1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/868c92c366b6fa6f79b36ebc7e493dad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c%7EVvhiQGdkC1iMDnM1tt524v3JXZScbT4aKUdvd1W77kZkBoOaOFvfVeT2huKsYmlsrsMjgSeCLpbwlxxOMPbhpFaQAsBgBeaxyeHGZ%7EjexKtOFcljGCy8G0inPQpbt9u9v2AAl-YUuT8gFAs8PiQGRzMJRB6T31nuCzgTwIdoVZGILamZ%7EIasuQouOVyrI8GgzNeEnaMBuwBAvwg5xBVbv5wh1-3IserfKQdbCyCTz1A1BGGqQpPiGKgP1y1Xg-BmAavq2JY4n4aYZogU4Qb4OqAcXmPk8dp%7EGNXf-YP7S%7EZi4uz3mZx6V9PHeZdvo2dfGtTdYFiePuMCoshINEXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1cc90c18a3a6e80f8fbe0921bcd71be2
PDF Text
Text
THE
HALL OF SCIENCE
LIBEL CASE
WITH A
FULL AND TRUE ACCOUNT
OF
‘‘THE
LEEDS
Edited,
ORGIES.”
with Introduction,
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
LONDON:
R. FQRDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE HALL OF SCIENCE
LIBEL CASE.
WITH A
FULL AND TRUE ACCOUNT
OF
“THE
LEEDS
Edited,
OB(GIES.”
with Introduction,
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�4
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
This policy of defamation has been carried on systematic
cally against Secularism by the men (we never knew a woman
amongst them) who claim to be engaged in maintaining
Christian Evidences. It seems their ambition to make
people cease to regret “ the rarity of Christian charity.
They pursued Charles Bradlaugh to the day of his death,
and continued to befoul his character when the charity which
is not Christian usually suggests a tolerant if not a tender
silence. On one occasion he was tempted into a legal
vindication. He prosecuted a fellow who had printed (it
had often been spoken) the lie that he had taken out his
watch, and challenged any God there might be to strike him
dead in five minutes. Bradlaugh won the prosecution, but
he never succeeded in getting his costs, much less the
damages; and as this is an accident one is very liable to in
prosecuting slanderers, a poor man is apt to pause a long
while before resolving on litigation.
One of the persistent charges against Bradlaugh was that
he was responsible for a book called the Elements of Social
Science. He had reviewed it when it was sent to him as
editor of the National Reformer, and recommended it to
social students and reformers on account of its able and
sincere treatment of social problems, although he warned
his readers that he strongly dissented from some of the
writer’s opinions. Now the author of this work expressed
his opinion that the institution of marriage, at least as it
exists in most “ civilised ” countries, is a terrible evil; in
fact, he advocated, forty years ago, pretty much what is now
advocated with much applause by writers like Mrs. Mona
Caird and Mr. Grant Allen. Bradlaugh, however, would
have none of this. Radical as he was, he was in some
respects really old-fashioned. He was tender to children,
chivalrous to women ; and he would listen to no attack on
marriage, which he regarded as their security. Yet, because
he had expressed a qualified approbation of the Elements of
Social Science, these gutter friends of Christian Evidences
took to the practice of saying that he “ recommended it,’’
without any sort of reservation. Some of them went to the
length of calling it the Secularists’ Bible. They would pick
out a few strong sentences from hundreds of pages : one
about the evils of legal marriage, another about the evils of
�INTRODUCTION.
5
celibacy, and perhaps another—very much on the lines of a
famous passage in Lecky—about the social uses of prostitu
tion. Having read these passages to an ignorant, incon
siderate audience, as samples of the whole volume, they
would exclaim, “ Such are the tenets of Secularism ! Such
are the teachings of Bradlaugh
Contradiction had no effect upon these blackguards. They
knew their game, and they played it. Their one object was
to damage Bradlaugh and his party, and they were not con
structed to care about the means they employed for so
laudable an end.
