitch dark save the faint glimmer of a distant
lamp through the thick window. Suddenly the square flap in
the centre of my door is let down with a bang; a little hand
lamp is thrust through, and a gruff voice cries, “Now then, get
up and light your gas ; look sharp.” I make no indecent haste
nr response to his shouting, but leisurely light my gas. As soon
as I am dressed the head warder summonses me down stairs,
where he weighs and measures me. Height, five feet ten, in my
shoes; weight, twelve, stone nine and a half, in my clothes. I
see the prosecution, with all its worry and anxiety, has not pulled
me down in flesh any more than it has in spirit. Breakfast comes
in at eight, consisting of coffee, eggs and toast. At half-past we
are taken out to exercise. We are all glad to see each other’s
faces again. I hey take us to a middle court by ourselves, where
we walk round and round and round, like pedestrains in a match.
I hear my name called, and, on rushing down to the spot whence
the voice issued, I see Mr. Bradlaugh’s face through iron rails
on my side, then three feet of air and again iron rails on his side,
lhis is how you see your friends. After Mr. Bradlaugh comes
Mrs. Be sant, who thought she would have been able to shake
one by the hand. “We are all very proud,” she says, “ of the
brave fight you made yesterday.” I promised to scarify the judge
on Monday ; and after a few more words we say good-bye. Mr.
Wheeler comes next on business, as well as friendship. After
the hour s exercise is over, we are marched back to our cells,
where we are doomed to remain until the next morning. We
prisoners are suddenly summoned into court; the officer thinks
they are going to grant us bail after all. We reach the dock
stairs (out of sight of the court) just in time to hear Mr. Avow
asking for bail for Mr. Kemp. Justice North refuses in his vin
dictive style. He has very evidently let the sun go down on his
wrath. Mr. Avory asks him whether he makes no distinction
between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. We hear his
brutal reply, and then hurry back to our cells. Fortunatelv I
have plenty of writing to do ; several letters arrive for me, and
�such an unusual prisoner.
Saturday passes very much like Friday ; indeed the greatest
curse of prison life is its awful monotony. We meet at half-past
ei»ht for one hour’s trot round the yard, where we see two friends
each for fifteen minutes. The rest of the day I spend in reading
and writing. Dr. Aveling sends in his card with a cheery word
scrawled on the back, and soon after I received a welcome parcel
of clean linen, etc.
Sunday morning is a little less varied in one way, and a little
more varied in another. In order to keep the blessed Sabbath
holy (and miserable), we are not allowed to see any friends, and
I observe that the regulation dinner for the day is the poorest in
the week. We take our constitutional, however; and as the
confinement is beginning to tell on me, I enjoy the exercise more
than ever. After the stagnant air in my cell, even the air of this
yard, enclosed on every side by high walls, seems a breath of
Paradise. I throw back my shoulders, and expand my chest
through mouth and nostrils. I lift my face towards the sky.
Ah blessed vision 1 It is only a pale gleam of sunshine through
the' canopy of London smoke, but it is light and heat and hf e to the
prisoner and beyond it is infinitude into which his thoughts may
soar. At eleven o’clock I go to chapel. Any change is a relief,
and I am anxious to know what the Rev. Mr. Duffeld will say.
He is chaplain of Newgate, but I have not seen him yet. Per
haps he is ashamed to meet me. There is no organ m the chapel
and no choir, and if it were not for the cook the singing would
break down. Mr. Duffeld’s voice is not melodious, and although
he starts the hymn he does not appear to possess much sense of
tune- but the Francatelli of this establishment makes up for the
parson’s deficiencies. The prayers are rushed through at sixty
miles an hour, so are the responses and everything else. _ Mr.
Duffeld reads a short sermon, not bad in its way, but quite inap
propriate Then he marches out, the tall Governor follows with
long strides, and then the prisoners file in silence through the
. door It is a ghastly mockery, a blasphemous farce. What a
' commentary on the words “ Our Father ”! Now to work again
I feel fresh strength to fight the bigots with. If the worst
happens I must bear it.
Printed and Published by Edward 3. Aveling D.Sc., for the Pro
gressive Publishing Company, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London.
�
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
Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Ramsey, William James
Kemp, Henry Arthur
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 112 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Trials held at the Old Bailey, 1 and 5 March 1883, before Mr Justice North and two common juries. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N267
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 (Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker"), 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-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/beae9e13b142a64f2281a3ce30fddfb5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PQ4HM7nHM3NZcbMr8J-KIBtYlAcVvaA0uCF3lD8atqr63SSYhbtMr7deWUnVH4TTDOQEbfrAuIVdSEoQIZwYyxWtw6RkN9YPnGMDdCFBo6w42nXFOuJfvGfofr7FBjlJj1UurCCAoYL4sxnupDzz2n-m65VkRhGmYvGdDqM4FZmapYVOlqnR8dW6xwoQsMMh4QUNX1e8K%7EMupmRjqVQbhM8qVEbPjaAXEZf0mqyG2-3gAkBUirnw2xAJY%7E9l9TUciodwiGZy-fRSxdIj0cpX4SJc6dZIwRoFsE1TgrauE8jGJ9-TAg2ann0mBB2nhhfsEZx7zewTLle2tOvaNP5NmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1a0c132fe7880897ecb9589b1658d081
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
DEFENCE
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH
BEFORE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL gj, 1.883,
BY
W.
ZE1 O O T ZE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”')
New Edition
with
Intboduction
and
Footnotes.
5<rnbon:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING
COMPANY, )
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
��DEFENCE
OF
FREE
SPEECH
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS RENCIT
BEFOBE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL S4, 1883,
BY
CG.
NET.
FOOTE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”j
New Edition
PROGRESSIVE
.
with
Introduction
and
gLinbnn:
PUBLISHING
Footnotes.
COMPANY
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
Me. Bradlaugh has introduced a Bill in the House of
Commons for the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. That
Bill has been rejected by a majority of 141 to 46
votes. This is sufficiently decisive as to the immedi
ate prospects of such a measure. The speeches of
straightforward bigots like Colonel Sandys, and of
. canting bigots like Mr. Samuel Smith, reveal the sort
of opposition Mr. Bradlaugh’s bill will have to over
come before it passes into law.
In these circumstances I have thought it advisable
to reprint my defence before Lord Coleridge on the
occasion of my second trial for blasphemy in the Court
of the Queen’s Bench. My first trjal was at the Old
Bailey before Mr. Justice North. This judge played
the part of a prosecuting counsel; he treated me with
the grossest incivility, and the scandal of his conduct
elicited protests from the Liberal section of the public
Press. On Thursday, March 1, 1883, the case was first
heard. I addressed the jury in a speech of three hours*
duration, and the result was a disagreement. On
the following Monday, March 5, the case was heard
again. This time the jury, which had the appearance
of being carefully selected, returned a verdict of Guilty
without leaving the box ; and I was sentenced to
twelve months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal.
A previous indictment, which also included Mr.
Bradlaugh, as well as Mr. Ramsey, had been hanging
�Introduction.
over me for several months. It had been removed by
a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench,
where it- was placed in the Crown List and did not
come on for hearing until two months after my
sentence on the second indictment.
My defence was therefore prepared in a prison cell.
The conditions were in one sense unfavourable,
although I was supplied with books and papers for
the purpose, and certain relaxations were allowed me
in the matter of visits through the kindness of Lord
Coleridge, whose generosity will ever live in my
memory.
But the situation had its compensations.
The dreary monotony of prison life was broken, its
darkness was relieved by light from the great world
outside, my spirits were cheered by intellectual occu
pation, and I enjoyed the advantage of preparing my
defence without the distractions of ordinary daily life.
During the delivery of my speech to the jury Lord
Coleridge listened with rapt attention. When it closed
he adjourned the court until the next morning, and
“that,” he said to the jury, “will give you a full
opportunity of reflecting calmly on the very striking
and able speech you have just heard.”
Let me not be suspected of vanity. My object in
quoting his lordship’s words is not to air my own ac
complishments, of whose limitations no one is more
sensible than myself. I simply desire to remove an
impression which is less injurious to me than to the
cause I have the honor to advocate. Lord Coleridge’s
praise, of my speech is an exalted testimony to the
truth that “ blasphemers ” are not necessarily an abject
species, and that Christianity may be fiercely and
contemptuously assailed by men who are many degrees
removed from the condition of vulgar brawlers.
�Introduction.
*
v.
It would have given me pleasure to include his
lordship’s Judgment in this reprint, but as he has pub
lished it himself in the form of a pamphlet, I did not
feel at liberty to do so. I have, however, givefl some
extracts in the footnotes, the object of which is to
elucidate my speech without the reader’s having to
peruse other publications. Those who care to pursue
the subject will find a full account of my trials and
imprisonment in a volume entitled Prisoner for
Blasphemy.
The leading counsel for the prosecution at my trials
was Sir Hardinge Giffard, now Lord Halsbury. This
gentleman is a Tory, and a bigot of the first water. He
believes, or affects to believe, that there are no honest
men in the world but those of his own Church. He
conducted the long litigation against Mr. Bradlaugh
with signal unsuccess, and he succeeded in sending me
to prison. This is the extent of his services to the
Tory cause, and it must be admitted that he has reaped
a handsome reward. As Lord Chancellor he enjoys a
salary of £10,000 a year, with a retiring pension of
£5,000 as long as he lingers in this vale of tears.
It only remains to add that the jury, after being
locked up for three hours, found it impossible to agree
I have since ascertained that three jurymen held out
obstinately against a verdict of Guilty. This was more
than sufficient. While one juryman holds out, bigotry
has fingers to grasp with, but no thumb. Sir Hardinge
Giffaxd saw this, and the prosecution was abandoned.
May 25, lRl...
G. W. FOOTE.
�COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH.
April 24, 1883.
Lord Coleridge presiding.
MR. FOOTE'S SPEECH IN DEFENCE.
My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury,—
I am very happy, not to stand in this position, but to
learn what I had not learned before—how a criminal
trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before
another judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who
are Conducting this prosecution have not now a judge
who will allow them to walk out of court while he
argues their brief for them in their absence.1
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson,
Mr. Foote, and that is, that one judge cannot hear
another judge censured or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction,
and I will simply, therefore, confine what observations
I might have made on that head to the emphatic state
ment that I have learnt to-day, for the first time—
although this is the second time I have had to answer
a criminal charge—how a criminal trial should be
conducted.
Notwithstanding the terrible natKe of jmy posi
tion, there is some consolation in being able,
1 Judge North, who presided at my trial at the Old Bailey,
practically held Sir Hardinge Giffard’s brief. After his opening
speech the counsel walked out of court and never returned,
knowing the case was in very good hands.
�Defence of Free Speech.
7
for the first time in two months, to talk to twelve
honest men. Two months ago I fell amongst fMeves,
and have had to remain in their society ever aajice, so
long as I have been in any society at all. Ifife not my
intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the ground
which was traversed by my co-defendent in his pathetic
account of the mental difficulties which attended
the preparation of his defence ; but I will add, that
although we have profited—I may say in especial by
the facilities which his lordship so kindly ordered for
us, and by the kind consideration of the governor of
Holloway Gaol—yet it has been altogether impossible,
in the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a
man to do any justice to such a case as I have to main
tain.
Prison diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a
material item—is not of the most invigorating character.
(Laughter.) My blood is to some extent impoverished,
my faculties are to a large extent weakened, and it is
only with considerable difficulty that I shall be able to
make them obey the mandate of my will.2 The mental
circumstances, how depressing have they been I In
looking over a law book I saw something about solitary
confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year.
What the nature of the confinement is I am unable to
ascertain, but it strikes me that twenty-three hours’
confinement out of twenty-four, in a small cell about
six feet wide, comes as close as possible to any reason
able definition of solitary confinement.3 Still it is no
2 I had been treated in prison like an ordinary criminal, wearing
prison clothes and eating prison food. The sudden and complete
change of diet disordered my stomach, and I suffered severely
from diarrhoea, Lord Coleridge was shocked on learning of my
treatment. “ I have,” he said in open court, “ just been informed,
and I hardly knewTt before, what such imprisonment as yours
means, and what in the form it has been inflicted upon you it
must meaa®MWHBj|that I do know of it, I will take care that
the proper amthori uW know of it also.”
3 1 had befen locked up in a brick cell twelve feet by six, with
no books to read. One hour in every twenty-four was allowed for
exercise^rBwmfeonsisted in walking round a ring with other pri
soners. After this abortive trial I was allowed two hours, one in
the morning and one in the afternoon. It was a most welcome
relief.
�8
Defence of Free Speech.
use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much,
however, must be said in connection with it>; that a
change has come over the method of treating those who
are found guilty and sentenced to punishment under
these laws. Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, an indis
putable matter of fact, I and my co-defendants are
undergoing essentially the severest punishment that
has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the
last 120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in
Clerkenwell Gaol with twelve month’s hard labor, in
the year 1763, there has been no punishment meted out
to a, Freethought publisher or writer at all approxi
mating to what we have to undergo. The sentence,
even before the law practically fell into disuse, from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six,
four, and three months. My sentence, gentlemen, was
twelve months. Again, prisoners were nearly all
treated as first-class misdemeanants —as far as I can
ascertain, all were—they were not sentenced to twelve
months—not merely of intellectual death—but of
conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even
carried on their literary work, and supported those
near and dear to them. We have to depend on the
charity of those who, notwithstanding the position in
which we stood two months ago, and stand now, do
not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a
great vital principle struck at through us, however
unworthy we may be to defend it, and who in lending
their aid to see that our interests do not suffer so much
as they otherwise would, are actuated by more than
friendship for us, by their love of that principle which
has been assailed by our conviction,^ sentence, and
committal to gaol, and is again assailed in ,the prose
cution which is being conducted here to-day.
A change, gentlemen, has come over the public
mind with respect to heresy and blasphefli^ which
every reader of history finds intelligibly Religious
bigotry is nevei’ more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their
cause can be defended by argument they are ready to.
�Defence of Free Speech.
9
defend it by those means. While they feel that super
natural power is maintaining their creed they are to a
large extent content in trusting their cause to the deity
in whom they believe. But when they feel that the
ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet ; when they feel that the major portion
of the intellectual power of their day and generation
is arrayed against their creed, when it is not scornful
or indifferent to it ; when, in short, the creed is not
only losing its members’ brains, but its own wits ; then
it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics who
are striking week after week the most deadly blow’s at
the creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe,
but at those who happen to be poor and comparatively
obscure. These poorer and more pronounced Free
thinkers are made the scapegoats for the more respect
able Agnosticism of the day, which is more cultured,
but infinitely more hypocritical. The martyrdom of
olden times had something of the heroic in it. A man
was led out to death. He could summon courage for
the minutes or hours during which he still had to face
his enemies. They placed faggots round his funeral
pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life ended ;
and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst
under such circumstances. Then also the persecutors
had the courage of the principles on which they pro
ceeded, and said, “ We do this to the heretic in the
name of God; we do it because he has outraged the
dignity of God, and because he has preached ideas that
are leading others. to eternal destruction with him.”
But now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ;
like Pilate, it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all
its pretences will be discounted, I believe, by you.
When it is said, “ We don’t do this in the interests of
outraged Omnipotence, and we, the finite, are not
arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying
out a measure of social sanitation, and preventing men
from making indecent attacks on the feelings of
others
you will agree with me in believing that this
is hypocrisy and cowardice too. Looked at clearly, it
is utterly impossible that you can draw any line of
�10
Defence of Free Speech.
demarcation between the manner of controversy in
religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference
as to the matter, unless you go the full length of the
principle which is implied, and logically say: “ We
do so because religion is not as these. There is matter
as well as manner, and we protect the feelings of men
with respect to these subjects, because there is invul
nerable truth somewhere imbedded in the'ir belief, and
we will not allow it to be assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more import
ance, and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that
fell from the lips of the junior counsel for the prose
cution in what he called the temporary absence of his
leader—a temporary absence which has turned out to
be considerably protracted. One remark he made use
of was that we had attempted to make a wicked and
nefarious profit out of the trade in these blasphemous
libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked andnefarious, there was no need to say anything about the
nature of the profit. But he himself ought to know—
at any rate his leader would have known—that a pas
sage was read at our previous trial, and used as
evidence against me in particlar—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—
and a large sale is always a comparative term, for what
may be a large sale for the Freethinker would not be
large for the Times—the proprietor was many pounds
out of pocket. The learned counsel for the prosecution,
I daresay, knew that, but then it suited his denuncia
tory style to talk about wicked and nefarious profit.
(Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of
the prosecution—it is his business. You can get any
quantity of that sort of thing by ordering it, provided
you at the same time give some guarantee that, after
ordering, it will be paid for. He spoke of a blustering
challenge which was thrown out in one of the alleged
libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said
that a man at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted
i
�Defence of Dree Speech.
11
for blasphemy.4 The learned counsel omitted to tell
you what you will find by referring to the Indictment,,
that the word “ blasphemy ’’ is between inverted
commas, which shows it was employed there, not in
the sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which
he might not attach the same meaning as those using
it. So much for that.
And now one word more as to his introduction
before I proceed. The word “licentiousness” was
introduced. The word “decency” was introduced.
I have to complain of all this. I propose to follow the'
method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s trial
some days ago in this court, and had the full approval
of his lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior
counsel for the prosecution did, notwithstanding he
said he would not, and read to you any passages from
those alleged libels. Although I do that, I feel what
an immense disadvantage results to me because the
words “ indecency,” “ licentiousness,” are bandied
about outside before the great jury of public opinion';
and we may in this way be pronounced guilty and
sentenced for offences which people outside have never
had properly explained to them. Thus we are brought
in guilty of blasphemy, and people say we should have
been so sentenced and and punished because our.
attack was indecent. Now, the word “ indecency,” as
you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un
becoming or obscene.5 People will take which meaning
best suits their purpose, and so we are at this great
disadvantage when none of these libels are read out,
4 Mr. Seymour had been prosecuted for Blasphemy at Tunbridge
Wells, found guilty, and bound over to come up for judgment. I
had denounced the cowardice of attacking obscure Freethinkers
and leaving their leaders unmolested.
5 Lord Coleridge very handsomely assisted me on this point.
In his summing-up he said to the jury:—“Mr. Foote is anxious
to have it impressed on you that he is not a licentious writer, and
that this word does not fairly apply to his publications. You will
have the documents before you, and you must judge for your
selves. I should say that he is right. He may be blasphemous,
but he certainly is not licentious, in the ordinary sense of the
■word, and you do not find him pandering to the bad passions of
mankind.”
�12
Defence of Free Speech.
that we may be brought in guilty of one charge and sent
to prison on it, and people outside may think that we
are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence.
I leave the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of
these prosecutions. I wish to say a word or two on
that head. They have one great disadvantage from the
point of view of the prosecution—they advertise and
disseminate widely the very opinions which they try
to suppress ; and it seems to me if our prosecutors
were honest and had the interests of their professed
principles at heart, they would shrink from taking any
such steps. Then again, history shows us that no work
that was ever prosecuted was successfully put down.
There was only one method of persecution that
succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre
of the Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian
llteresies—the very names of which read as the names
of some old fossil things that belonged to a different
era of the world’s history—you will find wherever a
sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of
holding the objectionable opinion : but when books
and pamphlets have been prosecuted they have never
been put down. Unless you can seize and secure
everybody infected with heresy, naturally you arouse
theii* indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and
consequently they fight all the harder for the cause
attacked. Paine’s Age of Reason was a prose'cuted
work. Richard Carlile was sent to gaol for nine
years for selling it ; his wife and sister were sent to
gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You
would have thought that would have suppressed the
Age of Reason; yet, as a matter of fact, that work still
has a large circulation, and a Sale all the larger because
of the prosecutions instituted against it fifty or sixty
years ago. Take the case of a prosecuted work
belonging to another class of literature—a pamphlet
published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, the pro
�Defence of Free Speech.
13
sedition of which, was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a
work that had been circulated at the rsjte of one
hundred per year for forty years, was run up to a sale
of one hundred and seventy-five thousand. It is per
fectly clear, therefore, that in that case the prosecutors
had defeated their own object.
When a question as to the Freethinker was asked
in the House of Commons, so far back as February in
last year, Sir William Harcourt replied that it was the
opinion of all persons who had to do with these matters,
that it was not politic to proceed legally against such a
publication. That answer was made to Mr. Freshfield.
A few days afterwards he made a similar answer to
Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who
rush in “ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecu
tion has unfortunately done that. It is a curious thing,
gentlemen, that all those who have been moving
against the persons who are alleged to be responsible
for the Freethinker, belong to one political party. The
junior counsel for the prosecution told you that no
doubt one of the two defendants would ask you to
believe this was a political move. Every person con
nected with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield
represents the immaculate borough of Dover, and Mr.