Another device for damaging Bradlaugh, and also the
Secular party, was to circulate absurd—but, alas ! too
greedily swallowed—reports concerning the Hall of Science,
where the Executive of the National Secular Society held
its meetings, and where its President usually lectured when
in London. This building was erected in a small way at first,
with a corrugated iron roof; and although it was subsequently
enlarged and improved, the Christian Evidence lecturers
continued to call it “a cowshed.” They also derived a
peculiar satisfaction from its being, as they said, opposite a
lunatic asylum ; whereas it is really midway—-though on the
opposite side of the street—between the St. Luke’s Asylum
and the Parish Church. They appeared to be always
haunted by the subtle flavor of this brilliant witticism.
There is no necessity to mention all the calumnies that
were circulated against the Hall of Science. Bad as they
were, it was best to treat them with silence, as they were
never specific enough to furnish ground for an action. But
some time after Bradlaugh’s death a Christian Evidence
lecturer of peculiarly reckless brutality ventured upon a
really specific accusation. His actual language will be found
in the Report which follows this Introduction. The sub
stance of it was that, in 1879, during Bradlaugh’s leadership
of the Secular party, there was a class held at the Hall of
Science for teaching boys unnatural vices 1
This abominable accusation was made in a speech at
Leeds by a person named Walton Powell, which speech was
fully reported in a monthly paper called the Anti-Infidel,
owned and edited by W. R. Bradlaugh—a brother (heaven
save the mark !) of the great Bradlaugh. This person, who
�6
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
knew that his elder brother had good reason to despise him,
actually tried to obtain admission to Bradlaugh’s sick-room
just before his death. He was of course repulsed by Brad
laugh’s daughter, and he waxed pathetic over the circum
stance in his journal. Yet it was this “ brother” who first
published this libel of Powell’s—a libel that was calculated
to cover the dead leader of Freethought with infamy.
Directly the libel was brought to my notice I resolved to
take some kind of action against it. I saw it announced
that the debate, in which Powell uttered this filth, was to
be reprinted in the form of a pamphlet. I therefore waited
until the pamphlet was ready, when I had copies of it
purchased. I then appealed to Mr. R. O. Smith, the old
lessee and manager of the Hall of Science, who was clearly
responsible for the conduct of the establishment. If any
such offence had been committed there, he would have been
the person liable to indictment. Mr. Smith, therefore,
agreed to take action jointly with the National Secular Hall
Society (Limited), which had recently acquired from him
the lease of the premises.
Our solicitors advised us against a criminal prosecution.
They also advised us to proceed against the printer and
publisher of the libel. Accordingly a civil action was
entered against them for damages.
After the service of the writ, it was announced in the
Anti-Infidel that when the trial came on the charges in the
libel would be substantiated, and an appeal was made for
funds to expose the “ infidels ” and blast them for ever.
On October 18 (1894) I wrote an article in the Freethinker,.
as President of the National Secular Society, and Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the National Secular Hall
Society (Limited), explaining how the case stood, and
stating when it was likely to come on for trial.
John Snow, the publisher of the libellous pamphlet, pre
tended to feel aggrieved by this article, and cited me to
appear in the Court of Queen’s Bench on Tuesday, October 30,
to face a motion for my committal to prison for contempt
of court. The application was heard by Justices Wright
and Collins, who declined to make any order, and even the
question of costs was to stand over until the main case wasdisposed of.
�INTRODUCTION.
7
Mr. Justice Wright asked for a copy of the original libel.
I did not have it with me, but John Snow’s counsel foolishly
handed it up to the judges. Mr. Justice Wright read it with
a look of disgust, and passed it over to Mr. Justice Collins,
who read it with a similar expression. And then the follow
ing colloquy ensued between the Bench and John Snow’s
counsel:—
. Mr. Justice Wright : Have you read the “original
libel”? Nothing could possibly be worse than the libel.
It is the worst libel I ever read, if you do not justify it.
Mr. Rawlinson : I am sorry your lordship should
say that, because I have not in any way to answer the
case before your lordship.
Mr. Justice Wright : I am not saying you cannot
justify it. What I do say is that, if you cannot justify
or excuse it, it is about as bad as a libel can be. I am
not for one moment saying it is wrong, still there
appears to be a great deal of provocation.