Redmond is the representative of a small Irish con
stituency, the whole of whose voters could be conveyed
to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of
London that secured a verdict against myself and my
co-defendant two months ago. I need not tell you
what the politics of the Corporation of the City of
London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy what
they will be when brought into something like accord
with the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to
be introduced. The prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, is also a Tory. I don’t mean to say that he is
the worse for that. Every man has a right to belong
to which political party he pleases. Tory, Whig, Con
servative and Liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on
both sides. But it is a curious thing that this prosecu-
�■K
14
Dejence of Free Speech.
tion should be conducted so entirely by men of one
political persuasion, while those struck at belong to
the extreme opposite political persuasion. These two
things should operate in your minds, and influence
your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry
it out. And last, though not least, we have sir Henry
Tyler, also a Tory of the deepest dye, who has been the
pronounced and bitter public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh,»
one of my co-defendants who is released from his
position of danger by a verdict of acquittal. At my
previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen.
I am very glad indeed to be able to rely on the
authority of his lord ship in saying that the nominal
prosecutor in this case is the Queen, and the actual
prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is Sir Henry
Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason for
Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir
Henry Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in
financial pursuits. He was known to be a dexterous
financier and an experienced director of public com
panies. He was known to be not so much loved by
shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would
receive an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler
had an enemy in Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had
been rebuked in the House of Commons by a minister
of the Crown for his mad antagonism to Mr. Bradlaugh.
It is he who has found all the funds for this prosecu
tion, and I ask you to believe that this prosecution was
initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and his
political friends for a purely political purpose; to
cripple, if possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win
through religious prejudice what could not be won by
open political warfare. As I said before, men of genius
and high character are to be found in the two great
political camps, but this is a miserable descent for a
great historic party, which once had its Peels and its
Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its
Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
„ ’
't
�Defence of Free Speech.
15
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ”
has a theological meaning as well as a moral <and legal
one ; and directly you put the question theologically,
What is blasphemy ? you are stunned by a babel of
contradictory answers. In our own country the Chris
tian says Jesus Christ is God, and it is blasphemy to
say he is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit
in our national legislature, says Jesus Christ was not
God, and it is blasphemy to say he was. In short, one
might say, theologically, that blasphemy is entirely a
question of geography ; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time
you put the question. It is a matter of longitude and
latitude, and if we are to rely upon the very loose
view of the law I shall have to refer to, as given by
Starkie, it is a matter of very considerable latitude.
The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to (n
the Old Testament is simply that of cursing God,
which I suppose no one would do, if even he had a e
monitress like Job’s wife, except his proper position
was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and
it is unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in
the judicial murder of Jesus Christ. And you have
the spirit of the blasphemy law brought out in the
prosecution of Jesus of Nazareth, and, as related in
the Acts of the Apostles, the proceedings for blasphemy
against St. Paul. With the Jews a man was soon
found guilty, and very often after they had stoned him
to death they settled at leisure the question ■whether
he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate,
who represented the majesty of the law, that stood
between the bigotry of the Jews and their victim.
And you will remember that it was the Roman power,
the secular power, which cared for none of these
things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his life
from his J ewish enemies, who would have put him to
death as a blasphemer.
Morally, blasphemy can only be committed by a
person who believes in the existence of the Deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that
�16
Defence of Free Speech.
on record in his Life of Voltaire. He says that ridicule
or abuse of deities in -whom he doesn't believe is only
ridicule and abuse of ideas which have no meaning to
him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy unless he
believes in the being whom he blasphemes.
In
practice, blasphemy means, always did and always will,
a strong attack upon what we happen to believe. The
early Christain used to blaspheme before he gained a
victory over Paganism, and he was put to death. The
Protestant used to blaspheme before he triumphed in
England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blasphemed
before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned ; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they
were tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became
blasphemers. It is particularly necessary you should
bear this in mind, because you must consider the very
unfair position in which a man stands who is brought
before a tribunal believing in the existence of the deity
and the attributes of the deity, who is said to be blasbhemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible; and when at the same time they have
to adjudicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the
manner of it. If they dislike the matter they are sure
to object to the manner; and so a man in my position
stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means
a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it happens to
be—that is, our religous belief; and, curiously enough,
I have noticed many publications which urged that
the blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should
be made a crime to insult any form of religous belief.
I should not oppose any such amendment as that,
because it would very soon reduce the whole thing to
an absurdity; for every sect would be prosecuting
every other sect ; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have
to be abolished, and every form of opinion would be
equal in the eye of the law, and I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or
�Defence of Free Speech.
17
hiurder—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And
it really comes to this—that no man can know
thoroughly what a blasphemous libel is ; and no man
can be sure whether he is penning a blasphemous libel
or not ; and the only way to find out what the offence
is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve months, which
is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of this
kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the
matter is put into their hands ; and if they don’t like
it, that is sufficient for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very
unfortunate thing that any man should be tried for
such an offence at common law. Recently, when I
was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in bis
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the exist
ence of deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the
jury, would not bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to
i)e discharged ; and I was kept in prison until the next
trial took place. Mr. Justice North told the jury on
the second trial nothing of the sort. He left out
altogether the words as to denying the existence
of deity. What made the change in three days ?
It is impossible for me to say. It may be he
thought a conviction easier with such an interpretation
of the law ; or it may be that he had read the comments
in the daily press, and that some alteration had been
made, perhaps for the better. The view which was
entertained by Mr. Justice North does not seem to be
the view entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, in
whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I may
judge by nis summing-up on the trial of one of my
co-defendants in this action last week. Then, again,
we. have Mr. Justice Stephen, who is practically at
variance, not only with Mr. Justice North, but with the
still higher authority of his lordship ; so that it would
largely depend, in being tried at common law, whether
one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited, one
jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; but another jury
four days before-^—although the evidence was exactly
the same—declined to. So that you have a double
uncertainty—your fate depends upon the view of
the law entertained by the judge who presides at
�18
Defence of Free Speech.
the trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the
jury. I submit, gentlemen, that is a very grave defect,
and puts at great disadvantage men who stand in my
position. If a man is to be sent to gaol for twelve
months, blasphemous libel should be defined by statute.
The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of
Queen’s Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash
the indictment, on which I am now being tried, that
this statute was aimed at specific offenders, and only
laid down so much law as referred to them. No doubt
that is true enough ; but still, if the statute does not
fully define blasphemy, yet everything included within
the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a word
about ridicule, abuse or contumely. The statute says
anybody who has professed, the Christian religion
within these realms, shall, for denying the existence
of God, or saying there are more gods than one, or
denying the truth of Christianity, be subject to certain
penalties. The law was called “ferocious” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens
us as to the nature of the age in which those Blas
phemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute
appears to contain a view of the law, which the Lord
Chief Justice so considerately said he should not feel
justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than
it seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and
dwelt on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law ?
Common law is judge-made law and jury-made law.
Mr. Justice Stephen on this point has some very notable
remarks in the introduction to his Digest of the
Criminal Law:
“ It is not until a very late stage in its history that law is
regarded as a series of commands issued by the sovereign
power of the state. Indeed, even in our own time and
country that conception of it is gaining ground very slowly.
An earlier and, to some extent, a still prevailing view of it is,
that it is more like an art or science, the principles of which
are first enunciated vaguely, and are gradually reduced to
a precision by their application to particular circumstances.
Somehow, no one can say precisely how, though more or less
plausible and instructive conjectures upon the subject may
�Defence of Jbree Speech.
19
beSiade, certain principles came to be accepted as the law of
tn® land, The judges held themselves bound to decide the
eases which came before them according to those principles,
and as new combinations of circumstances threw light on the
way in which they operated, the principles were, in some
cases, more fully developed and qualified, and in others evaded
or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case.
I ask you to consider that this common law is merely
old common usage, altogether alien to the spirit of our
age ; and that it cannot be enforced without making
invidious, unfair, and infamous distinctions between
one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to say
that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
‘power to prevent it.
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent ? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy,
my co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime.
I urge that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our
age. The junior counsel for the prosecution said blas
phemy was prosecuted very seldom ; it had not been
prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and he urged
as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years I” That is not true. From my slight
knowledge of literature, which is not, as one of the
journals gtlid, entirely confined to Tom Paine and the
writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I could undertake to furnish
the junior counsel for the prosecution with some tons
of blasphemy published during that fifty years ;
although I probably could not find the prosecution
such a powerful motive as they have recently had for
for proceeding against these blasphemous libels. The
law against blasphemy is practically obsolete—the fact
that there have been no such prosecutions for fifty
years ought tn settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which
includes the whole of the offences against religion,
says : “ The whole of this law is practically obsolete,
and might be repealed with advantage.” And he further
says it would be sufficient as to blasphemy if the power
of prosecution were confined to the Attorney-General.
In this case the Attorney-General has had nothing to
�Defence of Dree Speech.
do with the prosecution. The j ury were told in another
court that the Public Prosecutor had instituted it. As a
matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule,
and I submit that his allowance or disallowance is
scarcely equivalent to the allowance or disallowance
of the Attorney-General, and certainly not equivalent
to the institution cf proceedings by the AttorneyGeneral. Mr. Justice Stephen says : “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought
not to be made the subject of temporal punishment at
all, though, if it tended to produce a breach of the
peace, it might be dealt with on those grounds.” I shall
have a few words to say about breach of the peace
shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephen says : “ This law is
practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal
punishment should be inflicted for it.
You. are made the entire judges of this question,
under the very clear language of the celebrated Libel
Act, called “ Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate
libel trials. When issue was joined between the Crown
and one or more defendants, it was there laid down
that the jury were not bound to bring in a verdict of
guilty merely on the proof of the publication by such
defendants of a paper, and of the sense ascribed to the
same in the indictment. So that I hold yoti are the
complete judges ; there is no power on earth that can
go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give
a reason for your verdict ; you are simply called upon
to say guilty or not guilty ; and I submit you have a
perfect right to say guilty or not—especially not guilty
—on the broad issue of the question; and thus to
declare that this blasphemy law is utterly alien to the
spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be
enforced now. The old common law was never put in
force against persons who only ridiculed the Christian
religion. Our indictment charges us with bringing
the Christian religion into disbelief ; so that bringing
it into disbelief is blasphemy. That is logical—bring
ing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross contempt.
All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
�Defence of Free Speech.
21
forty years ago, and as far down as tlie year 1867, turn
upon the right of a man to question and oppose
publicly the truth of the Christian religion. Peter
Annett stated in the Free Inquirer his disbelief in the
inspiration of the Pentateuch, and was punished foi’ it ;
Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in seven big
volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop of the
English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold, rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. Woolston languished in Newgate
for years, and died there. For what? For saying
that the miracles of the New Testament should
not be taken literally but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy
tales, and are all doomed, and that educated and
intelligent men treat them as portions of the world’s
superstition. Nobody now thinks of prosecuting Mr.
Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same offence as
Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same offence
as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentleman, the common law is
more humane now, it is only because the spirit of the
age is more humane. That you are bound to take into
consideration, and that should influence you in giving
a verdict of not guilty to me and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has
always held that it is a crime to call in question the
truth of the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the
case of Cowan v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of
Exchequer ; it originally arose in Liverpool. The
secretary of the Liverpool Secular Society had engaged
the assembly room for the purpose of two lectures.
The lectrtrfes were entitled, “ The character and teaching
of Christ; the former defective, the latter misleading
and the second, “ The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of
ridicule, sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet
when the owner of the rooms, after the expense of
advertising had been incurred, refused the use of them
for the lectures, and declined to compensate the per
sons who had rented for those two nights, it was held
�22
Defence of Free Speech.
by the Court of Exchequer that it was au illegal act to
deliver such lectures with such titles, and that no
damages could be recovered, because the rooms had
been declined for the perpetration of an illegal
act.
Acting on this case, some solicitors at Southampton
last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly
Room for a lecture by myself, on the ground that the
lecture would be an illegal act. The lady who owned
the room was pious, although she had not the honesty
to recompense my friends for damages they had in
curred on the strength of her own agent’s written con
tract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any
impugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal
act, and my contention therefore holds good, that
bringing Christianity into disbelief is as much a part of
blasphemy as bringing it into contempt.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the
law of England, and, as such, it must not be attacked.
We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of this
by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it,
that if Christianity were part and parcel of the law of
the land, in the sense in which the words are generally
used, then it would be impossible to bring about any
reform of law, because no law could be criticised, much
less ridiculed, on the same ground that Christianity,
which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or criti
cised. Something occurred to me which seems to go
even further than that; and that is, that if Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, then the
prosecution for blasphemy would be an absurdity.
There is no crime in criticising any law, or j&iiculing
any law, in the pages of Punch. If Christianity were
part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be
no crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the
Royal Commissioners in 18-11. In their report they
went into it at great length. The Royal Commission
endorsed that view, and pointed out fully that if Chris
tianity were part of the law of the land, still the law
could be criticised and ridiculed, and, therefore, no
�Defence of Free Speech.
23
•blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds.
Sir Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first
said that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of
the country. He was a man of great intellectual ability,
and a most upright judge ; but if he lived in our age,
would he endorse such ridiculous language now ? He
was infected by the superstition of his age. This same
judge sentenced two women to be hung for witchcraft,
an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “ Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live.” The time will come when it
it will be thought quite as absurd to prosecute people
for the crime of blasphemy as we think it now to hang
people for witchcraft. If blasphemy be a crime at all,
it is only a crime against God, who, if he be omni
scient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great
alterations in the State and in Society, alterations which
will justify you in setting this old barbarous law aside.
To begin with, compulsory oaths have been abolished
in our courts of justice. Evidence can now be
given by Freethinkers on affirmation. Mr. Bradlaugh
last week was acquitted on the evidence of people,
every one of whom affirmed, and not one of
whom took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to
Parliament. I don’t wish to enter into a religious dis
cussion, or to provoke a dying bigotry, but I do say,
that if with the views the Jews are known to entertain
of the founder of Christianity, and if with the acts of
their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people,
they canube admitted in our national legislature, and
help to make laws which are stupidly said to be pro
tective of Christianity, then it is absurd for Christians
to prosecute Freethinkers for carrying on honest
criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t believe, and
which they think they are bound to oppose and attack.
Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used
to be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now
the House of Commons simply cling to a narrow theistic
ledge. I have heard not only counsel but a judge
�24
Drfence of Dree Speech.
speaking to a jury about Jesus Christ as our Lord and
savior, when they ought to have known—perhaps did
know, but didn’t remember in the heat of enthusiasm
—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might be some among them who knew Chris
tianity and rejected it. That shows you, still further,
that the principles and opinions which lie at the base
of these proceedings are not universal as they once
were : and that it is time all invidious distinctions
were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to stand
on their own bottom ; and if they cannot stand on their
own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them
fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more
particularly shown in the writings of our principal
men. Mr. Leslie Stephen, for instance, in answering
the question, “ Are we Christians ?” says :
c,No. I should reply we are not Christians; a few try to
pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially
men of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old
charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming
social symptoms; a great number call themselves Christians,
because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and
the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of
respectability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men
have ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased
avowedly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the
name.”
No one who has any knowledge of the kind of lan
guage held by intelligent men will doubt that such
sentiments are exceedingly common. You all know
the great and honored name of Darwin, who spent his
whole life in undermining the very foundations of
Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know when
the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prosti
tuted name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go,
and no further,” saw it was evident he was victor, it
professed to honor him, and had him buried in West
minster Abbey ; but the world is beginning to know
if the Church has Darwin’s corpse, it is all of Darwin
that the Church has had or ever will have.
�’ 1
▼
Detence of Free Speech.
25
A g^at scientist who does not confine himself to mere
qcience^ as for the most part Darwin did, says :
“The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris and Zeus,
Shdthe man who should revive them would be justly laughed
to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the
rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very
name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown,
have fortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this
day, are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the
authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the justice
of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of
things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the sem'barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until,
now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name
blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? Who shall
count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been
destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose
life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new
wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by
the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if
philosophers have suffered their cause has been amply avenged.
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science
as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules, and history
records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly
opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists,
bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated, scotched if not slain.
But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It
learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present,
bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist
that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and
end of sound science, and to visit, with such petty thunder
bolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those whorefuse to
degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand
here on the charge I have to answer. And why? One is
the language of a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other
the language of a penny paper.
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsley
says in his work on “ Responsibility in Mental Disease,”
that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all
three mad. (Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why ?
Because it would not be safe to attack a man like that.
�26
Defence of Free Speech.
He is part of a powerful corporation that wonltWp.lly
round any of its members attacked, and therefore he is
left unmolested.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his Study of Sociology,
speaks thus of the Christian Trinity :
“ Here we have theologians who believe that our national
welfare will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an
enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, are each of them almighty; and yet there are not three
almighties but one almighty; that one of the almighties
suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another
of them; and that whosoever does not believe this ‘without
doubt shall perish everlastingly.’ ”
That is language which is, perhaps, as scornful as any
a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could use. There is
no essential difference between that and language of
the most militant Freethought.6
Mr. John Stuart Mill, who was a writer with a world
wide reputation, and occupied a seat in the House of
Commons, said that his father looked upon religion as
the greatest enemy of morality; first by setting up
“ flotations excellencies, belief in creeds’, devotional feel
ings and ceremonies not connected with the good of human
kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes
for genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating
the standard of morals, making it consist in doing the
will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the
phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts
as eminently hateful. I have a hundred times heard
him say, that all ages and nations have represented
their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression,
that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till they
reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra of wicked
* Lord Coleridge honestly confessed, with regard to many of
the heretical passages I read from leading writers, that he had
“ a difficulty in distinguishing them from the incriminated publi
cation.” “They do appear to me,” he added “to be open to
exactly the same charge and the same grounds of observation that
Mr. Foote's publications are.” Later on he said, “I admit as far
as I can judge some of them, that they are strong, shall I say
coarse, expressions of contempt and hatred for the recognised
truths of Christianity.”
�Defence of Free Speech.
27
ness he considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.”
In one of those alleged libels, the only passage I
shall refer to, there is a statement to the effect—a state
ment not in my handwriting—(unfortunately I am in
the position of having not only to defend my own
right but the right of others to be heard) in one of
those libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity
of the Old Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. What
is the difference between a phrase like that and the
extract I have read from the writings of John Stuart
Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that the God of Chris
tianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nineshilling book, and the other the language of a penny
paper. Writers and publishers of nine-shilling books
should not be allowed to go scot free and the writers
of penny papers be made the scape-goat of the cultured
agnostics of the day.
John Stuart Mill’s great friend George Grote, the author
of the History of Greece is commonly admitted to be
the author of a little book, An Analysis of the In
fluence of Natural Religion, which he put together
from the notes of that great jurisprudist, Jeremy
Bentham, in which natural religion is described as one
historic craze, the foe of the human race, and its
doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another
writer. Lord Derby—who has given his support to a
movement for the abolition of the blasphemy laws—
some months ago, presiding at a meeting at Liverpool,
said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the few men who
had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker. He
is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is
a writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In hi's fine
and delicate way he ridicules the Christian Trinity.
He says :
“ In imagining a sort of infinitely magnified and improved
Lord Shaftesbury, with a race of vile offenders to deal with
whom his natural goodness would incline him to let off, only
his sense of justice will not allow it; then a younger Lord
Shaftesbury, on tho scale of his fathei’ and very dear to him,
�28
Defence oj Erec Speech.
who might live in grandeur and splendor if he liked, but who
prefers to leave his home, to go and live among the race of
offenders, and to be put to an ignominious death, on condition
that his merits shall be counted against their demerits, and
that his father’s goodness shall be restrained no longer from
taking effect, but any offender shall be admitted to the benefit
of it on simply pleading the satisfaction made by the son; and
then, finally, a third Lord Shaftesbury, still on the same
high scale, who keeps very much in the background, and
works in a very occult manner, but very efficaciously never
theless, and who is busy in applying everywhere the benefits
of the son's satisfaction and the father’s goodness.”
The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians them
selves have run, a long and learned discussion which
took place at the University of Paris nearly three
centuries ago, as to whether Jesus at his ascension had
his clothes on, or appeared naked before his disciples ;
and if he did, what became of his clothes ? (Laughter.)