The application for my committal to prison was an
ignominious failure. The judges did not even require to
hear my defence. I suffered a loss of about £20, but I
gained the expression of Mr. Justice Wright’s opinion that
the libel was the worst he had ever read.
The main case was not heard until Monday, February 18,
1895. Mr. Justice Lawrance presided. The senior counsel
on our side was Mr. Lawson Walton, M.P.; the junior
counsel, Mr. Cluer. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Rawlinson
appeared for the defendants.
Mr. Lawson Walton, M.P., our senior counsel, had the
case remarkably well in hand. He is a first-rate speaker,
with a real oratorical faculty. I listened to him as a
connoisseur, and I was delighted. His plea for freedom of
thought and speech for all inquirers, his reprobation of
bigotry, and his censure of the “ charity ” which thinketh all
evil of opponents, were delivered in beautiful language, and
with great force and sincerity. Mr. Murphy, the senior
counsel on the other side, struck me as an excellent brow
beater. There was an absence of “ breeding ” in his whole
manner. He bluntly told Mr. Smith that his opinions were
important in estimating the value of his character. He had
no case, and he knew it. His object was to excite prejudice,
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
and to introduce illegitimate evidence. In this attempt he
was foiled in a masterly manner by Mr. Walton. Finding
the game was up, Mr. Murphy decamped, leaving the poor,
battered case in the hands of his junior, Mr. Rawlinson ; a
gentleman of loose, shambling, but fluent eloquence, with a
great gift for worrying a point, and pressing an obvious
absurdity as though it were a cogent argument. Air.
Rawlinson is of a pious turn of mind. He occasionally
indulges in open-air preaching. I hear that he was very
interested in this case, and that he pleaded for Snow & Co.
gratuitously. If this be true, he has furnished a fresh
illustration of the truth that what is got for nothing is
generally worth it.
Judge Lawrance did not exhibit any particular ability.
What little he did display seemed rather at the service of
the defendants. He never uttered a word in reprobation of
a libel which Mr. Justice Wright said was about the worst
he had ever read. He appeared to regard it as one of those
things which a Christian disputant might be expected to
say in a moment of exaltation. His lordship remarked that
people forgot themselves in politics, for instance, as well as
in religion ; as though it were common, in political con
troversy, to accuse opponents of crimes like the promotion of
unnatural vices! On the whole, his lordship created the
impression that he would not be displeased by a verdict for
the defendants. Of course an English judge is beyond
suspicion of partiality; but, as a matter of fact, Justice
Lawrance, when he sat in the House of Commons, was a
rabid opponent of the late Charles Bradlaugh.
The line of defence adopted by the other side was a
singular exhibition of Christian morality. When the action
was begun, the defendants boasted that they had at last an
opportunity of publicly establishing the vile immorality of
Secularism. They promised their dupes that when the case
was tried the charges in the libel would be “ proved up to
the hilt.” Christian Evidencers went about chuckling. It
was rumored that a whole army of detectives would appear
as witnesses to cover the Atheists with confusion. I heard
all this, and I smiled. It soon came to my knowledge that
the gang of libellers were quarreling amongst themselves.
W. R. Bradlaugh bitterly complained of being led into a trap
�INTRODUCTION.
9
by Powell. There was not a shadow of a shade of evidence
obtainable; the libel was a mere malignant invention.
But it was against the rules of Christian Evidence to confess
an error and offer reparation. The sole desire of the libellers
was to save their own skins. Accordingly they instructed
their counsel to plead that they never meant their accusa
tions to apply to the Hall of Science, but to a hall at Leeds.
This was a policy of desperation. It has been a jest among
Christians for twenty-five years that the Hall of Science is
opposite a lunatic asylum. It is also known to be the head
quarters of the Secular party. Yet, although the place
referred to in the libel was “the headquarters of the
Secularists” and “opposite a lunatic asylum,” these good
Christians, these champions of virtue, these guardians of
morality, set up the monstrously base and lying plea (at the
eleventh hour) that the place referred to was two hundred
miles away in Yorkshire !
It is easy to see what the libellers were depending upon.
Their trust was in the Christian prejudices of the jury.