If such a thing had appeared in the Freethinker, the
junior counsel for the prosecution would have said
“ they are bringing our Savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and , we
bring them before you that they may be handed over
to the tender mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew
Arnold is in no fear of prosecution ; it is only the
poorer and humbler Freethinkers who are to be
attacked.7
Mr. John Morley—who has thrown his great influence
in the scale against me—in his book on “Voltaire.”
says, “ That a religion which has shed more blood than
any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if
published in England now, would be made the subject
of a prosecution, if there was any honesty in conducting
these prosecutions. Mr. Morley now joins the chorus
of those who howl the false word “indecent” at me ;
but no living person, no sentence under this old law,
7 Mr. Matthew Arnold subsequently issued a new edition of
literature and, Dogma in which this passage was omitted. Curiously,
at abou: the same time, he became tlie recipient of a Government
pension of £250 a year. His blasphemy and mine met with very
different rewards.
�nee of Free Speech.
29
can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval
of my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would
rather be sitting down in my cell, or meditatively
walking up and down with racking anxiety at my
breast, than walk into the House of Commons throwmy past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor
of a renegade.s
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament:
‘•Such a catalogue of crimes would be sufficient to destroy
the character of any Pagan divinity whatever. I fail to per
ceive any reason why the Jews alone should be privileged to
represent their god as guilty of such actions without suffer
ing the inference which in other cases would undoubtedly
be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of deity were not
of an exalted order, nor their principles of morals of a very
admirable kind There is, indeed, nothing extraordinary in
the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient Hebrew
should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would rather
be suprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their savage
deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their god,
should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in the
one case from the commands, in the other, from the immedi
ate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindus
relate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all
the standards of morality, no such conciousness is ever appar
ent in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far
worse offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his
character of the grace of shame ”
8 Mr. John Morley was then editing the Pall Mall Gazette, in
which I was furiously denounced and my sentence justified.
After my trial before Lord Coleridge, M ■. Morley found my sen
tence “monstrous.” Subsequently, when a me norial for my
release had been signed by suci men as Herbert Spencer, Professor
Tyndall, Professor Huxley, Frederic Harrison, and a large number
of eminent write's, scholars, scientists and artists, Mr. Morley
declared I was “ suffering from a scandalously excessive punish
ment.” But he did not put his own signature to the memorial.
He was approached early, and his fLst question wag “Who’s
signed ? ’ Mr. Morley, says one < f his constituents, has “ the theory
of courage.”
�30
Defence of Dree Speech.
If that had appeared in the Freethinker it would
have formed one of the counts of my indictment. But
no one has interfered with Lord Amberley.9 A ques
tion was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution
of one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of
the numbers was meant to caricature Almighty God.
The question was stopped by his lordship. With Lord
Amberley’s words before us, it is easy to understand
that could not be meant to’represent Almighty God.
A man who after careful reflection, after weighing
evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and
moral faculties upon the question, has arrived at*the
conclusion that there is an infinite spirit of the uni
verse akin to ours, though greater—such a man would
never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my lips, or
from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or
attack. It is not Almighty God who could be ridiculed
in a picture like that- It is the Hebrew deity—the
deity of semi-barbarous people who lived 3,000 years
ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who told
them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they
had never built, to take possession of them in his name,
and brutally murder every man, woman, and chiln
found in them. Can it be a crime to ridicule or even
to caricature a my liological personage like this ? It is
not Almighty God who is ridiculed, it is simply the
deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become
decent and civilised now. The influences of culture
and humanity are at work, and although we utter the
same old shibboleths, we have different ideas, different
tastes, and I hope different aspirations.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the
Christian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus,
and criticises in a hostile manner the Holy Scripture.
If the law were put in force fairly, it would be put in
force there. Shelley has been referred to. Shelley
0 Lord Amberley’s will was set aside. ITe left his Little son t'>
be educated by a Freethinker named Spalding; but, as a Free
thinker has no rights bat those which ne enjovs on sufferance,
Lord Amberley’s father^ Earl Russell, had the child taken away
and brought up ns a Christian.
.
■
J
j
J
■
�Defence of Tree Speech.
31
wrote, among other poems, one called “ Queen Mab.”
He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a vengeful,
pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for
blood. As Jjhe rest of this extract is couched in similar
language, I forbear, out of consideration for the feel
ings of those who may differ from me, from reading
further. But what I have read is sufficient to show
that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous is anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And
in one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to
Liberty,” he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean ser
pent ”—
“The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s
works now,1 and even the leading counsel for the prose
cution could actually accept office under a Ministry, of
which the First Lord of the Admiralty, on whose book
stalls. Shelley’s works are exposed for sale, was a
member.
Of the poets of our day, it may be said, threefourths of them write quite as blasphemously, accord
ing to the language of the prosecution, as any one in
the Freethinker. Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest,
if not our greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I
don’t think so—uses in a poetical form the same
language that was used by Elijah to the priests of Baal.
You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah had
a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test. They built altars
and they cried respectively on their gods. The priests
of Baal cut and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but
the fire would not come. What did Elijah do ? Did
he call them to a kind of theological discussion, and
say: “Now there is a mistake somewhere, and we
must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with
1 Lord Coleridge pointed out that Shelley’s Qaeen Mab had been
prosecuted, and his children taken from him by Lord Eldon. I
was aware of it, and therefore I said that no one thinks of prose
cuting “those who sell Shelley’s works now.”
�32
Defence of Free Speech.
what Rabelais would call sanglante derision, and he
said, in the language of to-day : “ Where is your god,
what is he doing, why doesn’t he answer you, has he
gone on a journey, what is the matter with him ?”
That is the language of irony, and the deadliest sarcasm,
and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had
had one tithe of the religious bigotry of our prosecutors
they would have done so.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “ Hymn to Man,” turns
the same kind of derision on the priests of Christendom.
He represents them as calling upon their deity, and
says, “ Cry aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then
he says, by way of finish :—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, n'or warmth
in his breath;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him
and men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he comes to show
judgment again?
Shall god then die as the beast die? whois it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself
god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward,
whose faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of thy tyrants, they call thee, their god
by thy name.
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword.
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten; thy death is
upon thee, 0 lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through
the wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
Iu his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he
says :
“ 0 hidden face of man, wherover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
�Defence of Free Speech.
33
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride.
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou liadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars, lo
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell's worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb?
No soul ’that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Though shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Free
thinkers would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a
mythological deity ; they may ridicule miracles ; but
they will never ridicule the tragic and pathetic sub
limities of human life, which are sacred, whether
enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know how to
draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations I have read you had appeared in the
Freethinker they would have formed one of the counts
of the indictment. The only difference between them
is, that one is in a twelve-shilling book, and the other
in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised
as possessing the highest excellence by the greatest
critics, whose writings have been praised in the
Athenceum and the Fortnightly Review. I am refering to Mr. James Thomson. He says :
�34
Defence of Free Speech.
11 If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed,
To everlasting torments doomed j.
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there1) bow Adieu !
Almighty Devil damn me too.'”
If that language had appeared in the Freethinker, it
would have formed one of the counts of the indictment.
What is the difference ? Again, I say, the difference
is between a five-shilling book and a penny paper.
When those books were reviewed, did men point out
those passages and condemn them ? Not at all. They
simply praised the poet’s genius; blasphemy is not taken
into consideration by men who write for papers of such
standing.
George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm,
aimed at the popular idols of the day. She translated
Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity and Strauss’ Life of
Jesus, both of which are indictable at common law,
though they have never been attacked. Renan, in his
Life of Jesus, supposes that the raising of Lazarus took
place at a time, when under the messianic delusion the
mind of Jesus had become perverted, and that he had
arranged the thing with Lazarus.
Anonymous books are pouring from the press.
Here is one published by Williams and Norgate. It is
called the Evolution of Christianity. Speaking of the
Hebrew scriptures, it says :
“ Truly, if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the
genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god.
of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly
true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of
divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting
details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.”
Only one other instance of ridicule. The same
writer, referring to the sudden and mysterious death
of Ananias and Sapphira, as narraced in the Acts of the
Apostles, says :
�Defence of Free Speech.
35
“Anafllas an^apphijB.his wife sold some property, and kept
back amortion of the price. Perhaps Aananias was a shrewd
practical man, distrustful of socialism and desirous of holding
«something in reserve for possible contingencies. Or Sapphira
may have hinted that, if anything should happen to her
busband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds, she would
not IHfe the position of a pauper scrambling among the other
’ widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have been the
jnotivefcA the doomed couple, if they had been arraigned
‘before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so trivial an
offence; but under the new regime of the Holy Ghost, this
^tahappy husband and wife were condemned to instant exe
cution.” 2
That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the freethinker, it might have formed one of the
counts of our present indictment.
I have referred you to great living writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; I have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one in my
hand which is circulated over the country and bears
the imprint of popular publishers like Messrs. John
and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way of Chris
tianity :
“ Buddhism is the only religion which has made its way by
sheer moral strength; it has become the vast religion that it
is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to propagate its
tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with blood
from keystone to battlements; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood. that its poets are never tired of
hymning.. Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fireBuddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.”
That is being circulated wholesale by respectable pub
lishers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of
the counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the
Freethinker. Yet we know these publishers will never
be molested, because they are not poor, and especially
because they don’t happen to be friendly with a poli. 2 Mr. A. G-ill was the author of this work. A new edition,
since published, bears his name on the title-page. Mr. Grill has
nlso written a pamphlet on the Blasphemy Laws with reference
to my prosecution.
' *
'
\
�36
Defence of Free Speech.
■ tician, whose enemies want to strike . him with a
religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
political .sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised,
that we have dealt too' freely in ridicule. What is it ?
You will remember the ending of some of the problems
of Euclid, which is what is called a reductio ad absurdwm, that is reducing a thing to an absurdity. That
is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of arguifrent. The
comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why
may it not be used in religious matters also ? Refer!
ence was made to a caricature, in one of our political
journals, which shall be nameless here. Mr. Gladstone
is represented as “No. 1
and morally the Conclusion
is that he was the murderer of one of his dearest friends.
Nobody thinks of prosecuting that paper—the idea
would be laughed at. We may caricature living states
men, but not dead dogmas! Surely, you will not give
youi’ warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr. Buckle
says that every man should have a right to treat opinion
as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule it,
however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than
Buckle, John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the
Westminster Tieview, on the Richard Carlile prosecu
tions, in the year 1824 ; and speaking of ridicule in
that article, he says : “ If the proposition that Chris
tianity is untrue can legally be conveyed to the mind,
what can be more absurd than to condemn it, when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon
of ridicule has been used by a very large proportion of
the great intellectual emancipators of mankind.
Socrates used it ; at the risk of offending some, I
may say that Jesus used it; Lucian used it; the early
Christian Fathers used it unsparingly against their
Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as
would throw into the shade anything that ever appeared
in the Freethinker. Luther used it, and used it well;
Erasmus used it ; the Lollards use it; and it was
freely used in the Catholic and Protestant controversy
that raged through and after the reign of Henry VIII.
It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
�Defence of Free Speech.
37
I know some may thitak that it is impolitic to introduce
the name*or Voltaire here ; but Lord Brougham says
that Vbltaire was the greatest spiritual emancipator
sincfe the dayscjtf Luther. The only difference between
such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, was
his iHhnitable wit. He had wit and his enemies hated
him forut. Ridicule has been used in all times. To
take ridicule from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and pruning process that
you would destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his
ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be 1 Ridicule is
a weapon which has been used by so many great
emancipators of mankind ; if we have used it, even in
a coarser manner than they, it is the same weapon;
and if the weapon is a legal one there can be no
illegality in the mere method of using it, and there has
been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it
illegal. I say that it is a dangerous thing to make men
amenable to criminal prosecution simply on a question
of opinion and taste. Really if you are to eliminate
ridicule from religious controversy, you hand it over
entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don't want to become
asinine or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seems to me, if I
may make a pun, that the gravest thing in the world is
the grave ; and if gentlemen want the world to be
utterly grave they will turn it into a graveyard, and
that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to do
for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet
them by subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which
means slow murder ; which cannot kill a strong man
in two or three months, but which may, in twelve
months, convert him into a physical and mental wreck,
a byword and a scorn ; another evidence forsooth of the
truth and mercy of their creed !
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a
minute or two to the argument about outraging people’s
feelings. You never hear it proposed that this should
be mutual; it is always a one-sided thing. As Mill
says in his great essay on “ Liberty
�38
Defence of Free Speech.
“ With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate
discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the
like, the denunciation of those weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally
to both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment
of them against the prevailing opinion; against the unprevail
ing they may not only be used without general diflrpproval,
but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise
of honest zeal and righteous indignation.”
I should regard this argument with more favor if it
were attempted to be made mutual. Suppose I were
to put into your hands a book like that of Father Pinamonti’s Hell Open to Christians, which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It con
tains a picture of the torments of hell for*every day in
the week. That is repulsive to my mind. In my
opinion it would debauch the minds of children into
whose hands it fell, but I should not think of calling
in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such
a question is the great outside jury of public opinion.
Indecent attacks on religion, it is said, must be put
down. I want you to cast out of your minds altogether
the absurd talk of indecency or licentiousness. If we
are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blasphemy
if you will ; and don’t by confusing the real nature of
our alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be
punished for blasphemy, we ought to be punished for
indecency, of which I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I
have looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t
think there is anything in it to which this libel can
approximate. If a man starts chemical works close to
you, and poisons the atmosphere you breathe, you have
no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or else remove
your business and residence. That is trenching on
your rights. But in a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no act of Parliament to compel any
person to purchase a copy of the Freethinker. The
copies that will be placed in your hands were pur
chased, not to be read, but for the purposes of prosecu
tion. It was not a surreptitious thing ; it was not a
publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
�Defen<^ of Free Speech.
39
fraethought of the most insidious kind in every line.
It is called the Freethinker; the man who purchased it
must h$ve done so deliberately, and gone into the shop
to do it. As it was not a paper freely exposed in the
shop windows in London, a man must have meant,
before he went into the shop, to purchase that very
thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before he purchased it. I submit that as a man
is not forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he
can do is to allow other people to exercise their rights.
It appears now that liberty is to be taken in the sense
of the rough Yankee, who defined it as the right to do
as he pleased and to make everybody else do so too.
Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be protected
from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to
dislike!
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we
have been told is the proper view of this question.
Starkie on Libel has been quoted. I have not got
Starkie’s work, but I have got Folkard’s edition of the
Lazo of Libel and T must quote from that. The fact
that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie shows
in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution.
That a man should be in peril of losing his liberty on
the dictum of “ the late Mr. Starkie ” is a most dreadful
thing. I hope that won’t continue. He says :
“ A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equiva
lent to such an intention in law, as well as in morals—a state
of apathy and indifference to the interests of society—is the
broad boundary between right and wrong.”
I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
the broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be
alleged that I am apathetic to the interests of society,
I give it the most emphatic denial. When “ nefarious
profit ” is talked about, I tell the learned gentlemen for
the prosecution that they get far more out of their
advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause
must not count on profit; he can only count on the
satisfaction of what to him is duty done. There is no
such thing as apathy here to the interests of society.
�40
Defence of Free Speech.
I have given of my time and means, for great political
and social causes, as much as these men. I am no more
apathetic to the interests of society than they are. All
these w >rds mean very little. The contention that has
been rai ted is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of aljectives. These are not questi >ns of fact, and
when the prosecution talk about “ maliciously insult
ing,” “ wickedly doing so and so,” they simply use a
string of adjectives which every man may interpret
differently from every other man, a string of adjectives
which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind
of law by which a man is to be tried. It seems to me
that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a
noose put round the neck of every man who writes or
speaks on the subject of religion ; and if he happens to
be on the unpopular side somebody will pull the string,
and without being worse than those in the race before
him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled. I hope
I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I
want to say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Renan says he has seachedthe whole Roman
law before the time of Constantine, without finding a
single edict against any opinions. Professor Hunter
says practically the same thing. Blasphemy and heresy
were originally not tried by secular courts like these at
all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the t-ubject
of law, said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesi
astical law ; and when the writ de heretico comburendd’
was abolished in the reign of Charles II., there was
still special reservation made for ecclesiastical courts to
3 This was the writ for burning heretics aliv ■. It was only
abolish-d after the Res’oration, although it had fallen into
d suetude for half a century. Daring the Protectorate, hovever,
the Parliame it gravely discusse I whether poor Nayler—a much
maligned eccentric—should be burnt or not. and the Lord only
knows how far they wouli have carried out the “reign of the
saints if Cromwell had not sent them packing.”
�Defence of 'Free Speech.
41
try offences. But when the clergy began to lose their
power over the people, the judges brought in the very
heresy law tBat had been abolished; the same heresy with
another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain
that in bad old times, when judges depended so much
upon the favor of the Crown and the privileged classes,
and when the Church of England was held necessary
to the maintainance of the constitution, it was not
wonderful that they should deliver judgments on the
question of blasphemy, which really made it heresy
as against the State Church. I say that blasphemy
meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on
controverted points of religion if decently conducted.
That was not the language of those great judges of the
past. They said we might discuss controverted points
of the Christian religion—those that were controverted
amongst learned Christians ; but that the great dogmas
that lay at the base of the articles of the Established
Church could not be called in question ; and I could
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you
one case that happened in this century. In the case of
the Queen against Gathercole, in which the defendant
libtlled the Scorton Nunnery, Baron Alderson laid it
down : “ That a person may, without being liable to
prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the
only reasou why the latter is in a different situation
from the other is, because it is the form established by
law, and it is therefore a part of the constitution of the
country.” Russell on Crimes, volume 3, page 196,
gives the case a little more fully. He says :
“ When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecu
tion for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any
sect of the Christian religion save the established religion of
the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a
different situation from the other is, because it is the form
established by law, and is therefore part of the constitution
of the country.”
�42
Fefence of Free Speech.
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that
heresy and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought
to mean, simply ridicule of the State Church or denial
of its doctrine ; that where religious sects differ from
the State Church, no matter what sect of Noncbnformity
it be, whether it be a section of the great Roman
Catholic Church itself, or a Jewish body or Mahomedan
believing in the existence of a deity, yet on those
grounds where they differ from the Established Church,
they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and
invidious right to the Established Church ? If any of
you are Dissenters, remember the murders, the robberies,
and the indignities, inflicted on your ancestors by the
State Chilrch. If any one of you are Quakers, remem
ber that the gaols of London were full of your ancestors
who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen, remem
ber that, and don’t give this State Church any protection.
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm or
argument, or other forms of attack? It has its livings
worth ten or twelve millions a year ; it has its edifices
for worship in every parish of the country ; it has its
funds for the purposes of propaganda and defence
apart from its State connections. It has had until
very recently, practically all the educational appliances
in its own hands ; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected
against the onslaughts of a few comparatively poor
men ? If a Church with such advantages cannot hold
its own, in the name of truth let it go down. To pro
secute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of God, is to prostitute whatever
is sacred in religion, and to degrade what should be a
great spiritual power, into a mere police agent, a
haunter of criminal courts, and an instructor of Old
Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection
for person, property, and character, and all that can be
legitimately derived from these. The ordinary law of
libel gives a man protection for his character, but it is
surely monstrous that he should claim protection for
his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that
his tastes shall not be violently outraged against his
�Defence of Free Speech.
43
will, I hope, gentlemen, you -will take that rational
view -of the question. We have libelled no man’s
character, we have invaded no man’s person or property.
This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order
to put down dissent and heresy. It now lingers
amongst us as a legacy utterly alien to the spirit of our
age, which unfortunately we have not had resolution
enough to cast among those absurdities which time
holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr.
Justice Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment
Should be inflicted for blasphemy unless it led to a
breach of the peace. I have no objection to that, pro
vided we are indicted for a breach of the peace. Very
little breach of the peace might make a good case of
blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like this
shall not be constructive ; it shall be actual. They
might have put somebody in the witness-box who
could have said that reading the Freethinker had
impaired his digestion and disturbed his sleep.
(Laughter.) They might have even found somebody
who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
Induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentle
men, they have not attempted to prove that any special
publicity was given to it outside the circle of the people
who approved it. They have not even been shown
there was an advertisement of it in any Christian or
religious paper. They have not even told you that any
extravagant display was made of it; and I undertake
to say that you might never have known of it if the
prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this
be construed as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment
says we have done all this, to the great displeasure of
almighty god, and to the danger of our Lady the Queen
her crown and dignity. You must bear that in mind.
The law books say again and again that a blasphemous
libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy on the
Deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is prepos
terous to say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace.
If you want that you must go to the Salvation Army.
�44
efence of Free Speech.
They have a perfect right to their ideas—I have nothing
to say about them ; but their policy has led to actual
breaches of the peace ; and even in India, where,
according to the law, no prosecution could be started
against a paper like the Freethinker, many are sent to
gaol because they will insist upon processions in the
street. We have not caused tumult in the streets. We
have not sent out men with banners and bands in which
' each musician plays more or less his own tune. (Laughter)
We have not sent out men who make hideous discord
and commit a common nuisance. Nothing of the sort
is alleged. A paper like this had to be bought and oar
utterances had to be sought. We have not done any
thing against the peace. I give the indictment an absolute
denial. To talked of danger to the peace is only a mask
tn hide the hideous and repulsive features of intoler
ance and persecution. They don’t want to punish us
decause we have assailed religion, but because w*e have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentle
men. Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and
uot if we have assailed religion ; and as you know we
have not endangered the peace, you will of course bring
in a verdict of Not Guilty. Gentlemen, I hope you will
by your verdict to-day champion that great law of
liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty which
implies the equal right of everyman, so long as he does
not trench upon the equal right of every other man, to
print what he pleases for people who choose to buy
and read it, so long as he does not libel men’s characters
■or incite people to the commission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in
the result of this trial. I am anxious for the rights
and liberties of thousands of my countrymen. Young
as I am, I have for many years fought for my principles,
taken soldier’s wages when there were any, and gone
cheerfully without when there were none, and fought
on all the same, as I mean to do to the end ; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment
by the verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose
sacrifices for conviction may not equal mine. The bit
terness of my fate can scarcely be enhanced by your
<yerdict. Yet this does not diminish my solicitude as to
�Defence of Free Speech.
45
its character. If, after the recent scandalous proceedings
in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate
a new era of persecution, in which no advantage can
accrue to truth or morality, but in which fierce passions
will be kindled, oppression and resistance matched
against each other, and the land perhaps disgraced
with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I hope,
you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused
and eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work ;
you will close a melancholy and discreditable chapter
of history ; you will proclaim that henceforth the press
shall be absolutely free, unless it libel men’s characters
or contain incitements to crime, and that all offences
against belief and taste shall be left to the great jury of
public opinion ; you will earn the gratitude of all who
value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and inde
pendence as the crown of their manhood ; you will
save your country from becoming ridiculous in the
eyes of nations that we are accustomed to consider as
less enlightened and free ; and you will earn for your
selves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its
progress, and its glory.
��G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL.
Bible Contradictions ...
...
...
...
0 4
Part I. of the Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. The Contradiction's are printed inparallel columns.
Bible Absurdities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part IL All the chief Absurdities from Genesis to Revelation,
conveniently and strikingly arranged, with appropriate headlines,
giving the point of each absurdity in a sentence.
Bible Atrocities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part III. Containing all the godly wickedness from Genesis to
Revelation. Each infamy has a separate headline for easy
reference.
Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities,
Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. Part IV.
of the Bible Handbook ...
...
...
...
BIBLE HANDBOOK(complete). Above 4 parts in 1 vol.
In paper covers...
...
...
...
...
Better edition, in cloth
...
...
...
...
DR. E. B. AVELING.
Darwin Made Easy. 144pp., cloth
...
...
0 4
1 4
2 0
1
0
Th® best popular exposition of Darwinism ever published.
NOW
ISSUING.
A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS
OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
ZEW CT. XL. WHEELER.
Parts I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Paper Covers, Sixpence each.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY A FRESH PART EVERY MONTH.
“The Die ionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Ereethought party. These sixpenny parts
Should be widely subscribed for.”—National Reformer.
‘ The work will be of the greatest val e.’—Freethouglit (San Franciseo).
“ At last we have the long wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, and asserting that all
great men have been on the side of Christianity. . . . Freethinkers
would do well to get this woik part by part. ’—Truthseelcer (New York).
�CRIMES
of
CHRISTIANITY.
By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
VOL. I. Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine ; (2) Constantins
to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pioui
Frauds ; (6) Rise of the Papacy ; (7) Crimes of the Popes^g
(8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades.
Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities.
No pains
have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, un
answerable Indictment of Christianity.
The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
224 pp., cloth hoards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d.
“The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppjd
nents of Christianity.”—TVatzonaZ Reformer.
“ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—
Weekly Times.
“ The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U.S.A.
“ Two keen writers.”-—Truthseeker ("London).
“ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity^—Lz’Zeraz’tf
World.
“ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as We hay®
been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open
(Chicago).
“Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—-Weekly Dispatch.
“ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up.^ow pfj&fed,
and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle.
“ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of auMorlties.”—Western Figaro.
Vol. II. is in Preparation.
JEWISH LIFEEOF CHRIST
An Extraordinary Work. Edited by
G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER
Cheap Edition, 6d.
Superior Edition, printed on fine paper and bound in cloth, Is.
“ Messrs. G-. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the Freethought party
under great obligation by the careful manner in which they have collected
and stated the information on a very doubtful and difficult subject. . . .
We have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and
sometimes very erudite notes.”—National Reformer.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
��MR, FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS
PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth .............
2
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Months’ Imprisonment. Copies in paper covers,
soiled, 6d,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. I.
...
„. 2
In collaboration witli J. M. Wheeler.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?................................................... 1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besant.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with the Bev. Dr, James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d,
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
......................................... 0
Second edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..................................................................... 1
DARWIN ON GOD ............................................................... 0
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
............................. 0
Three Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Colei idge.
PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM............................. 0
LETTERS TO JESUS GHRIST
......................... 0
THE BIBLE GOD ............................................................... 0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
........................................ 0
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS............................. 0
v
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
WHAT WAS CHRIST ?................................................... 0
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
WAS JESUS INSANE ?................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Nazareth.
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD............................. 0
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
�
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
Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 45, [2] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: New edition, with author's introduction signed May 25,1889, and footnotes. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N237
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Freedom of speech
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 (Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883), 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-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Freedom of Speech
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/77c33e7ebf631b574eefc95eab10ea7b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jDQ4p%7EHygGHHKSSXeAeXRDqlvCfgaJggcnLrwEgacCG45jWOqh7QthuCbc0r4mLsHFxnyOaxValqy9Y534aXjoDDP3qP8zX2L8hGJRkUUd4ZQabq-fjDWsM%7EE0dapy8AfG1WmLGjTtSDrrjJU%7EoDJ1Ks7Fg71lVR%7EpNygKx35jMcQvZmhhsxs7sB-ERXH-trV5x1EurKkr6O6KGbZyAXCk6T7-EFw%7EwdqP9dJPFmsKGjBgyzg3-TPDWh3RBe8ajHXQfpkgpX0LDW68mJKVRwtEfJd0L9hDQUFqSpnQMtLG0MUXVVhyz7dbrCBdcV9U%7EvYdoF0DIy9pZSAb0b-fcSgA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
85c16aef755ade47ed5503f6532da23e
PDF Text
Text
BLASPHEMY^
>f)outo tbep be aboltWb ?
4
BY
S W. A. HUNTER,
LL.D., M.A.,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
PUBLISHED FOR
0T!)e ^ssociatton. for the Bepeal of tf)e -Slaspljenxp Hatofi,
By Rev. W. Sharman (Hon. Sec.), 20, Headland Park, Plymouth.
1884.
J
Price Twopence.
��B
i
N3H
THE
BLASPHEMY
LAWS:
SHOULD THEY BE ABOLISHED.?
have arrived at an interesting
of
WEFreedom. The right of privatestage in the history to
judgment, the right
of free discussion, liberty to think, and therefore liberty
differ, are accepted as indisputable by all parties. The
intellectual basis of intolerance is cut away; the pernicious
sophistry that justified intolerance is discredited. But the
passion of intolerance, although now ranking as a vice, is
by no means extinct. So far we have made progress.
There was a time when the gratification of a depraved
taste for persecution was regarded as the highest of moral
duties. St. Thomas Aquinas—to whom the Pope has
recently invited Christendom to turn as an oracle of philo
sophical truth—St. Thomas Aquinas writes, apparently with
perfect seriousness, that the crime of heresy exceeds the
crime of coining false money. By heresy he meant the
publication of any opinions that were condemned by the
authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is beyond
the power even of a Pope to restore to life the antiquated
opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas. The true doctrine of
intellectual freedom has won an ascendancy among the best
representatives of the Christian faith. The danger now lies
in a different direction. What is to be feared is not a
revival of persecution in its old shape—naked and not
ashamed—but the invention of sophistical excuses to enable
persons to enjoy the exciting pleasure of persecution, while
at the same time they contrive to keep on good terms with
their consciences as consistent supporters of freedom of
speech.
• •’>
�4
The Blasphemy Laws:
Intolerance is a strange passion to be found in a being
endowed with reason. Why should I hate a man, to the
point of taking away his life by torture, merely because he
does not share my opinions? No man is infallible. The
persecutor may be wrong, and not the victim. It is Socrat^t
that was right, not the fanatical demos that made him
drink a cup of poison. And Christians, at least, think that
Jesus Christ was right, and not the Jews who nailed him
to the cross. But even if the persecutor is right, that
does not make his conduct any the more rational. Punish
ment may make a hypocrite, but it cannot make a convert.
All error is involuntary, and even a savage has the sense to
see that it is idiotic to punish a man for that which is
involuntary. No human being can desire to believe false
hood ; naturally we desire that the facts should be agreeable
to us ; but we cannot believe anything that does not appear
to us to be true. Even a persecutor must admit that man
would be unworthy of the reason with which he is endowed
if he were to try to extinguish the light of reason. Intoler
ance is the paradox of human nature; it is the treason of
man against the rational soul that raises him above the
beasts of the field.
How then is the existence of a persecuting spirit to be
accounted for? The law that seems to govern the intensity
of intolerance is that we are angry with those who differ
from us in proportion as we are conscious of weakness in
the grounds of our opinions. The most certain facts are
those that rest upon the direct testimony of the senses. If
a man blind from birth were to argue seriously that there
was no such thing as light, we should not be angry with
him, we should only smile. Of truths not perceptible through
the senses, the most certain are the truths of mathematics.
A man who should contend that two and two make five
would excite perhaps compassion, but certainly not indig
nation. Next in rank of certainty come the established
truths of physical science. Occasionally we meet with a
writer who contends that the law of gravitation is a chimera,
and will undertake to demonstrate that the earth is as flat
as a pancake. But still we retain our composure. If, how
ever, we turn from the established truths of science to the
region of taste, we find a marked change. There is, no
�Shotild they be Abolishedf
5
doubt, such a thing as good taste; but the distinction
between good taste and bad taste is not marked by any
common measure that can be applied with certainty. For
this reason it often happens that some men take deadly
offence when their opinions on a matter of taste are ques
tioned. In politics and sociology we are in a region of
opinion, and not of science—a region not necessarily of
incorrigible uncertainty, but where we are a long way from
any accepted standard of truth. In this region we find that
intolerance displays considerable vigour. There are many
men whose self-love is mortally wounded by any contradic
tion of their favourite political opinions. True, in a free
country, they must sulk and suffer; they are debarred from
the luxury of imprisoning their opponents ; but, in revenge,
they soothe their vanity by describing their opponents as
men of Belial, who are actuated only by the basest motives.
In art, in politics, in the disputed territory where the
conquests of science are not yet assured, intolerance is an
unlovely weed; but it is not a serious social evil. It is
when the passions of the populace are worked up in the
interest of an organized body of men that we learn to what
frightful excesses intolerance will go, and how man’s in
humanity to man is a more deadly evil than hurricanes,
earthquakes, famine, or pestilence.
In religion the conditions are favourable to extreme
intolerance. On the one hand, religion is a subject of the
most intense interest. It must either occupy the highest
place in our esteem, or no place at all. It must be every
thing or nothing. On the other hand, historical facts must
necessarily remain on a lower level of certainty than the
truths of science. The reason of the certainty attainable
in science is that experiments admit of repetition, and that
any intelligent man may put himself in as good a position
to ascertain any truth as the original discoverer of it. The
facts, the experiments, the calculations by which Newton
established the law of gravitation are open to be examined
and tested by any one of us as much as by Newton. We
can appreciate the enormous difference it would make to
the unanimity with which the Newtonian account of the
heavenly bodies is received if the truth of it rested upon a
few transitory events that were known to Sir Isaac Newton
�6
The Blasphemy Laws:
and half a dozen Fellows of Colleges, and were of such a
character that they could never occur again. The truth of
Christianity, to take one illustration, depends upon a series
of events that are alleged to have occurred nearly two
thousand years ago in an outlying portion of the Roman
Empire. These events may be proved to the satisfaction of
individual minds, but they cannot be repeated so that a
doubter may have evidence at first hand; and we cannot feel
surprise that the unanimity that is attained in science should
be very far indeed from being attained in religion.
But after all it is only a few that can spare the time, or
feel themselves qualified, to examine for themselves the
grounds upon which the credibility of historical Christianity
depends. To all of us, in our early years, and to the
enormous majority always, our confidence in Christianity
must depend, not upon proof, but upon authority ; that is,
upon assertion, upon the assertion of persons whom we
have been taught to respect. Thus it comes to pass that
in a community where any form of religion occupies the
highest place in general reverence, the belief of almost the
whole population rests upon assertion, and not upon reason
or evidence. When a believer is then confronted for the
first time with a serious denial of his opinions, he experi
ences a painful and mortifying sensation. What he regards
as truths of infinite importance are assailed, and he is con
scious of a total inability to deal with the arguments by
which they are assailed. He is exposed to the eventual
perils and present torture of doubt. A state of doubt is
distressing in proportion to the importance of the matters in
question, and to the difficulties in the way of restoring calm
and confidence. If man were a being governed by pure
reason he would, under those circumstances, adopt one of
two courses. He would either stop his ears and eyes, and
resolutely turn aside from those who attacked his peace of
mind, or he would follow the alternative and manly course
of examining the evidence for himself, and thus rising from
the lower level of unintelligent belief to the higher platform
of intelligent belief, or else of discarding the ideas instilled
into his youthful mind. But there is a third course, involving
less exercise of self-denial, which has been more generally
pursued, and peace has too often been obtained by turning
�Should they be Abolishedf
?
’
7
round on the person that has disturbed our repose, and
treating him as a malefactor of the worst species. When
the grounds of deeply-cherished beliefs are assailed, man
usually follows the baser course dictated by sloth and vanity,
and seeks peace for his agitated mind, not in the pursuit of
truth, but in the punishment of those who have roused him
from intellectual torpor. If, however, there were nothing
more, intolerance would not lead to much harm beyond an
explosion of bad temper. Other motives are at work.
There is a natural affinity between the baser passions of
human nature, and intolerance soon associates itself with
deadlier allies. With what grim humour does the apostle
relate the instructive episode of the silversmith of Ephesus? .
Demetrius did a good trade in images of Diana, and when
the early Christians laboured, not without success, to expose
the gods and goddesses to ridicule and contempt, with what
virtuous zeal did the pious silversmith lead the mob to the
cry of “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians !” Lord Coleridge,
in his summing up in Foote’s case, suggested that a law of
blasphemy might possibly be defended as a means of pro
tection to freethinkers from lynch law, and he referred to
the mob that burned Dr. Priestley’s house in Birmingham.
Before, however, we censure the mob we ought to know
what was the character of the sermons preached in the
Birmingham pulpits during the months that preceded the
outrage. Possibly an inquiry of that nature might lead us
to a more excellent way of protecting freethinkers than the
choice between imprisonment or mob violence.
In a.d. 325 the Emperor Constantine formally proclaimed
Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In
the century following an incredible number of statutes was
passed, punishing not merely pagans and Jews, and others
who were not Christians, but prosecuting even Christians
themselves if they departed by a hair’s breadth from the
dogmas of the particular section of the Christians that had
the ear of the imperial throne. The crimes of the Roman
Catholic Church against the intellect of man form one of
the blackest pages in the history of the world. The Pro
testants at first were no better than the Catholics. Until
the year 1677 it was a crime punishable with death to deny
or dispute the doctrin.es of the Church of England; but the
�8
The Blasphemy Laws:
long struggle that ended in the triumph of William ol
Orange convinced even the members of the Church of
England that the Dissenters were too powerful to be
attacked with the clumsy weapons of the criminal law.
Peace was accordingly established on the terms that the
Church should have liberty to persecute the weaker sects.
The reign of William III. is stained by an infamous statute*
imposing three years’ imprisonment, and the forfeiture of all
civil rights upon those who should deny the doctrine of the
Trinity, or the truths of the Christian religion, or the divinej
authority of the Bible. By an accident the statute seems
to have been wholly inoperative. With the intention probl
ably of saving the Jews, the statute applied only to thosd
persons who had been educated in or made a profession
of the Christian religion; and the difficulty of proving
this has thrown persecutors back upon the common law
of blasphemy. It was not until 1813 that the statute was
so far repealed as to permit a denial of the Trinity, and
thus exclude Unitarian Christians from the operation of
the criminal law.
It will not have escaped observation that the statute law is
based upon the naked doctrine of persecution. The mere
denial of the Christian religion, however honest the opponent,
and however respectful his mode of address, is in itself a
crime. That statute remains to this day unrepealed.
The prosecutions, however, that have taken place since
the reign of William III. have been instituted under thcr*
common law. By common law is meant the invention of
law by the judges without any warrant from the legislature!
The name of the common law offence is significant. It is
not Heresy, but Blasphemy. All blasphemy is heresy, but
all heresy is not blasphemy. Looking at the question
historically, I think there can be little doubt that the judges
who invented the law of blasphemy meant to distinguish
between heresy and blasphemy, and to punish merely those
who denied the Christian religion as a whole, and not those
who professing to be Christians entertained heterodox
opinions in regard to some doctrines; but of late years
a tendency has been exhibited to interpret blasphemy in a
different sense, so as to avoid the unpopularity of making
* Appendix, p. 20.
�Should they be Abolished?
9
dissent from religion a crime. This tendency culminated in
the charge of Lord Coleridge to the jury in Foote’s case,
and a discussion on the propriety of abolishing the blas
phemy laws, to be of any use, must proceed on the defini
tion of the common law offence, which his lordship sub
mitted to the jury. Lord Coleridge did not put forth any
definition of his own, but adopted, and lent his high judicial
authority to, the definition contained in Starkie on Libel.
The passage in Mr. Starkie’s work becomes of great im
portance, and is here given at length :
“There are no questions of more intense and awful
interest than those which concern the relations between the
Creator and the beings of His creation j and though, as a
matter of discretion and prudence, it might be better to
leave the discussion of such matters to those who, from
their education and habits, are most likely to form correct
conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted that any man has a
right, not merely to judge for himself on such subjects, but
also, legally speaking, to publish his opinions for the benefit
of others. When learned and acute men enter upon these
discussions with such laudable motives their very contro
versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily
be mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general
tend to the advancement of truth, and the establishment of
religion on the firmest and most stable foundations. The
very absurdity and folly of an ignorant man, who professes
to teach and enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so
gross as to render his errors harmless ; but be this as it may,
the law interferes not with his blunders so long as they are
honest ones, justly considering that society is more than com
pensated for the partial and limited mischief which may
arise from the mistaken endeavours of honest ignorance,
by the splendid advantages which result to religion and to
truth from the exertions of free and unfettered minds. It
is the mischievous abuse of this state of intellectual liberty
which calls for penal censure. The law visits not the honest
errors, but the malice of mankind. A wilful intention to
pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of licentious
and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful
misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mislead
the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.
�IO
i
f
\
V
The Blasphemy Laves:
11A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is
equivalent to such an intention, in law as well as morals, a
state of apathy and indifference to the interests of societyj
is the broad boundary between right and wrong.”
According to Mr. Starkie, “ honest error ” is no crime; a
“ wilful intention to mislead and pervert ” is alone criminal.
Mr. Starkie would seem to have overlooked the fact, that if
this be blasphemy, it is a crime that no one but a lunatic
could possibly commit. A dishonest freethinker in a Christian country such as ours is what metaphysicians would call ■
an unthinkable proposition. If Christians were to-day, as
they were in the second century, a small, a poor and a
despised sect, we could understand dishonest attacks upon
their doctrines. If the preachers of Secularism were re
warded with large incomes, with princely palaces, and with
seats in the House of Lords, we may well believe that a dis
honest secularist would be within the bounds of possibility.
But that any man, not being honest, should publicly em
brace the tenets of Secularism, and expose himself to the
worldly losses and social persecution that is the lot of
secularists, is a wild absurdity.
But when Mr. Starkie puts forward “ honesty ” as the
test of innocence, he does not in the least mean it. What
he does mean is this. Whether a man is honest or not
does not matter; the jury or the law must make him
a criminal in two cases. The first is when “ wilful misre
presentation or artful sophistry calculated to mislead the
ignorant and unwary ” is employed. A greater piece of
nonsense never was written. If a secularist lecturer is to
be sent to prison because twelve jurymen, all Christians, and
all ignorant of the elements of Christian evidences, think
that his arguments are sophistical and his statements misre
presentations, it would be more honest and decent to say
that Secularism is a crime, and to proceed under the in
famous statute of William III. To say that “honest
error ” is no crime, but it is a crime if a jury don’t agree
with your arguments, is to give justice with one hand and to
take it away with the other.