But the libel was too gross to be countenanced by any dozen
men who had no interest in its circulation. The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with £30 damages. The
libellers had also to pay costs, and their total bill amounted
to something like £250.
Thirty pounds was a ridiculous sum as damages. But the
great thing was the Verdict. It was the opening of a new
era. It was the first serious intimation to the baser sort of
Christians that they could no longer count on being able to
libel Secularists with absolute impunity.
Mr. Murphy repeatedly asked why I was not put into the
witness-box. I have to reply that the defendants have only
themselves to thank for my absence. On their own motion,
the National Secular Hall Society was struck out of the
case, as having no real status in the claim for damages.
Had they not taken this step, I should have gone into the
witness-box as the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
As it was, there were witnesses enough without me; and I
was far more useful in close proximity to our solicitor and
counsel during the trial. Certainly I was under no obliga
tion to give Mr. Murphy an additional opportunity of
appealing to the prejudices of the Christians upon the jury.
�10
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
I have not a high opinion of the intelligence of the
promoters of this branded libel on the Hall of Science, but
they are not so imbecile as to expect to be taken seriously in
pretending—at the eleventh hour—that the libel really
referred to a hall at Leeds. The object of the defence, in
this respect, was simply to create prejudice. Our counsel
very properly declined to discuss the Leeds affair, and the
judge should have checked the attempt to introduce it,
instead of allowing it to weigh—not indeed as evidence, but
as an insinuation—with the jury.
What could not be gone into at the trial must be gone
into now. I think it necessary to put the reader in
possession of the real truth about the “Leeds Orgies,”
which the Christian Evidence people have always affected
to regard as a practical demonstration of the “ filthy
immorality” of Secularism.
The Lecture Hall, in North-street, Leeds, was built by a
few persons, mostly Secularists, who formed themselves into
a Company for the purpose. This hall was rented by the
local Secular Society, which met in it every Sunday for
lectures, and some week-nights as well. A flourishing
Secular Sunday School was also held there in the afternoon.
When the Secularists were not using the hall themselves
it was let it in the ordinary way of business, the place being
licensed for music and dancing.
On Friday, August 30, 1878, it was let for a Fancy Dress
Ball. The parties who hired it had engaged it twice
previously, and there had been no cause of complaint. But
the police had warning—or they said so—that the third
gathering was to be a scandalous and obscene affair.
Detectives waited upon Mr. Stead, of the Secular Society,
who looked after the letting. This gentleman was for pre
venting the meeting, but the detectives wanted to go on with
their business, and he promised them every facility for
watching the proceedings. They also waited upon Bancroft,
the hall-keeper, in the hall itself, and told him they wanted
to secrete themselves where they could see without being
seen; but there was no convenience in the building for
such a purpose. However, they came again while the ball
was in progress, and gained admission; and the result was
a prosecution.
�INTRODUCTION.
11
The following report appeared in the weekly supplement
to the Leeds Mercury for September 7, 1878 :—
“ Strange Proceedings in a Lecture Hall.—At the
Leeds Borough Police-court, on Monday, before Mr.
Bruce, the stipendiary magistrate, an elderly man,
named William Pratt, was charged, on a warrant, with
selling beer without a license, and, along with Edwin
Bancroft, was charged with assisting in the manage
ment of a disorderly house. Mr. Ferns prosecuted on
behalf of the Chief Constable; Mr. Alfred Watson
defended Pratt, and Mr. Dunn defended Bancroft. Mr.
Ferns applied for a remand to allow time to get the
necessary evidence, but Mr. Bruce suggested it would be
better to hear one of the witnesses in order to see the
nature of the charge. Detective-Superintendent Ward
then stated that, in consequence of information received,
he, along with Detective-Sergeants Napp and Tinsley
and Detective Eddy, visited the North-street Lecture
Hall about 12.50 on the morning of the first inst. The
door was fastened ; but on making use of the password,
‘Rachel,’ the prisoner Bancroft admitted them. On
proceeding upstairs to the large" hall, they found about
a hundred persons assembled—three women, and the
rest men. About twenty or thirty of the men, however,
were . dressed in female’s clothes. There were two
dressing-rooms—one on each side of the orchestra, and
persons were going into and out of them. A man
named Strong was present in charge of a box containing
spirits—gin and whiskey. Some of the men were only
partially clothed, and one man, who was dancing in the
middle of the room, had only a cloak and a girdle on.