The second case where “ honest error ” is to be turned
into a crime is where contumelious abuse is applied to
sacred subjects. At length we touch something like solid
�Should they be A bolished ?
11
ground. All that Mr. Starkie writes about 11 honest error,”
“ malicious intention,” is mere rhetorical bombast. What
he means apparently is that blasphemy does not consist in
the mere denial of Christianity, so long, as Lord Coleridge
puts it, as the decencies of controversy are observed. The
crime of blasphemy, if we may invoke the shade of Aristotle
to elucidate the mystery, consists, not in the matter, but in
the form; not in the denial of Christianity, but in the way
of doing it. The question is whether the law of blasphemy
thus understood is consistent with free discussion of re
ligion, or whether it is not in the nature of a clever trap,
warranted as good as the statute of William, to catch
heretics.
Let us see how such a law works in practice. Mr. Foote
was convicted, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, not
for being a freethinker, but for violating the decencies of
controversy. But what is or is not consistent with the
decencies of controversy is a matter upon which perfectly
fair and competent men will hold different opinions. Mr.
Foote was tried before three juries. Two of them, one of
these being a special jury, refused to convict. If there was
this difference of opinion among the jurors, it requires but
little charity to suppose that Mr. Foote himself may have
been of opinion that he carefully observed the decencies of
controversy. For this error of judgment, if it be an error,
Mr. Foote receives a severer punishment than if he had
been captain of a ship, and by an error of judgment had
caused the death of hundreds of passengers. Many a man has
beaten his wife to death and escaped with much lighter
punishment. Whence then a sentence of one year’s im
prisonment? The judge did not conceal the motive, and
told the prisoner plainly, if not politely, that it was because
he dedicated his talents to the service of the devil. In
plain English, Mr. Foote was punished for delivering freethought lectures.
Let us consider what sort of political freedom we should
enjoy if the law relating to political debate were modelled
on Mr. Starkie’s law of religious freedom. Let us suppose
that Lord Randolph Churchill is tried, in order to make the
comparison fair, by a jury of pronounced hereditary Radicals,
who have been taught from the time they left their cradles
�12
The Blasphemy Laws:
that Toryism is a horrible creed, and that every Tory either
is or ought to be considered a miscreant. The accusation
is based on one of his lordship’s speeches on what he calls
the Kilmainham Treaty. The judge, if possible a more
bigoted Radical than the jury, informs the jury that honest
political error is not a crime; that the law does not interfere
with the most pronounced political speeches, provided that
the decencies of controversy are observed; that it is law
ful for the defendant to say that Mr. Gladstone is not in
fallible, and in temperate and respectful language even to go
so far as to say that he totally disagrees with the policy of
the Government. All this is lawful; but if the defendant
has employed artful sophistries calculated to mislead the
ignorant and unwary, or has applied contumelious abuse to
Her Majesty’s ministers, then the jury will find him guilty.
Lord Randolph escapes the first jury; but his persecutors
are not done with him, and at length, after several trials, a
jury is found ignorant enough and bigoted enough to find
him guilty. The judge then gives him twelve months’
imprisonment. This is what so many Liberal papers call
freedom of speech.
The first essential of a good law, especially of a criminal
law, is that it should be intelligible. A law is a mere trap
to work injustice if a man cannot tell beforehand whether
he is breaking the law or not, and when he can discover his
offence only when a jury gives a verdict against him. How
can any human being foretell what a jury may or may not
consider to be “the decencies of controversy”? An im
pression has got abroad that Mr. Foote’s case was excep
tional, and that the eminent writers who have published
books hostile to Christianity are free from any danger of
molestation. But if those eminent authors should be pro
secuted they may discover their mistake, and get a year in
Holloway Prison to reflect on the vanity of trying to obey
the law. Lord Coleridge has given them fair warning:
“ With regard to some of the others, passages from whose
writings Mr. Foote read, I heard them yesterday for the first
time. I do not at all question that Mr. Foote read them
correctly. I confess, as I heard them, I had and have a
difficulty in distinguishing them from the alleged libels.
They do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on
�Should they be Abolishedf
13
the same grounds, as Mr. Foote’s writings. He says many
of these things are written in expensive books, published
by publishers of known eminence ; that they are to be found
in the drawing-rooms, studies, and libraries of men of high
position. It may be so. If it be, I will make no distinc
tion between Mr. Foote and anyone else; if there are
men, however eminent, who use such language as Mr. Foote,
and if ever I have to try them, troublesome and disagree
able as it is, if they come before me, they shall, so far as my
powers go, have neither more nor less than the justice I am
trying to do to Mr. Foote.”
The danger of a vague and indefinable law is not dimin
ished when it is applied by a jury. What justice can a
secularist expect from a jury of twelve ignorant and exasper
ated opponents ? If the decencies of controversy are to be
judged of fairly, both sides ought to be heard, and one half
of the jury should consist of secularists. How would a
Protestant lecturer like to be tried by a jury of ignorant
Irish Catholics; or a Catholic lecturer by a jury of Orange
men, the issue being whether they observed the decencies of
controversy in their attacks ? According to this law, the
guilt or innocence of a defendant turns entirely upon the
composition of the jury. If there is even one freethinker
on the jury, there is no danger of a verdict of guilty. But
that profits the prisoner nothing; for the eleven Christians
will stand out for a verdict, and the jury will be discharged.
The prosecutor will try another jury, and so on for a
hundred times, if necessary, until he gets his unanimous
jury of twelve Christians. A secularist can never escape;
for unless he gets a jury wholly composed of secularists he
cannot secure an acquittal, for it must be remembered that
it needs a unanimous jury to acquit as well as unanimity to
convict.
. The decencies of controversy are best observed in those
countries where difference of creed is not exasperated by
the iniquitous use of the criminal law. Freethinkers, in
particular, are bound over by more powerful sanctions to
the observance of those decencies than their orthodox
rivals. A speaker on the popular side does himself no
harm, even if he indulges in the most indecent abuse of his
opponents. But a freethinker cannot get a hearing except
�14
The Blasphemy Laws:
by the most careful style of address. Christianity cannot
be shaken by ridicule. There is only one way by which the
stronghold can be taken. If secularists are to succeed, it
can only be by producing in the minds of sober and
earnest men a conviction that Christianity has no intellectual
basis, and that its foundations rest on sand. If such men
are to be induced even to look at the claims of secularism,
they must be approached in a spirit suitable to the gravity
of the task that is undertaken. From coarse and scurrilous
;> writing no protection is needed; it carries its antidote in
i its sting.
Is a jury, again, a fit tribunal to determine a question of good
taste in religious controversy? To a plain juryman, who is
ignorant of non-Christian and anti-Christian literature, the
mere denial of that which he has been accustomed to regard
with unhesitating reverence as incontestable truth must be in
the highest degree painful, or even horrible. The truth is that,
whatever may be said about decencies of controversy, a
jury of twelve orthodox Christians of the usual unlettered
type would condemn any anti-Christian publication as
blasphemous, if it was written in such plain terms that they
could understand it. No treatise would escape unless it
was so very learned and obscure, or the irony was so fine,
that the twelve plain men did not understand it. What a
task the law throws upon the grocer or baker who is sum
moned as a juror! He is to perform a delicate feat of
mental analysis, and say whether the shock to his system,
from an open denial of his cherished opinions, is due to the
fact of the denial, or to the particular words in which the
denial is expressed. The case of Woolston supplies us
with an illustration in point. Woolston wrote an essay on
miracles, in which with bated breath and apologetic humility
he ventured to say that miracles were not essential to
I Christianity, and were moreover not credible in themselves.
Woolston was a sincere Christian, a man of learning and
piety, a Fellow of Sidney College, Cambridge; but none
the less he was convicted for blasphemy. The fact is that
it is idle to ask a man to distinguish between the matter
and the form of a publication, when the matter is in itself
intensely painful, and can scarcely be aggravated by any
faults oi form. The freedom that a secularist lecturer would
�Should they be Abolished1
?
i5
enjoy under such a law reminds one of the sort of freedom
permitted in one of the petty Republics of ancient Greece.
It was lawful for any man to propose a change in the laws,
and to address the assembled citizens in favour of the
change with all the arguments and eloquence at his com
mand ; but if he failed to convince his audience and carry
the new law, he was to be forthwith put to death. One
might as well pass a law making it lawful to skin eels alive;
but if, in the course of the operation, the operator hurt the
feelings of the eel, he should suffer the utmost severity of
the criminal law.
Let us now try calmly to sum up the results of a pro
secution for blasphemy. First of all, great physical privation
and suffering have been inflicted on Messrs. Foote and
Ramsey. This is an evil to them, and, on the other hand,
is a good to those Christians who harbour feelings of
revenge in their bosom. Perhaps it may be the case that
at relatively no great expense, Messrs. Foote and Ramsey
have been the means of affording a cheap pleasure to a
great number of their fellow-countrymen. But do not these
good people buy their pleasure too»dear? We must credit
them with an honest desire to uphold Christianity; and is
that object likely to be gained by persecuting poor secularist
lecturers ? In the first place, they know well that a system
of religion that cannot maintain itself, except by putting its
opponents in prison, stands self-condemned. The bigot
who persecutes in the criminal courts allows judgment to
go against him by default in the higher court of reason and
conscience. It is idle to say that Mr. Foote is not in prison
because he is a freethought lecturer. When the question
was submitted to a special jury whether he was guilty of
blasphemy in the sense ruled by Lord Coleridge—and it
must be remembered that was the only occasion when the
true issue was fairly put before the jury—the jury could not
agree. And even if Mr. Foote had been fairly convicted
the sentence was a sentence not for blasphemy, but for being
a freethought lecturer, or, as the judge put it, for serving the /
devil. In a short time Mr. Foote will be released. He
will be met at the doors of the prison by a crowd of friends;
he will be carried off to a public entertainment, and receive
in gift a sum perhaps larger than he would have earned if he
�16
The Blasphemy Lazus:
had been engaged in his business. His character suffers no
stain in the eyes of the only people for whose opinion he
can entertain any respect; his influence and popularity as a
freethought lecturer, so far from being diminished, will
increase tenfold; for one man that went to hear him before
a score will go to hear him now. He will be able to ex
patiate on the comparative services of himself and his
persecutor, Sir Henry Tyler, to the world ; he will be able to
draw a powerful picture of the ex-chairman of the Brush
Light Company as the man whom the Christian world loves
to honour. If the career and character of the persecutor
are compared with the career and character of his victim,
Mr. Foote will have an unfailing means of eliciting the
sympathy of his audience. Christianity will suffer badly by
the comparison.
Those who venture to apologize for the blasphemy laws
try to make out that blasphemy is not a spiritual, but a
social offence, and that it consists in wantonly wounding the
feelings of Christians. The short answer to that is, that it
is not true. The offence of blasphemy as the law now stands
is complete without any proof that anybody’s feelings ever
were, or ever were intended to be, hurt. A lecture delivered
to an audience of freethinkers is in law blasphemous, al
though no Christian is present to hear it, and even if no
person would be admitted to the lecture if he were known
to be a Christian. Mere publication, in the legal sense,
constitutes the crime. Suppose a man writing a letter to a
friend makes a joke about the devils that entered into the
swine, and set them running down a steep place into the
sea, that is a publication in the eye of the law, although
the letter should never be seen by Christian eyes.
Mere publication cannot hurt anybody. Before a Chris
tian is able to procure the shock to his feelings that, we are
told, really constitutes blasphemy, it is necessary that he
should procure a copy of the publication and read it. This
is his own voluntary act. The mere publication is inoffen
sive and harmless. The harm and offence arise from the
act of the party who professes to be injured. Now it is a
maxim, not merely of a refined system of jurisprudence,
such as we desire the English law to be, but even of bar
barous systems of law, that no wrong can be done to a man
�Should they be Abolished?
by anything that is done with his own consent. Volenti non
fit injuria. It is quite superfluous for the law to protect us
from injuries that cannot be done without our own wilful
concurrence. A person who chooses to read a blasphemous
publication has nobody but himself to blame. If he does
not want his susceptibilities to be harrowed, he has an easy
and simple remedy in his own hands. Bear in mind that
the sole offence of which Messrs. Foote and Ramsey were
convicted was mere publication, and that, as a matter of
fact, not a single Christian obtained from them a copy of
the Freethinker, even at their own request. The truth is
that few, if any, Christians ever read the publication. It
was a paper written manifestly for non-Christians. The real
reason for the hostility to the publication was, not that it
gave pain to Christians, but that it gave pleasure, or was
supposed to give pleasure, to non-Christians. As Macaulay
says of the Puritans, they objected to bear-baiting, not be
cause it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure
to the spectators.
One of the most surprising things in the discussion to
which recent cases have given rise is, that the Indian Penal
Code should have been quoted in support of the blasphemy
laws. It is with some sense of humiliation that one finds
such an authority invoked. The Government of India has
to control a populace entremely ignorant and very fanatical.
One might be permitted to hope that the measure of re
ligious freedom that was considered safe in India is not to
be taken as indicating the high-water mark of freedom in a
country like ours, that boasts of being free and the great
mother of free nations. But, as a matter of fact, there is
far more religious liberty in India; and we may even go
farther, and say that there is nothing in the Indian Penal
Code to prevent, or even to restrict, the fullest liberty of
speech. There is no section of the Indian Penal Code
under which Mr. Foote could have been indicted. In
India he could edit and publish his Freethinker without
molestation, no man daring to make him afraid. One
blushes to think that there should be less freedom in
religion in this country than is found by experience to be
safe amid the fanatical populations of the East.
The Indian Penal Code contains a chapter on “ Offences
�The Blasphemy Laws:
relating to Religion ” in four sections. The first punishes
the injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to
insult the religion of any class ; the second punishes wilful
disturbance of any assembly lawfully engaged in the per
formance of religious worship or religious ceremonies; and
the third makes it an offence to trespass on a place set apart
for burial or the performance of funeral rites with the inten
tion of insulting the religious feelings of any persons. All
these are very proper regulations.
The fourth section is of wider extent, and must be quoted
in full: “ Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wound
ing the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or
makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes
any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object
in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprison
ment [with or without hard labour] for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Under this section no one can be prosecuted for the mere
publication of any matter, however offensive. It proceeds
upon the distinction I have adverted to, that a person who
voluntarily procures or reads offensive publications has
himself to blame if he is pained.
If, however, a person were to exhibit pictures caricaturing
the objects held sacred by Christians, with the deliberate
intention of wounding their religious feelings, he could be
prosecuted under this section.
Whether the exhibition of such pictures, with a view to
sale in the course of ordinary business, although they might
be in such a position that Christians, if they chose, could
see them, would be a violation of the section, is a question
perhaps open to doubt.
But the section proceeds upon the correct lines. It does
not permit a blow to be directed against religious opponents
under the pretext that they have published blasphemous
libels; while it effectually protects the professors of every
form of religion from personal insult.
Our Blasphemy Laws cannot invoke the assistance of the
Indian Penal Code; on the contrary, the law in India puts
us to shame. These laws, at rare intervals, are employed
to subject some freethought lecturers to serious personal
suffering, and to injure their health by long terms of imprison
�Should they be Abolished 1
19
ment. But they have the consolation of knowing that their
sufferings advance the cause they have at heart more effec
tually than their most eloquent discourses. All that is best
in Christianity revolts from such persecutions, that recall
to mind the indignities and cruelties practised upon the
founders of that religion. These laws are, I believe, con
demned by all good men, whatever their views on religion,
as being, not merely at variance with the principles of
justice, but as a weapon that injures most the hand that
wields it. Is it too much then to hope that the Bill * drafted
by Mr. Justice Stephen, for the total abolition of Blasphemy
Laws, may soon be taken into consideration by the legisla
ture and passed into law, and that this miserable relic of
ancient barbarism be entirely swept away ?
* Appendix, p. 23.
�20
The Blasphemy Laws:
APPENDIX.
I. The Statute Law.
(9 Will. ill. c. 32.)
“An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy
and Profaneness.
“ Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed
and published many blasphemous and impious opinions con
trary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion,
greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and may
prove destructive to the peace and welfare of this kingdom ;
Wherefore, for the more effectual suppressing of the said
detestable crimes, be it enacted by the King’s most excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords
spiritual and temporal, and the commons of this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that if
any person or persons having been educated in, or at anytime
having made profession of, the Christian religion within this
realm shal, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking,
\deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity to be Godp\
or shal assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or
shal deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority, and
shal, upon indictment or information in any of his Majesties
Courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, be thereof lawfully
convicted by the oath of two or more credible witnesses, such
person or persons for the first offence shall be adjudged incap
able and disabled in law to all intents and purposes whatsoever
to have or enjoy any office or offices, imployment or imployments, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, or any part in them, or
any profit or advantage appertaining to them, or any of them.
And if any person or persons so convicted as aforesaid shal at
the time of his or their conviction, enjoy or possess any office,
place, or imployment, such office, place, or imployment shal be
voyd, and is hereby declared void. And if such person or
persons shal be a second time lawfully convicted, as aforesaid,
* Repealed 53 Geo. III. c. 160.
�Should they be Abolished1
?
21
of all or any the aforesaid crime or crimes that then he or they
ihal from thenceforth be disabled to sue, prosecute, plead, or
use any action or information in any court of law or equity, or
to be guardian of any child, or executor or administrator of any
person, or capable of any legacie or deed of gift, or to bear any
office, civil or military, or benefice ecclesiastical for ever within
this realm, and shall also suffer imprisonment for the space of
three years, without bail or mainprize from the time of such
conviction.
“ Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority afore
said, that no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for
any words spoken, unless the information of such words shal
be given upon oath before one or more justice or justices of the
peace within four days after such words spoken, and the prose
cution of such offence be within three months after such
information.
“ Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that any person or persons convicted of all, or any, of the
aforesaid crime or crimes in manner aforesaid, shal, for the first
offence (upon his, her, or their acknowledgment and renuncia
tion of such offence, or erronious opinions, in the same court
where such person or persons was or were convicted, as afore
said, within the space of four months after his, her, or their
conviction) be discharged from all penalties and disabilities
incurred by such conviction, anything in this Act contained to
the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”
Depraving, despising, or reviling the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper is a misdemeanour, (i Edw. VI. c. I § I; 14 Car.
II. c. 4 § 20.)
It is also a misdemeanour to say anything in derogation or
despising of the Book of Common Prayer. (1 Eliz. c. 2 § 3 ;
14 Car. II. c. 4 § 20.)
It is not known that any prosecution has ever taken
place under the statute of William III.; but no public
record is kept of such prosecutions, and we cannot therefore
say that the statute has been a dead letter.
�22
The Blasphemy Laws:
II. Ecclesiastical Law.
At the present day any person, whether Christian or Tew
may be proceeded against criminally in the Ecclesiastical
Courts “m cases of Atheism, blasphemy, heresy or schism
and other damnable doctrines or opinions, and they may
proceed to punish the crime according to his Majesty’s
ecclesiastical laws, by excommunication, deprivation, de
gradation, and other ecclesiastical censures not extending
to death.
A person convicted of heresy is liable to im
prisonment for not more than six months. The jurisdiction
th-r Ecclesiastical Courts is subject to this qualification,
that if the offence is punishable in the ordinary courts, it is
not a matter of ecclesiastical cognisance. But this is a’poor
consolation; for the ordinary courts have power to inflict a
much longei sentence of imprisonment. Special interest
attaches to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in view of the more
liberal statement of the common law recently made by the
Lord Chief Justice of England. Whatever is cut out of
the common law thereby at once falls under the Ecclesiastical
Courts, and the liberality of the ordinary tribunals is thus
effectually checkmated.
Let it not be said that no one would dare in the present
day to bring forth the rusty weapons of ecclesiastical censure.
Recent experience warns us that we are never safe so long
as a bad law exists. At any moment some malicious fool
may set the law in motion.
�&
Shotild they be Abolished?
\
23
III. Draft Bill.
n
■
“ Whereas certain laws now in force and intended for the
promotion of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose,
and it is expedient to repeal them,
Be it enacted as follows :
“ 1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings
shall be instituted in any Court whatever, against any person
whatever, for atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous
libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings insti
tuted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the Church
of England.
“2. An Act passed in the 1st year of his late Majesty King
Edward VI., c. 1, intituled‘An Act against such as shall unreverently speak against the Sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and for
the receiving thereof in both kinds,’ and an Act passed in the
9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35,
intituled ‘An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blas
phemy and profaneness,’ are hereby repealed.
“ 3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the 19th year of his
late Majesty King George II., c. 21, intituled ‘An Act more
effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,’ or any other
provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby expressly
repealed.”
II?