As he danced the cloak flew back and exposed his body.
Whilst dancing, one of the men, dressed as a woman,
purposely fell, and a number of other men threw
themselves upon him whilst on the ground, and
indecent familiarities took place. During the dance
the dancers kissed and conducted themselves indecently
towards each other. The prisoner Pratt was in the
room, the whole of the time, and Bancroft came in
occasionally. Whilst there he saw a large stone bottle,
which would hold about six gallons, and also some
glasses which had contained beer. The person who
held the music license for the hall had been summoned
for .Thursday next, for keeping it open during pro
hibited hours. Upon that evidence Mr. Ferns applied
for a remand. Mr. Dunn said he should not be able to
get his witnesses, for the defence ready that day, so that
he had no objection to the remand. All he asked was
�12
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
that his client (Bancroft) should be admitted to bail on
his own recognisances. Mr. Watson also applied for
bail on behalf of Pratt. Mr. Ferns objected to bail
being granted on the ground that the ‘ particulars of
the case were too monstrous to admit of such a thing.’
The prisoners were accordingly remanded until Thurs
day, bail being refused.—On Thursday the case was
resumed. Mr. Bruce said he was satisfied that what
had taken place was sufficient to bring the room under
the head of. a ‘disorderly house.’ He should order
Pratt to be imprisoned for a month, and should fine
Bancroft 60s., including costs. In passing sentence, Mr.
Bruce said he did not consider Bancroft the main
offender in the case. The main offenders were the
people who chose to let the hall for purposes of a most
lewd and obscene entertainment. The charge against
Naylor was about to be taken, when Mr. West, barrister,
who appeared on behalf of the proprietors of the hall,
stated that .his clients had no knowledge whatever,
directly or indirectly, of the purpose for which the
entertainment was got up. After what had been stated
it was evident that, under the 102nd section of the Act,
the music licenses had been forfeited, and if the Bench
thought so he would bow at once to the decision with
out going again into the evidence. Mr. Bruce con
sidered that, the proceedings which had taken place
were, most improper, and ordered the license to be
forfeited. He also added that, considering the position
Mr. Stead occupied as a member of the Lecture Hall
Company and of the Secular Society, both parties were
equally affected.”
A much longer report appeared in the Leeds Express, and
another in the Leeds Daily News—the latter being written
by a Christian, who spiced his report with what he perhaps
regarded as fair attacks upon the “ infidels,”
Let us see what the “ infidels ” had to do with the matter
The parties who hired the hall were not Secularists. Mr.
Stead, of the Secular Society, would have stopped the
gathering if he had not thought he was furthering the ends
of justice by letting the detectives deal with it in their own
fashion. Bancroft, the doorkeeper, was a Secularist, but he
always denied the allegations of the detectives. After the
first day5s hearing before Stipendiary Bruce, he was actually
refused bail, on the ground that the charges were so
“ horrible.” Two days afterwards he was sentenced to a fine
�INTRODUCTION.
13
of sixty shillings ! There was no evidence against him, but
he was technically liable as doorkeeper. He was fined, just
as he was refused bail (contrary to the spirit and practice of
English law), simply because he was a Secularist.
Stipendiary Bruce, who frequently sneered at Secularism,
remarked that “ the main defendants in the case were the
gentlemen who belonged to the hall, and who let the place
without exercising any supervision, for the purpose of a
lewd and obscene entertainment.” This was merely an
expression of Mr. Bruce’s bigotry. The gentlemen belonging
to the hall did not let it for a lewd and obscene entertain
ment ; they let it for a lawful and reputable purpose; and
it was entirely owing to the policy of the detectives that the
entertainment took place at all.