K<
f
r
>
■i
■ S
/
a
��
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
Blasphemy laws ; should they be abolished?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hunter, W.A.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Plymouth
Collation: 23 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Officer. 63 Fleet Street, E.C., A. Bonner, Manager. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Association for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N317
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 (Blasphemy laws ; should they 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-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37ab40553814e38a03936b8ebca8d874.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=H5p8sjaXuYuBGNcjN97UHoMesMPcgbHJkHWX3eLnWv0Ab2JSJ7RTkEoONLhOSzAakO0i8H%7EAlWOKvY4%7EsIvgeF7yAYuPbIwbUchlim7U-9AdJttyZ7R1AdP8Mrl%7ES2v1KgKYq2x7gFzUj42Phr0W%7Ess3o2iXeNG43QqXyJK91SVqt-Q4gJNMLSQhL%7EZBvq1CHe8OgEFocQt5qISqmZhImqait4j0eqz5b54H4B0wjTVd7o4s8wbayLVZ2zTS1hLS34SWdLWNNGLpknW2RNXE57zR3eHjf0ffvXSh1jk9tuB9gkJMFScFPK57VLc2%7E5obvRRh0aUMmcQMjs1gawX6xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e5a1454a8e1fe1f676e5064718ff2e5b
PDF Text
Text
& *■s ' '
NATIONAL SECULAR society
PLAIN REASONS'
WHY PROSECUTION FOR BLASPHEMY
SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
THE SUBSTANCE OF A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE WOOD GREEN
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATING SOCIETY.
BY
W.
AI.WVLJLi.
“ Thus, then, judge-made hut hy judges doubted of, like some monstrous fossil
concerning which the geologists do wrangle, stands or sprawls our law of blas
phemy. How much longer shall it so stand or sprawl?”
LONDON
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY.,
63,
FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1884.
PRICE TWOPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�Plain Reasons why Prosecution for Blas
phemy should be abolished.
I.—The Obsourity of the Blasphemy Laws.
Writing on this subject in the Fortnightly Review,
Mr. John Macdonell says :—
“ The law has not been uniformly laid down; it has been
changed, not once only, but often, not by one judge, but by
several; it has been made the voice of the morality, and also
of the passions and prejudices, of the hour; and the history of
this law lies in the nature of these fluctuations.”
The truth of this statement may be made sufficiently
clear, by a consideration of the alternative definitions
of the offence given by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
in his “ Digest of the Criminal Law ; ” of the conflict
ing statements of Judge North in the two trials of
Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp ; of the still more striking
disagreement between these and the law as laid down
by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in his charge to the
jury in the case of Regina v. Charles Bradlaugh ; of
the opinions advanced by various eminent authorities
(Dr. Blake Odgers in his “ Law of Slander and Libel,”
his article in the Modern Review, and his paper read
before the Social Science Congress ; Emeritus Profes
sor Hunter; the able author of the article on Blasphemy
�4
in the Westminster Review for July, 1883 ; the writeij
in the Fortnightly, quoted above, etc., etc.) ; and of the
utter impossibility of reconciling the judgments de
livered in the various trials which have taken place
during this century, and which constitute the founda
tion of the Common Law of England as regards Blas
phemy at the present time. The framing of an exact
legal definition of Blasphemy has become, in fact, a
problem of a most difficult kind, if indeed it be not an
utterly hopeless task. Sir James Stephen’s opinion,
that the Blasphemy inheres in the matter, and not
merely in the manner of the libel, is at striking vari
ance with several authorities almost as eminent. The
prevailing voice in the preseht decade, declares the
penal part of the offence to lie in the manner. Loud
profession is made of indisposition to punish honest
expression of opinion, however opposed to religious
dogma, so long as ridicule is not used ; but John Stuart
Mill, the foremost logician of the age, says : “ The
line between argument and reviling is too difficult for
even legal acuteness to draw.” It is strongly urged in
some quarters, notably by Dr. Odgers, that “ our re
ligious emotions” demand protection from the law.
But why religious opinion more than other opinion
needs protection is difficult to see. It would seem that
Dean Cockburn may grossly insult Mary Somerville by
name from the pulpit of York Minster, on account of
her teachings in physical science, and that the clergy
may roundly abuse Darwin from their coward’s castle ;
but dogmatic theology must have police protection.
Another view of the case upholds the existing con
dition of the law, because of blasphemous libels incit
�5
ing to breaches of the peace ; but surely disturbers of
the peace can be summarily dealt with without our
hearing of blasphemy ! It is a mere matter of opinion,
at the present time, whether Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp
were sent to prison because of the opinions they held
honestly upon religious matters, because they ridiculed
religious opinion, because their publication was vulgar
to cultured tastes, because their newspaper had irritated
the spleen of Sir Henry Tyler, or because they fell the
victims of a blow aimed at the junior member for
Northampton. It looks to me a gross outrage to im
prison peaceable citizens ostensibly under a law which
exists in a state of such inexplicable confusion.
II.—The Danger of their Vindictive Appli
cation.
The recent prosecutions were not called for by any
religious organisation. They were notoriously insti
gated by known political and bitter enemies.1 They
took place in the very hot-bed of corruption. Lying
misrepresentations and suggestions of lascivious inde
cency were put forth by a counsel known to be an
unscrupulous personal hater of the accused most
This statement has since been well corroborated by the editor of
St. Stephen's ■Review (the new first-class Conservative publication),
who expressly admits that the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh for
blasphemy was commenced because certain Conservative members
believed “that Mr. Bradlaugh could, by a conviction for blasphemy,
be disqualified from sitting as a member, and so completely got rid
of,” and, the editor adds, “ proceedings were taken accordingly.”
�6
sought to be injured by the prosecutions. The judge,
known to have strong feelings of his own towards
persons such as the accused, acted more the part of
prosecuting counsel than that of an impartial person
presiding over a trial at law; made it extremely diffi
cult for one of the accused to speak in his own defence
with the freedom and latitude usually allowed in such
cases ; roughly refused bail when the first jury re
fused to convict, although all the defendants had been
given bail on commitment; and, having made a
change in his laying down of the law, and the second
jury having convicted, he passed a sentence which has
been almost universally condemned as grossly exces
sive. It is impossible to say whether his almost im
mediate removal from the trial of criminal cases
was owing to an opinion on the part of the Govern
ment of his unfitness. As in older time personal
spleen could be easily sated by trumped-up charges of
witchcraft, so in this last quarter of the nineteenth
century the country has witnessed an iniquitous and
hypocritical prosecution, under laws thought to be
obsolete, result in the imprisonment for excessive
terms of three law-abiding citizens.
Blasphemy is just one of those indistinct offences
which are peculiarly liable to the danger of being used
by unscrupulous people to wreak vengeance upon a
foe not otherwise to be reached—“a weapon,” says
Emeritus Professor Hunter, “always ready to the hand
of mischievous fools or designing knaves.”
The transparently hypocritical character of the pro
secution of Foote has excited the almost universal
reprobation of persons whose piety is undoubted, and
�7
whojremember the rebuke which Jesus Christ gave to
his followers when they wished fire to be called down
from heaven upon his enemies.
III.—Their Unequal Application
In the first 'trial of Messrs. Foote, Ramsey and Kemp,
Mr. Justice North said: “Now, if by writing or
verbally, anyone denies the existence of the deity, or
denies the providence of God, if he puts forward any
abuse, or contumely, or reproach, with respect to the
Almighty, or holds up the persons of the trinity,
whether it is our Savior Christ or anyone else, to con
tempt or derision; or ridicules the persons of the
trinity, or God Almighty, or the Christian religion, or
the Holy Scriptures in any way—that is what the law
considers to be blasphemy.” After the jury had re
fused to convict under the law as thus laid down, Mr.
Justice North gave a new law, and said : " What you
have to consider is, is there any contumelious reproach,
or profane scoffing against the Holy Scriptures, or
anything exposing the Holy Scriptures to ridicule,
-contempt, or derision ? ” Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp
were immured in gaol under one of these interpre
tations of the law. Then why is not the publication
of the works of Byron, Shelley, Swinburne, Froude,
Matthew Arnold, Huxley, John Morley, Bishop Colenso, Herbert Spencer, and a galaxy of other stars
made the subject of prosecution ? There can only be
one logical answer to this question : If the recent pro
secutions were just these others ought to follow. For
�8
if these writers have not “ exposed the Holy Scriptures
to ridicule, contempt, and derision,” words have no
meaning. Mr. Justice North did not say to the jury :
“ What you have to consider is, Is there any vulgarity
in the defendants’ journal, any pandering to the tastes
of vulgar people ? ” If he had said this the miscarriage
of law would have been too patent. Yet the charge
most commonly heard against these men from people
who profess to tolerate free discussion is that their
caricatures were indecent and vulgar. It is usually
explained that by the word “ indecent ” is not meant
anything obscene, but only something vulgar. It is
perhaps an awkward alternative to have to choose be
tween saying that Foote is imprisoned for vulgarity,
and so admitting that the actual charge against him
was a false and hypocritical one ; and admitting that
he is imprisoned for an offence of which all our best
and most popular writers are guilty. If the feeling of
poor people that one law exists for them and another
for the rich ever had justification, it has it in the fact
that a publication purchased by them to the number
of tens of thousands, a publication uttering only in
plainer words what the best literature of the day con3
tains, a publication not immoral or inciting to
breaches of the peace, has been prosecuted, and its
conductors degraded to the punishment of common
felons. So
“ Great men may jest with saints ; ’tis wit in them,
But in the less, foul profanation.”
�9.
IV. —The Charge of Blasphemy is
Anachronism.
Blasphemy is a survival, and is hardly heard of in
police courts once in a generation. Much more fre
quently magistrates have to hear cases where witchery
is alleged. Mr. Justice North attributed Mr. Foote’s
perversity to the direct inspiration of “ the devil,” and
an old woman, a few days ago, pricked another on the
ear with a needle to remove the charm of her witch
craft. These are survivals, and they are interesting as
pictures of past times, in which, as Lord Chief Justice
Coleridge remarked, “ happily we do not live.” But
when these things are made use of to obtain the unjust
imprisonment of honest men, when they are made use
of to wreak vengeance for the telling of unpalatable
truths, their interest is of a different character. A sur
vival and an anachronism, however, blasphemy is.
It comes down to these times from the age when a
magnificent woman was torn alive on a Christian altar
in Alexandria, through centuries whose deeds have
blackened Christian history, and ought to make the
modern emulators of the old defenders of the faith
slink silently into the shade.
V.—It is a Priest-made Offence.
Soon after Christianity was adopted as the religion
of the Roman Empire, the laws were so adjusted as to
favor priestly aggrandisement and the protection of
priests from civil and criminal responsibility. The
�I
degree of insolence reached by the priesthood is so
well known that’it need not be described. Occasional
outbursts of it [in our times show the height to which
it once reached. Even Dr. Vaughan, the Dean of
Llandaff and Master of the Temple, had the courage to
move for the dismissal of the Professor of Chemistry
at the University College of South Wales because of
his supposed ympathy with Secularism. This priestly
arrogance, which^devised the writ de fieretico Gomburendo, invented the offence of blasphemy. Without
priests we should have had no blasphemy. This is at
least prima facie cause for suspecting the justice of
prosecutions for^the so-called offence. Most of what
the Church has devised in the past is being gradually
got rid of, and although its riches are held for the
moment, recentjstatistics show that only about twelve
per cent, of the whole population sufficiently respects
the priesthood as to be regular attendants on their
ministrations.
VI. — To Apply the Obsolete Laws of Blas
phemy is Insulting to the Intelligence
of the Age.
What would be thought of a judge who, sitting in
a High Court of Justice, should to-day reiterate as his
own opinion the words of that upright judge, Sir
Matthew Hale, who said : “ That there were such
creatures as witches he made no doubt at all, for the
Scriptures had affirmed so much.” He could not be
�11
tolerated. Yet such an anachronism, and so plain a
remnant of ecclesiastical arrogance as Blasphemy, is
allowed to be so used as to enable a subject of personal
pique to obtain the imprisonment of three law-abiding
citizens ! At a time when the intellect of the country
is agnostic, it is possible to imprison a man of Mr.
Foote’s ability upon a charge which has no meaning,
or which, at least, is interpreted by seven legal authori
ties in seven different ways. Whether Foote be im
prisoned for daring to deny priest-made dogma ; or for
ridiculing religious beliefs held by few rational people;
or only because a judge could be found to apply an
obsolete law in a prosecution started by a Sir Henry
Tyler ; his imprisonment is an insult to modern intel
ligence. No punishment would be meted out to one
who should ridicule the myth of Leda and Jupiter
(which needs no ridicule) ; yet if the immaculate con
ception and the hypostatic union be ridiculed, some
body’s feelings are to be understood as hurt, and the
author must be sent to jail. How, pray, are these dog
mas to be met, if not with laughter ? When the
Jewish and Christian literature have taken their proper
place in popular estimation, their stories will be no
more ridiculed than the story of Leda or the story of
Perseus.
VII.—Liberty is made a Sham.
While the spirit of the age is against these prosecu
tions ; while the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, in his place in the House of Commons,
�12
deprecates them; while the Lord Chief Justice of
England disapproves them; while Sir James Fitzjames
Stephen expresses himself adversely to them ; it ap
pears to be possible to an enemy to sate his spite by
initiating such a prosecution, for a judge to order a
second trial immediately upon the failure of a first,
and for three fellow-citizens to be shut up in prison as
common offenders for exercising freedom of speech.
It seems to be necessary to obtain some express legis
lation, while the present Common Law regarding
blasphemy exists, to prevent people being sent to gaol
for an offence, the exact nature of which no one is
able to satisfactorily define. We have been accus
tomed to boast of our national freedom, of the freedom
of our press, of the freedom of our platforms, of the
freedom of our opinion. It is true we have been
warned of the existence of these blasphemy laws, but
the warning was unheeded—no one believed it pos
sible that another prosecution could take place. In a
moment of unwatchfulness, however, bigotry and hy
pocrisy stole a march, and three men were insulted
from the bench and handed over to the jailer under
the obsolete law.
VIII.—Such Prosecutions fail of their object.
u
Richard Carlile spent nine years in prison, his wife,
'daughter, and shopman likewise were put into gaol for
a publication which is now sold freely without per
secution. Shelley’s “ Queen Mab ” was prosecuted,
and found to be a blasphemous libel, yet the people
�13
who are understood to favor the perpetuation of bias
phemy as an offence, buy freely and read that splendid
composition. The works of Thomas Paine have been
prosecuted more than once, but they are sold with
impunity by every bookseller. Moreover,
IX.—The Real Blasphemers are not interfered
with.
These are such as he whom I heard a few weeks ago
in a Wood Green pulpit, during a prayer, complimenting
the Almighty upon his good intentions, and sympa
thising with him on account of the difficulties which
unbelieving men throw in his way. Lord Brougham
declared that blasphemy is an offence that can be com
mitted only by a believer in the existence of the deity
blasphemed. The real blasphemers are those who
pretend to the same intimacy with their deity as with
the man who lives in the next house; those who
credit their god with ordering or approving the atroci
ties committed by the ancient Jews ; and those who,
believing that a personal god exists, who is the author
and controller of all things, think unworthy thoughts
of his character. They are real blasphemers who
blaspheme their god by degrading thoughts, and
blaspheme man by acts of injustice, of tyranny, of
hypocrisy.
�14
X.—Magna est Veritas.
It is not truth which needs the police. It is a super
stition owning great wealth, and which writhes beneath
a criticism destined to deprive it of the unjust pos
session of its riches, which requires the aid of a silly
law to silence its foes. A faith which cannot with
stand the most severe criticism, which is open to ridi
cule and yet cannot bear it, is a faith unworthy of pro
tection by English law. No more hollow and worth
less plea was ever put forward than the plea for the
shielding of religious feeling by the magistrate. Scien
tific men do not stoop to ask such protection from the
police against satirical journalists. Martin Tupper
does not descend to crave the protection of the law
against the ridicule which his proverbial philosophy
has had to encounter. Ridicule is a potent weapon
against all kinds of shams, and all kinds of eccentrici
ties, but it cannot pierce the armor of truth, nor harm
one hair of the just. Truth is mighty, and will
prevail
�-eccj hr/' ■
vIKp a j'
.
-ifch
-
-dej ?.--'v. ■:'.
.?*x£3, i ■•?■..... ■•
-’ML’ _•• .
hfc
■
i
��
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
Plain reasons why prosecution for blasphemy should be abolished : the substance of a speech delivered in the Wood Green Parliamentary Debating Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawer, W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N481
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 (Plain reasons why prosecution for blasphemy should be abolished : the substance of a speech delivered in the Wood Green Parliamentary Debating Society), 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-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b22d3950b975f037595fdcdb398e37ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v9ikRTi4ChdxjO4UZ1vzOPKugCRwKh534VaM5jqSS2U27P9I7hH0jpdj5zbopEURowSV2Dzc4FzHapf3cSpTPd-PNGGOYBGze%7E1B9YKyZbjlc7%7EUaPrHuSkP%7EiuhBbAZ7MWyNyfK5WCcnccQb1eV1w4bbAkSrJ8REXSKE3sKztTkI-V8tSj--Mxre1u16pKcmS7Z3QDZYm-6NUWYm5ds2D8-nZfHLNoX08rWd%7EHs9sL6gAdVZukUKX7c1YDxm1MqnvyD80%7Erbg%7E6U3GghAn2mLAJbpG9kAVXyXu6FLxdHiGnzMGHcZc4Bh36zKdnwS8IprPu1hNVOJBFv9ZyPDghpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d33eba880e163ea77a022c677b861a45
PDF Text
Text
62-03
HATIONALSECUEARSOCffiTY
Michael Servetus.
A DISCOURSE SUGGESTED BY THE
* BLASPHEMY
PROSECUTION
OF
1883,
• ♦
. Delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne,
It
7
;
BY THE
REV. HERBERT V. MILLS.
--------- o----------
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
o-
COLNE:
R. Hyde & Sons’, “Times” Office’, Exchange-street.
i
�©ruth be silent because torn* fnrtons/'
YOUNG.
. *W '
\ ■ r >»,
i .^1 .?-l M ?L i i
-/
- /
�MICHAEL SERVETUS.
AM sorry that in taking up the life of Michael Servetus I am
perforce obliged to express my opinion of John Calvin. Many
of my fellow-townsmen have been led to regard John Calvin as a
source of credit to tli& Christian Church; they are looking up to him
with that peculiar reverence given by the Catholic Church to some
of the saints. Hero-worship is an attitude of the mind which
ought not to be rudely handled. It ennobles far more than it
debases : for when a hero is truly worshipped his vices are reverently
forgotten, and only the nobler traits in his character and career are
remembered. And I am sure it is so in the case of John Calvin. If
therefore, I am compelled to-night to dwell upon foul traces of per
secution which stain his history, I would not have the Calvinists of
this town believe that I charge them with admiring the qualities
which I here denounce; nor would I have them imagine that I find
nothing in Calvin wort hy of regard.
I
The attitude of Calvin towards Servetu!s is a fitting subject for
meditation at this present time, because the imaginary crime of
blasphemy was that which gave rise to the persecution of Servetus
and his final martyrdom- I have called it an imaginary crime: I
believe it to be as impossible and as absurd as the charge of witch
craft. To stigmatise as a blasphemer every man who opposes the
established and popular religion of the day, is to make the chief
merit of all great lives, blasphemy. If this is blasphemy, then
Christ was chief amongst blasphemers. Martin Luther and John
Wesley were opponents of established religions, and were hence in the
strictest legal sense, blasphemers. It is well known to you that
efforts are now being made to secure the repeal of the Blasphemy
Laws. For many years past they have been regarded as quite
obsolete, and have consequently been allowed to remain on the
Statute Book without molestation. But it has suddenly been shewn
that the penalties under the Blasphemy Laws are still applicable to
English men and English women of this generation. They have
this year been imposed upon three men found guilty of the charge.
Now it is of no consequence to us to know the details of any othei’
offences of which these three men may or may not have been guilty
�4
Theii* charge is “ blasphemy,” their imprisonment is for “blasphemy.”
That, and nothing else. .And if we take anything else into consider
ation we shall forget our duty.
Suppose that some man guilty of theft was tried in court upon
an indictment charging him with teetotalism, and that he were
sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for being a teetotaller,
how would the total abstainers rise up in indignation! There are
people no doubt who would say, “ Oh, never trouble about it. If he
had not been imprisoned for this he would have been imprisoned for
his theft; it is all the same.” “ But,” you retort, “ total abstinence
is a virtue; his conviction as it now stands is an insult to us;
so long as he is suffering for a virtuous thing he is a martyr and not
a convict, and we object to have a thief posing as a martyr on our
account.” All this, and much more would be said by these indignant
temperance people. And they would be right. Their best interests
would be at stake.
But in addition to the strong feelings which would naturally be
excited in the circumstance I have suggested, there is, in the real
case, another stimulating feature : there is the hearty detestation
which all liberal men feel, of the very name of the offence called
blasphemy. It is a word which suggests inhumanity and cruelty of
the most revolting nature. Its historical associations within the
past three hundred years are almost enough to make any man
ashamed of the human race. When I look back to the year 1619
and find a crowd of fiendish Hollanders beheading the grand-pen
sionary Barneveldt at the age of seventy-two, “ for having,” says
his sentence, “ used his uttermost endeavours to vex the Church of
God,’1 I do not marvel at the indignation which has been recently
called forth. The indictment against Barneveldt is a literal rendering
of the offence which has procured the imprisonment of the three
Freethinkers.
I regard it therefore, as a spirit of Christian 'patriotism which
is now urging men to do their utmost to obliterate from the statutes
of our time these Blasphemy Laws. They are utterly incompatible
with Christ’s religion. I cannot imagine any man pleading for the
retention of these laws, if he had learnt the lesson of doing unto
others as he would have them do to him. The advocate of these
ancient laws practically says to his fellowbeings—“ Thou shalt believe
�as I beTievdi^v enithough thou canst not, or I will bind thee to do
one of two things, -either to maintain eternal silence, or to speak
always falsely and to act hypocrisy.” It is manifest that such an
attitude is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the lessons of
Christ. But I regret to acknowledge that it is in complete accord
ance with the attitude hitherto taken by the majority of those who
have'called themselves Christians.
There never was a leader so belied by his followers as Christ,
^he late Emperor of China once said—“ I notice that wherever
Christians go, they whiten the soil with human bones ; and I there
fore will not have Christianity in my empire.” What an impeachment
of the Christians ! and how miserably, disgracefully true it is ! He
gave us a gospel of peace and forgiveness. “ Wherever Christians go
they whiten the soil with hitman bones." How faithless have the
Christians been ! He gave us a gospel of love. “ Wherever Christian s
go they whiten the soil with human bones.” How cruelly have the
Christians crucified their Lord ! How have they slighted and spurned
him who said—“ If ye love me keep my commandments ! ” Christi
anity is a gospel of liberty, a gospel of toleration, a gospel of faith
in the Truth—for the Truth’s sake. And yet we enforce a law against
what is called “ blasphemy ” in the year 1883, and thousands of
professing^Christians are'exulting over the severity of the penalties.
What an exposure of^their faithlessness !
We have therefore to learn a lesson for the hour from the
martyrdom of Servetus. Whilst we are reflecting upon the ignorance,
the bigotry, and the unchristian intolerance of that sixteenth century
which gave Servetus bitter scorn in return for love and faithful
service, whilst we regard it as a spirit hostile to the mission of
Christ, let us not for a mement lose sight of the fact that it is a
spiritual disease prevalent to-day amongst many who claim to be his
followers.
Servetus was a’physician and a literary man; and he was eminent
in both departments. He was author of many books upon religious,
geographical, and^physiological subjects. He edited a folio edition
of Pagninus’s J,Bible. He lived contemporaneously with Luther,
Melancthon, and_John Calvin. Being a man of original mind and
honest intentions, he resolved to examine scrupulously all matters
that fell in his way, and, he naturally took up a position in both
�science and religion which was opposed to the notions then current.
It has been claimed on his account that he discovered the circiilaipM
of the blood. A great part of the credit of this discovery is beyond)
doubt due to him. It is now conceded that he was the first to expound
the true way in which the blood passes from the right side of the
heart through the lungs to the left side. But although this explan
ation was published by Servetus in 1553, Harvey has been credited
with the whole discovery, who was not born until 1568. I suppose
the exact tiuth is that both men were eminently deserving of grati
tude for their devotion to physiological science, and for the light
which they were able to throw upon this particular branch of it. I
may add, however, in passing, that the circulation of the blood was
never definitely proved even in Harvey's time. No one at that
time was able to show how the blood passed from the final branching
of the arteries into the final branching of the veins. The literal
proof, which consisted in the exhibition of the capillary tubes, was
reserved for Malpighi’s microscope. The account of the discoveries
of Servetus upon this subject, is contained in his book entitled
“ Christianismi Bestitutio,” or the restoration of Christianity. This
book was so bitterly hated by the people, and was greeted with such
craven fear by the learned, that Calvin seized upon it as a pretext for
causing Servetus to be apprehended and cast into prison on a charge
of heresy.
Calvin has denied this charge, but with all reliable historians
his denial is considered as additional proof of his detestably low
qualities. Seven years before Calvin had compassed his cruel end,
he wrote a lettei’ to Peter Viret, in which he said that if ever Servetus
should come to Geneva, he would not allow him to return from it
alive. It is also asserted on good authority, that there is in existence
at the present day, in Paris, another letter written to Farel seven
years before the martyrdom of Servetus, in which the following
sentence occurs in the handwriting of John Calvin:—“ Servetns has
lately written to me and sent meat the same time a large book. . .
He offers to come hither if I like it, but I will not engage my word ;
for if he comes and if any regard be had to my authority, I will not
allow him to escape with his life.”
Calvin at that time was a man of great influence in Geneva.
His dictum in almost all religious matters was regarded as final, and
he was so thoroughly accustomed to this deference, that when
�1
Servetus denied the doctrine of the Trinity and exposed the false
basis, upon which Calvin’s harsh system was resting, all his former
reverence for the learning of Servetus was put aside, and he became
inBnt upon his speedy death. Do you wonder that Servetus rejected
the doctrine of the Trinity ? It was the most natural thing in the
world. With a heart set free from superstition, and an independent
judgment, no other result is possible. Of all theological impositions
there has never been anything propounded so bewildering to reason
as this. Heathendom never prostrated the intellects of its votaries
before such palpable contradictions as are contained in the unchristian
idea of a three-in-one Deity. It is a doctrine obscure in its origin,
lame in its occasional efforts at reconciliation with nature, and unable
to live in the light of free enquiry. You ask, •* Why then has it
existed so long ? ” and my reply is this :—“ It has been maintained
by brute force.” If nature had not been tampered with, the doctrine
of the Trinity would long since have passed into that obscurity
which engulphs all that is worthless and false. But alongside this
dogma there has been inculcated the idea that free enquiry in
religious matters is sinful. Even those who have made a sacred
principle of the right of private judgment have hitherto been
timorous in their defence of it, and have contended only for half
measures. But in the time of Servetus there were none who dared
to maintain on his behalf the inherent right of the human mind to
the exercise of all its faculties. In the eyes of Calvin there was no
crime so great as the effort to oppose the popular religion of the
day. Idleness and debauchery were regarded as virtues when they
stood in comparison with heresy. In order to avoid threatening
dangers, Servetus made his escape, and assuming another name, went
to live at Vienna. Calvin traced his footsteps, and suborned men to
expose him. He was apprehended and cast into prison, but having
a good reputation in the town, he was treated with unusual
kindness. Men who were not blinded by religious intolerance could
discern in Servetus nothing but virtue, industry, and simplicity.
He lived with God in such untroubled love,
And clear confiding, as a child on whom
The Father’s face has never yet but smiled ;
And with men even, in such harmony
Of brotherhood, that whatsoever spark
Of pure and true in any'.human heart
Flickered and lived, it burned itself towards him
In an electric current through all bonds
�8
Of intervening race and creed and time,
And flamed up to a heat of living faith
And love, and love’s communion, and the joy
And inspiration of self-sacrifice.
Calvin, however,was not to be defeated in his intention ; and Serveti®,
finding further traces of his diabolical design, it dawned suddenl*
upon his mind that Calvin was not merely his theological opponent
but his mortal enemy; and, seizing upon a suitable opportunity, he
escaped from his confinement, and determined to settle at Naples as
a physician.
I cannot understand whether it was a panic of fear that seized
him, or whether it was a desire to talk with Calvin in private and
utter some remonstrance concerning his cruelty towards him; but
certain it is, that notwithstanding the fact that Calvin was allpowerful there, he travelled by way of Geneva, and Calvin, who had
heard of his escape from Vienna, and that he was coming towards
Geneva on his way to Naples, was on the watch for him, and he had
scarcely arrived in the city before he was apprehended and cast into
prison. Thirty-eight separate indictments were preferred against
him, and the name of all the indictments was heresy. The thirtyseventh is a fair example of the rest, in which it is said that Servetus
in a printed work had defamed the doctrine preached by Calvin, and
decried and caluminated it in every possible way, contrary to a decree
passed on the 9th of November in the preceding year., which had
pronounced that doctrine sacred and inviolable.
He admitted all that was truth in the indictments. He would
utter no falsehood even to save his life.
When the trial had been going on for seven days, Calvin came
into court and opposed Servetus in person ; and then, two days
afterwards, fearing that death might not be the penalty, the Procureur-General brought in no less than thirty new indictments
which related chiefly to his personal history. Servetus, whilst
refusing to abandon the truth, endeavoured to defend himself. Cal
vin drew up a written reply to this defence, which was put into
the hand of Servetus as he stood before the judge on the 15th
September. Calvin had taken a fortnight in its preparation ; Ser
vetus was called upon to refute it extemporaneously. But he took
no further notice of it than to express briefly the extreme contempt
�9
which, he felt for its author, and to add—“ In a cause so just, I am
firm; I have not the least fear of death.”
On the 26th October, Servetus was condemned to be burnt to
cleath in a slow fire as a warning to all reformers, that they
should not dare to oppose the popular notions of their time. A
message was sent immediately to Calvin to tell him of the judge’s
decision, and sacrificing duty to pleasure, he put aside every work
and appointment, and made great haste, in ordei’ that he might
witness the execution.
In a letter written on the Sth September by Calvin, he says,—
‘ The judges will be very cruel, very unjust to Christ and the doctrine
which is according to Godliness, and they will be real enemies of the
Church if they are not moved by the horrible blasphemies with
which so vile a heretick assails the Divine Majesty.” The sentence
passed upon Servetus was this :—“ We condemn thee, Michael
Servetus, to be bound and carried to the Lieu de Champel, and there
to be tied to a stake, and burnt alive with thy book, written with
thine own hand, and printed, till thy body is reduced to ashes ; and
thus shall thou end thy days to serve as a warning to others who are
disposed to act in the same manner. And we command you, our
lieutenant, to cause our present sentence to be carried into effect.”
On the morning of the day following, Servetus was visited in
prison and urged to recant. They implored him to say that Christ
was God. What a useless assertion it would have been, seeing that
Servetus had proved his belief in the opposite 1 But it only proves
to us the fact that when the spirit of persecution is abroad, being a
bad thing in itself, it draws after it all the most diabolical vices of
the lower nature. The love of truth is rudely trampled under foot;
the command “ Thou shalt not kill,” is set at defiance ; mercy and
toleration are cast forth as if they had no right to a place in the
human heart, and we find both men and women revelling and rejoic
ing in the cruel death of a fellow-being. Servetus was desired to
deliver an address to the crowd before his execution, but he had
other things to think about, and refused to do so. Calvin described
this silence as “ proof of his beastly stupidity those are his words.
The pile consisted of wooden faggots, many of them still green and
with leaves upon them. The poor victim was fastened to the trunk
of a tree fixed in the earth, his feet reaching to the ground. A crown
of straw sprinkled with brimstone was placed upon his head. His
body was bound to the stake with an iron chain, and a coarse twisted
�10
rope was loosely thrown round his neck. His book was next fastened
to his thigh. He then begged the executioner to put him out of his
misery as speedily as possible. The fire was lighted, and he cried
out most piteously as. the flames scorched his flesh,—for he had an
extremely sensitive nervous organisation, and he felt the pain keenly.
Some of the bystanders, at last, out of compassion, supplied the fire
with fresh fuel, hoping to put an end to his misery. One writer tells
us that a strong breeze sprang up and scattered the flames, and that
Servetus was writhing in the fire between two or three hours.
Many attempts have been made to screen Calvin from odium. I
for one am not interested in his impeachment. I care nothing for
discussion concerning such individuals, but it is of vital importance
to you and me that we should realise what a horrible and degrading
thing is this spirit of persecution for blasphemy. It is reckoned a
crime more vile than robbery or fraud. Men may kill thmr wives in
quarrel and yet escape with lighter punishments than are awarded
to those who try to be reformers in their own time. The persecutor
says that blasphemy or heresy is an injury to God. God is infinite,
and the punishment must be commensurate with the greatness of
the Being injured. Now it is just absffrd beyond all other things,
that you should think such a thing possible. How can any man
injure God? Or how can any human law-court defend God? Is it
not sacrilege of a viler kind to set up a magistrate as the protector
of Almighty ? What more blasphemous thing could we be called
upon to tolerate than that ?
There is nothing more degrading in all the annals of the world
than this same spirit of persecution which has recently sent three
journalists to prison for an impossible offence. It behoves us, as we
respect our own rights, to do all we can to protest against the ver
dict. It behoves us, as we love our country and take pride in its
greatness, to use every effort for the repeal of all such enactments.
I have very little more to say to you to-night by way of appli
cation. You have glanced hastily with me at the influence of these
laws against heresy in the case of Calvin and Servetus, and you
know that the same laws still exist in this country and that they are
not obsolete. In the year 1861, in the Court of Common Pleas, Lord
Chief Justice Erie, in giving judgment said—“ There are opinions
which are in law a crime.” Little attention was paid to this state
ment at the moment. Recent circumstances, however, have proved
�11
two things : first, the truth of the words spoken; and second, the
ufrgent need of an agitation in favour of the immediate and total
repeal of all Heresy and Blasphemy Laws. It is a mistake to suppose
that they can serve any good purpose. I am not called upon in this
discourse to recapitulate the reasons which exist in favour of political
or religious liberty. To many of you they are perfectly familiar. It
is manifest that where discussion is forbidden, all progress is tram
meled. If in those countries where idols of wood and stone are
worshipped it is reckoned a criminal offence to oppose the popular
religion, there will be few facilities for improvement; but if free
discussion is permitted and encouraged, all their bad institutions
will be exposed, and the good ones will be better understood and
appreciated. Their useless idols will be dethroned, and there will be
progress,—for no matter how long the struggle may be continued,
truth will infallibly come out victorious. The attitude which ought
to be taken up by Unitarians is that described by the poet Henry
Taylor, in “ Isaac Commenus.”
“ Whatsoe’er possible evils lie before,
Let us sincerely own them to ourselves
With all unstinting unevasive hearts
Reposing in the-eonsciousness of strength,
Or ferventejhope to be endowed with strength
Of all-enduring temper,—daring all truth.”
Let me in conclusion urge upon you the importance of a singleminded action in this matter. I would, for our own sake, that it had
been a Unitarian and not an Atheist who was imprisoned. I dare
say we cannot defend oui' position without being misunderstood.
But this is of no consequence. Our duty is plain. They who call
themselves the Freethinkers are suffering falsely, and therefore
unjustly. All other questions are merged into this, and until they
are released and the Act is repealed, the nation lies under a cloud of
ignominy painful to contemplate. My earnest wish is, that we may
all be able to do something to help on the work.
��
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 martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mills, Herbert V.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Colne
Collation: 11 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Michael Servetus was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and Renaissance humanist. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a heterodox view of the Trinity and Christology. After being condemned by Catholic authorities in France, he fled to Geneva where he was burnt at the stake for heresy by order of the city's governing council. Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Hyde & Sons
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N489
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 martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne), 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
Heresy
Michael Servetus
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cb18d021fd230e8db35b1f5d3becbb3a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZN%7E2rBt%7E8fY7wfyLhYzOGgBGrhoBTSN5icqRNKGNSYz%7ETdVnZmAPxmmvPNNfgLvymvrXZrDTClx0TNqGEV-igBRfC0UywB-6MBvhICKe39Rgtzwc89JXfnb%7EP6yNZ5Jhtk9yB%7Emjssyw0XoNLyUAPMDXDhgI5M93E9lesJQ5QV-QaPHZA-uandGWMrgn98phJJx7oisWr2XMQX4PcKUW4f4ZuWNc26BItrRHUw1jXlC6Av9suUcKyBg6W2BkikTENeHXG6bXABYrdft%7Eijx7-YBhkVZc62T8kwP8G1db9Jg6I-IVyaByI5VE%7E0iNC7luZUNl0FTD2zwShFHtdpySsA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e168bf8e83034f34196c4de23626a55a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A
LETTER
A
a
TO
LORD
ELLENBOROUGH
Occasioned by
the
Sentence which he Passed on
MR. D. I. EATON,
As Publisher
of
THE THIRD PART OF PAINES “AGE OF REASON:’
by
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.
\Reprinted. ]
ITonbou:
§
i
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
Price Twopence.
1894.
fa
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�fxl £ 11
INTRODUCTION.
While the Blasphemy Laws remain on the English Statute
Book it is well that Shelley’s letter to Lord Ellenborough
should be kept in circulation. As the work of a lad of
eighteen it is surprisingly eloquent, logical, and powerful.
Of course it does not rank with Milton’s Areopagitica, which
was written in that great poet’s full maturity, but it carries
the tradition of freedom beyond the standpoint of the
Republican poet of the seventeenth century.
Daniel Isaac Eaton, whose imprisonment for blasphemy
called forth Shelley’s letter, was a Deist in religion, and an
advanced reformer in politics. He was tried at the Old
Bailey in 1793 for publishing Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man,
and found “ guilty of publishing but without criminal inten
tion.” Nineteen years later, on March 6, 1812, he was tried
in the Court of King’s Bench on a charge of Blasphemous
Libel for publishing the Third Part of Paine’s Age of Reason.
Lord Ellenborough presided at his trial, and brutally inter
rupted his defence. Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months’
imprisonment in Newgate, and to stand for two hours in the
pillory.
Shelley, who was then a disciple of Godwin, bitterly
resented this outrage on the liberty of the press. His letter
to Lord Ellenborough was written in July. It appears to
have been printed by a Mr. Syle, of Barnstaple, who was
frightened into destroying the greater part of the edition;
but fifty copies were sent to London, in care of Mr. Hook
ham the publisher, and privately distributed. It was first
�( 4 )
really published, though not without omissions, in 1859 in
the Shelley Memorials. The full text was given by Mr.
Forman in his complete edition of Shelley (1880).
Shelley’s own preface runs as follows :—“ Advertisement.
—I have waited impatiently for these last four months, in
the hope that some pen fitter for the important task would
have spared me the perilous pleasure of becoming the cham
pion of an innocent man. This may serve as an excuse for
delay to those who think I have let pass the aptest opportu
nity ; but it is not to be supposed that in four short months
the public indignation raised by Mr. Eaton’s unmerited
suffering can have subsided.”
“Perilous pleasure” is not an unmeaning or a fanciful
phrase. Men were imprisoned at that time for less “ offen
sive ” things than several passages in Shelley’s letter. It is
a pleasant reflection that the great poet of intellectual and
moral freedon never lacked the courage of his convictions.
�A LETTER TO LORD ELLENBOROUGH.
My Lord,
As the station to which you have been called by your
country is important, so much the more awful is your
responsibility, so much the more does it become you to
watch lest you inadvertently punish the virtuous and reward
the vicious.
You preside over a court which is instituted for the
suppression of crime, and to whose authority the people
submit on no other conditions than that its decrees should
be conformable to justice.
If it should be demonstrated that a judge had condemned
an innocent man, the bare existence of laws in conformity
to which the accused is punished would but little extenuate
his offence. The inquisitor, when he burns an obstinate
heretic, may set up a similar plea, yet few are sufficiently
blinded by intolerance to acknowledge its validity. It will
less avail such a judge to assert the policy of punishing one
who has committed no crime. Policy and morality ought to
be deemed synonymous in a court of justice, and he whose
conduct has been regulated by the latter principle is not
justly amenable to any penal law for a supposed violation
of the former. It is true, my Lord, laws exist which suffice
to screen you from the animadversions of any constituted
power, in consequence of the unmerited sentence which you
have passed upon Mr. Eaton ; but there are no laws which
screen you from the reproof of a nation’s disgust, none which
ward off the just judgment of posterity, if that posterity will
deign to recollect you.
By what right do you punish Mr. Eaton? What but
antiquated precedents, gathered from times of priestly and
tyrannical domination, can be adduced in palliation of an
outrage so insulting to humanity and justice ? Whom has
he injured ? What crime has he committed ? Wherefore
may he not walk abroad like other men and follow his
accustomed pursuits ? What end is proposed in confining
�( 6 )
this man, charged with the commission of no dishonorable
action ? Wherefore did his aggressor avail himself of popular
prejudice, and return no answer but one of commonplace
contempt to a defence of plain and simple sincerity 1
Lastly, when the prejudices of the jury, as Christians, were
strongly and unfairly inflamed * against this injured man as
a Deist, wherefore did not you, my Lord, check such uncon
stitutional pleading, and desire the jury to pronounce the
accused innocent or criminal + without reference to the
particular faith which he professed ?
In the name of justice, what answer is there to these
questions? The answer which Heathen Athens made to
Socrates is the same with which Christian England must
attempt to silence the advocates of this injured man—“ He
has questioned established opinions.” Alas ! the crime of
enquiry is one which religion never has forgiven. Implicit
faith and fearless enquiry have in all ages been irreconcileable enemies. Unrestrained philosophy has in every age
opposed itself to the reveries of credulity and fanaticism.
The truths of astronomy, demonstrated by Newton, have
superseded astrology; since the modern discoveries in
chemistry the philosopher’s stone has no longer been deemed
attainable. Miracles of every kind have become rare, in
proportion to the hidden principles which those who study
nature have developed. That which is false will ultimately
be controverted by its own falsehood. That which is true
needs but publicity to be acknowledged. It is ever a proof
that the falsehood of a proposition is felt by those who use
power and coercion, not reasoning and persuasion, to procure
its admission. Falsehood skulks in holes and corners ; “ it
ets I dare not wait upon I would, like the poor cat in the
adage,” J except when it has power, and then, as it was a
coward, it is a tyrant; but the eagle-eye of truth darts
through the undazzling sunbeam of the immutable and just,
gathering thence wherewith to vivify and illuminate a
universe!
Wherefore, I repeat, is Mr. Eaton punished ? Because he
* See the Attorney-General’s speech.
t By Mr. Fox’s Bill (1.791) juries are, in cases of libel, judges
both of the law and the fact.
t Shakespeare.
�( 7 )
is a Deist? And what are you, my Lord? A Christian.
Ha, then ! the mask is fallen off; you persecute him because
his faith differs from yours. You copy the persecutors of
Christianity in your actions, and are an additional proof that
your religion is as bloody, barbarous, and intolerant as
theirs. If some deistical bigot in power (supposing such a
character for the sake of illustration) should, in dark and
barbarous ages, have enacted a statute making the profession
of Christianity criminal; if you, my Lord, were a Christian
bookseller and Mr. Eaton a judge, those arguments, which
you consider adequate to justify yourself for the sentence
which you have passed, must likewise suffice, in this suppositionary case, to justify Mr. Eaton in sentencing you to
Newgate and the pillory for being a Christian. Whence is
any right derived but that which power confers for perse
cution ? Do you think to convert Mr. Eaton to your religion
by embittering his existence ? You might force him by
torture to profess your tenets, but he could not believe them,
except you should make them credible, which, perhaps
exceeds your power. Do you think to please the God you
worship by this exhibition of your zeal ? If so, the Demon
to whom some nations offer human hecatombs is less
barbarous than the Deity of civilised society.
You consider man as an accountable being; but he can
only be accountable for those actions which are influenced
by his will.
Belief and disbelief are utterly distinct from, and uncon
nected with, volition. They are the apprehension of the
agreement or disagreement of the ideas which compose any
proposition. Belief is an involuntary operation of the mind,
and, like other passions, its intensity is precisely proportion
ate to the degrees of excitement. Volition is essential to
merit or demerit. How, then, can merit or demerit be
attached to what is distinct from that ’faculty of the mind
whose presence is essential to their being ? I am aware that
religion is founded on the voluntariness of belief, as it
makes it a subject of reward and punishment; but, before
we extinguish the steady ray of reason and common sense,
it is fit that we should discover, which we cannot do without
their assistance, whether or no there be any other which
may suffice to guide us through the labyrinth of life.
�( 8 )
If the law “ de heretico comburendo ” has not been formallyrepealed, I conceive that, from the promise held out by your
Lordship’s zeal, we need not despair of beholding the flames
of persecution rekindled in Smithfield. Even now, the lash
that drove Descartes and Voltaire from their native country,
the chains >which bound Galileo, the flames which burnt
Vanini, again resound. And where ? In a nation that
presumptuously calls itself the sanctuary of freedom. Under
a government which, whilst it infringes the very right of
thought and speech, boasts of permitting the liberty of the
press ; in a civilised and enlightened country a man is
pilloried and imprisoned because he is a Deist, and no one
raises his voice in the indignation of outraged humanity.
Does the Christian God, whom his followers eulogize as the
Deity of humility and peace,—he, the regenerator of the
world, the meek reformer, authorise one man to rise against
another, and, because lictors are at his beck, to chain and
torture him as an Infidel ?
When the Apostles went abroad to convert the nations,
were they enjoined to stab and poison all who disbelieved
the divinity of Christ’s mission, assuredly they would have
been no more justifiable in this case than he is at present
who puts into execution the law which inflicts pillory and
imprisonment on the Deist.
Has not Mr. Eaton an equal right to call your Lordship an
Infidel as you have to imprison him for promulgating a
different doctrine from that which you profess ? What do I
say ! Has he not even a stronger plea 1 The word Infidel
can only mean any thing when applied to a person who
professes that which he disbelieves. The test of truth is an
undivided reliance on its inclusive powers ; the test of con
scious falsehood is the variety of the forms under which it
presents itself, and its tendency towards employing whatever
coercive means may be within its command, in order to pro
cure the admission of what is unsusceptible of support from
reason or persuasion. A dispassionate observer would feel
himself more powerfully interested in favor of a man who,
depending on the truth of his opinions, simply stated his
reasons for entertaining them, than in that of his aggressor,
who, daringly avowing his unwillingness to answer them by
argument, proceeded to repress the activity and break the
�( 9 )
spirit of their promulgator, by that torture and imprisonment
whose infliction he could command.
I hesitate not to affirm that the opinions which Mr. Eaton
sustained when undergoing that mockery of a trial at which
your Lordship presided, appear to me more true and good
than those of his accuser ; but were they false as the visions
of a Calvinist, it still would be the duty of those who love
liberty and virtue to raise their voice indignantly against
a reviving system of persecution, against the coercively
repressing any opinion, which, if false, needs but the opposi
tion of truth; which, if true, in spite of force, must ultimately
prevail.
Mr. Eaton asserted that the scriptures were, from begin
ning to end, a fable and imposture,* that the apostles were
liars and deceivers. He denied the miracles, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus Christ. He did so, and the AttorneyGeneral denied the propositions which he asserted, and
asserted those which he denied. What singular conclusion
is deducible from this fact ? None, but that the AttorneyGeneral and Mr. Eaton sustained two opposite opinions.
The Attorney-General puts some obsolete and tyrannical
laws in force against Mr. Eaton, because he publishes a book
tending to prove that certain supernatural events, which
are supposed to have taken place eighteen centuries ago, in
a remote cornel' of the world, did not actually take place.
But how are the truth or falsehood of the facts in dispute
relevant to the merit or demerit attachable to the advocates
of the two opinions ? No man is accountable for his belief,
because no man is capable of directing it. Mr. Eaton is
therefore totally blameless. What are we to think of the
justice of a sentence which punishes an individual against
whom it is not even attempted to attach the slightest stain
of criminality ?
It is asserted that Mr. Eaton’s opinions are calculated to
subvert morality. How 1 What moral truth is spoken of
with irreverence or ridicule in the book which he published •
Morality, or the duty of a man and a citizen, is founded on
the relations which arise from the association of human
beings, and which vary with the circumstances produced by
See the Attorney-General’s speech.
�( 10 )
the different states of this association. This duty in similar
situations must be precisely the same in all ages and nations.
The opinion contrary to this has arisen from a supposition
that the will of God is the source or criterion of morality ;
it is plain that the utmost exertion of Omnipotence could
not cause that to be virtuous which actually is vicious. An
all-powerful Demon might, indubitably, annex punishments
to virtue and rewards to vice, but could not by these means
effect the slightest change in their abstract and immutable
natures. Omnipotence could vary, by a providential inter
position, the relations of human society ; in this latter case,
what before was virtuous would become vicious, according
to the necessary and natural result of the alteration ; but
the abstract natures of the opposite principles would have
sustained not the slightest change ; for instance, the punish
ment with which society restrains the robber, the assassin,
and the ravisher is just, laudable, and requisite. We admire
and respect the institutions which curb those who would
defeat the ends for which society was established ; but,
should a precisely similar coercion be exercised against one
who merely expressed his disbelief of a system admitted by
those entrusted with the executive power, using at the same
time no methods of promulgation but those afforded by
reason, certainly this coercion would be eminently inhuman
and immoral; and the supposition that any revelation from
an unknown power avails to palliate a persecution so sense
less, unprovoked, and indefensible is at once to destroy the
barrier which reason places between vice and virtue, and
leave to unprincipled fanaticism a plea whereby it may
excuse every act of frenzy, which its own wild passions, not
the inspirations of the Deity, have engendered.
Moral qualities are such as only a human being can possess.
To attribute them to the Spirit of the Universe, or to sup
pose that it is capable of altering them, is to degrade God into
man, and to annex to this incomprehensible being qualities
incompatible with any possible definition of his nature. It
may here be objected : Ought not the Creator to possess the
perfections of the creature ? No. To attribute to God the
moral qualities of man is to suppose him susceptible of
passions which, arising out of corporeal organisation, it is
plain that a pure spirit cannot possess. A bear is not per-
�(11)
feet except he is rough ; a tiger is not perfect if he be net
voracious; an elephant is not perfect if otherwise than
docile. How deep an argument must that not be which
proves that the Deity is as rough as a bear, as voracious as a
tiger, and as docile as an elephant ! But even suppose with
the vulgar that God is a venerable old man, seated on a
throne of clouds, his breast the theatre of various passions,
analogous to those of humanity, his will changeable and
uncertain as that of an earthly king: still goodness and
justice are qualities seldom nominally denied him, and it
will be admitted that he disapproves of any action incom
patible with these qualities. Persecution for opinion is
unjust. With what consistency, then, can the worshippers
of a Deity whose benevolence they boast, embitter the exist
ence of their fellow being, because his ideas of that Deity
are different from those which they entertain ? Alas ! there
is no consistency in those persecutors who worship a benevo
lent Deity ; those who worship a Demon would alone act
consonantly to these principles, by imprisoning and torturing
in his name.
Persecution is the only name applicable to punishment
inflicted on an individual in consequence of his opinions.
What end is persecution designed to answer ? Can it con
vince him whom it injures ? Can it prove to the people the
falsehood of his opinions ? It may make him a hypocrite, and
them cowards; but bad means can promote no good end. The
unprejudiced mind looks with suspicion on a doctrine that
needs the sustaining hand of power.
Socrates was poisoned because he dared to combat the
degrading superstitions in which his countrymen were
educated. Not long after his death, Athens recognised the
injustice of his sentence; his accuser, Melitus, was con
demned, and Socrates became a demigod.
Jesus Christ was crucified because he attempted to super
sede the ritual of Moses with regulations more moral and
humane ; his very judge made public acknowledgment of his
innocence, but a bigotted and ignorant mob demanded the
deed of horror. Barabbas, the murderer and traitor, was
released. The meek reformer, Jesus, was immolated to the
sanguinary Deity of the Jews. Time rolled on, time changed
the situations, and with them the opinions of men.
�( 12 )
The vulgar, ever in extremes, became persuaded that the
crucifixion of Jesus was a supernatural event, and testi
monies of miracles, so frequent in unenlightened ages, were
not wanting to prove that he was something divine. This
belief, rolling through the lapse of ages, acquired force and
extent, until the divinity of Jesus became a dogma, which to
dispute was death, which to doubt was infamy.
Christianity is now the established religion; he who
attempts to disprove it must behold murderers and traitors
take precedence of him in public opinion, though, if his
genius be equal to his courage, and assisted by a peculiar
coalition of circumstances, future ages may exalt him to a
divinity, and persecute others in his name, as he was perse
cuted in the name of his predecessor, in the homage of the
world.
The same means that have supported every other popular
belief have supported Christianity. War, imprisonment,
murder, and falsehood ; deeds of unexampled and incompar
able atrocity, have made it what it is. We derive from our
ancestors a belief thus fostered and supported. We quarrel,
persecute, and hate for its maintenance. Does not analogy
favor the opinion that, as like other systems it has arisen
and augmented, so like them it will decay and perish; that,
as violence and falsehood, not reasoning and persuasion,
have procured its admission among mankind ; so, when
enthusiasm has subsided, and time, that infallible controverter of false opinions, has involved its pretended
evidences in the darkness of antiquity, it will become
obsolete, and that men will then laugh as heartily at grace,
faith, redemption, and original sin as they now do at the
metamorphoses of Jupiter, the miracles of Romish saints,
the efficacy of witchcraft, and the appearance of departed
spirits.
Had the Christian religion commenced and continued by
the mere force of reasoning and persuasion, by its selfevident excellence and fitness, the preceding analogy would
be inadmissible. We should never speculate upon the
future obsoleteness of a system perfectly conformable to
nature and reason. It would endure so long as they
endured ; it would be a truth as indisputable as the light of
he sun, the criminality of murder, and other facts, physical
�( 13 )
and moral, which, depending on our organisation and
relative situations, must remain acknowledged so long as
man is man. It is an incontrovertible fact, the considera
tion of which ought to repress the hasty conclusions of
credulity, or moderate its obstinacy in maintaining them,
that, had the Jews not been a barbarous and fanatical race
of men, had even the resolution of Pontius Pilate been equal
to his candor, the Christian religion never could have pre
vailed ; it could not even have existed. Man ! the very
existence of whose most cherished opinions depends from a
thread so feeble, arises out of a source so equivocal, learn at
least humility ; own, at least, that it is possible for thyself
also to have been seduced by education and circumstance
into the admission of tenets destitute of rational proof, and
the truth of which has not yet been satisfactorily demon
strated. Acknowledge, at least, that the falsehood of thy
brother’s opinions is no sufficient reason for his meriting thy
hatred. What! because a fellow being disputes the reason
ableness of thy faith, wilt thou punish him with torture and
imprisonment? If persecution for religious opinions were
admitted by the moralist, how wide a door would not be
opened by which convulsionists of every kind might make
inroads on the peace of society ! How many deeds of
barbarism and blood would not receive a sanction ! But I
will demand, if that man is not rather entitled to the res
pect than the discountenance of society, who, by disputing a
received doctrine, either proves its falsehood and inutility,
thereby aiming at the abolition of what is false and useless,
or giving to its adherents an opportunity of establishing its
excellence and truth. Surely this can be no crime. Surely
the individual who devotes his time to fearless and un
restricted inquiry into the grand questions arising out of
our moral nature ought rather to receive the patronage,
than encounter the vengeance, of an enlightened legislature.
I would have you to know, my Lord, that fetters of iron
cannot bind or subdue the soul of virtue. From the damps
and solitude of its dungeon it ascends, free and undaunted,
whither thine, from the pompous seat of judgment, dare not
soar. I do not warn you to beware lest your profession as a
Christian should make you forget that you are a man ; but
I warn you against festinating that period, which, under the
�( 14 )
present coercive system, is too rapidly maturing, when the
seats of justice shall be the seats of venality and slavishness,
and the cells of Newgate become the abode of all that is
honorable and true.
I mean not to compare Mr. Eaton with Socrates or Jesus ;
he is a man of blameless and respectable character ; he is a
citizen unimpeached with crime ; if, therefore, his rights as
a citizen and a man have been infringed, they have been
infringed by illegal and immoral violence. But I will assert
that, should a second Jesus arise among men, should such a
one as Socrates again enlighten the earth, lengthened im
prisonment and infamous punishment (according to the
regimen of persecution revived by your Lordship) would
effect what hemlock and the cross have heretofore effected,
and the stain on the national character, like that on Athens
and Judea, would remain indelible, but by the destruction of
the history in which it is recorded. When the Christian
religion shall have faded from the earth, when its memory,
like that of Polytheism now shall remain, but remain only
as the subject of ridicule and wonder, indignant posterity
would attach immortal infamy to such an outrage; like
the murder of Socrates, it would secure the execration of
every age.
The horrible and wide-wasting enormities which gleam
like comets through the darkness of gothic and superstitious
ages are regarded by the moralist as no more than the
necessary effects of known causes ; but, when an enlightened
age and nation signalises itself by a deed, becoming none
but barbarians and fanatics, philosophy itself is even
induced to doubt whether human nature will ever emerge
from the pettishness and imbecility of its childhood. The
system of persecution, at whose new birth you, my Lord,
are one of the presiding midwives, is not more impotent and
wicked than inconsistent. The press is loaded with what are
called [(ironically, I should conceive) proofs of the Christian
religion : these books are replete with invective and calumny
against Infidels; they presuppose that he who rejects
Christianity must be utterly divested of reason and feeling.
They advance the most unsupported assertions, and take as
first principles the most revolting dogmas. The inferences
draw* from these assumed premises are imposingly logical
�( 15 )
and correct; but, if a foundation is weak, no architect is
needed to foretell the instability of the superstructure. If
the truth of Christianity is not disputable, for what purpose
are these books written ? If they are sufficient to prove it,
what further need of controversy ? If God has spoken, why is
not the universe convinced ? If the Christian religion needs
deeper learning, more painful investigation, to establish its
genuineness, wherefore attempt to accomplish that by force
which the human mind can alone effect with satisfaction to
itself ? If, lastly, its truth cannot be demonstrated, where
fore impotently attempt to snatch from God the government
of his creation, and impiously assert that the Spirit of
Benevolence has left that knowledge most essential to the
well-being of man, the only one which, since its promulga
tion, has been the subject of unceasing cavil, the cause of
irreconcileable hatred ? Either the Christian religion is
true, or it is not. If true, it comes from God, and its
authenticity can admit of doubt and dispute no further
than its Omnipotent Author is willing to allow ; if true, it
admits of rational proof, and is capable of being placed
equally beyond controversy as the principles which have
been established concerning matter and mind, by Locke and
Newton ; and in proportion to the usefulness of the fact in
dispute, so must it be supposed that a benevolent being is
anxious to procure the diffusion of its knowledge on the
earth. If false, surely no enlightened legislature would
punish the reasoner, who opposes a system so much the
more fatal and pernicious, as it is extensively admitted;
so much the more productive of absurd and ruinous conse
quences, as it is entwined by education, with the prejudices
and affections of the human heart, in the shape of a popular
belief.
Let us suppose that some half-witted philosopher should
assert that the earth was the centre of the universe, or that
ideas could enter the human mind independently of sensation
or reflection. This man would assert what is demonstrably
incorrect; he would promulgate a false opinion. Yet would
he therefore deserve pillory and imprisonment? By no
means ; probably few would discharge more correctly the
duties of a citizen and a man. I admit that the case above
stated is not precisely in point. The thinking part of the
�community has not received as indisputable the truth of
Christianity, as they have that of the Newtonian system.
A very large portion of society, and that powerfully and
extensively connected, derives its sole emolument from the
belief of Christianity, as a popular faith.
To torture and imprison the asserter of a dogma, however
ridiculous and false, is highly barbarous and impolitic.
How, then, does not the cruelty of persecution become
aggravated when it is directed against the opposer of an
opinion yet under dispute, and which men of unrivalled
acquirements, penetrating genius, and stainless virtue have
spent, and at last sacrificed, their lives in combating.
The time is rapidly approaching—I hope that you, my
Lord, may live to behold its arrival—when the Mahometan,
the Jew, the Christian, the Deist, and the Atheist will live
together in one community, equally sharing the benefits
which arise from its association, and united in the bonds of
charity and brotherly love. My Lord, you have condemned
an innocent man; no crime was imputed to him, and you
sentenced him to torture and imprisonment. I have not
addressed this letter to you with the hopes of convincing you
that you have acted wrong. The most unprincipled and
barbarous of men are not unprepared with sophisms to
prove that they would have acted in no other manner, and
to show that vice is virtue. But I raise my solitary voice to
express my disapprobation, so far as it goes, of the cruel and
unjust sentence you passed upon Mr. Eaton; to assert, so
far as I am capable of influencing, those rights of humanity
which you have wantonly and unlawfully infringed.
My Lord,
Yours, etc.
��
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
A letter to Lord Ellenborough occasioned by the sentence which he passed on Mr. D. I. Eaton as publisher of the Third Part of Paine's "Age of Reason"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Shelley, Percy Bysshe [1792-1822]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Lord Ellenborough presided at the trial of Daniel Isaac Eaton for blasphemous libel on 6 March 1812. First published 1859, with omissions, and 1880 in full text in Forman's complete edition of Shelley. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1894
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N611
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 (A letter to Lord Ellenborough occasioned by the sentence which he passed on Mr. D. I. Eaton as publisher of the Third Part of Paine's "Age of Reason"), 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-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Daniel Isaac Eaton
NSS