Mr. Joseph Symes, who was then the resident Secular
lecturer at Leeds, issued a pamphlet on this subject. He
threw doubt upon the detectives’ evidence. It seemed to
him, as it seems to me, a monstrous thing that the detectives
should be in the hall for an hour, witnessing the most
indecent practices, without making a single arrest. They
arrested no one until the next day, and then only Bancroft,
who was not really implicated, and Pratt, who was nominally
the conductor of the ball. Why did they not arrest the real
culprits, the obscene wretches who had been under their eyes
for a whole hour ? The only answer I can think of is this :
Either the detectives grossly exaggerated what they saw,
or they had reasons for not bringing the guilty persons to
justice.
Now, as a matter of fact, many of the persons present at
the ball were young men belonging to well-known Christian
families in the neighborhood. Mr. Bradlaugh had a list of
them in his possession, and he advised the Secular Society at
Leeds to be represented at the trial. The Society, however,
took the view that they had nothing whatever to do with
the case ; they had committed no offence, and they declined
to be mixed up in the matter. Still, it would have been
better if they had taken Mr Bradlaugh’s advice. There
would then have been an exposure that would have covered
the Christians with confusion; whereas the “ dignified ’’
policy they adopted left a door open for a multitude of
misrepresentations.
�14
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Unfortunately the Christian Evidence people were
assisted in their work of calumny by the editor of the
Secular Review. I am very loth to refer to this matter, but,
as the name of this paper occurs in the verbatim report of
the trial, I have no alternative. Mr. Murphy questioned
one of our witnesses as to “ a paragraph in that paper about
the obscenity alleged to have occurred at the Hall of Science
at Leeds.” (There was no hall in Leeds bearing that name.)
The issue referred to was June 26,1886 ; nearly eight years
after the Leeds affair.
Mr. Stewart Ross, the editor of the Secular Review, which
has since changed its title, had a bitter quarrel of his own
with Mr. Bradlaugh ; and, being a man of vehement temper
—which time and experience have no doubt softened—he
chose to maintain that the Leeds “ abominations ” were the
result of Mr. Bradlaugh’s teachings, and allowed himself to
write of “ the unspeakably obscene character of the orgies
of the Leeds Branch of the National Secular Society.” This
is the language of a man in a reckless mood, passionately
bent on injuring his enemy. Its falsehood and absurdity
are obvious in the light of the real facts of the case; and,
judging from the eulogies on Mr. Bradlaugh which Mr. Ross
has penned of late years, it is reasonable to infer that he
regrets the intemperance of this old attack. It must be a
severe punishment to find himself cited as a kind of witness
against the reputation of Freethinkers, to the detriment of
particular persons whom he knows to be as honorable as
himself.
Before I leave this Leeds affair, I will press the following
points upon the reader’s attention: (1) That the parties
who organised that ball, and attended it, had no sort of
connection with the Secular Society ; (2) That the member
who let them the Hall, in the ordinary way of business,
would have stopped the entertainment, had it not been for
the detectives, whom he offered every facility ; (3) That the
real culprits, the men alleged to have been guilty of
abominable practices, were never proceeded against;
(4) That the two men, Pratt and Bancroft, who were
refused bail on the Tuesday because the charge was so
“ horrible,” were on the Thursday sentenced to the petty
punishment of a month’s imprisonment and a fine of sixty
�INTRODUCTION.
15
shillings ; (5) That, if the obscenities related by the police
actually occurred, there must have been some very strong
reason for bringing the case to such a sudden termination ;
(6) That this reason could be no other than a desire to screen
the most guilty parties ; (7) That this desire could only
spring from a certain knowledge that they did not belong to
the Secular party.
Supposing that Bancroft, who was a Secularist, had really
committed an offence as the street-door-keeper, meriting a
fine of sixty shillings—or as much less as the sum would
amount to, after allowing a discount for the fact that a
Christian was punishing a Secularist; what is there, I ask,
in this to justify, or even excuse, a constant attack for
nearly twenty years on the “ morality of Secularism ” ? If I
were in the humor for reprisals, I might remind these
charitable calumniators of Secularism of a certain member
who was expelled the House of Commons for evading
justice; who was accused, not of indecency, but of un
natural crimes, for which he was liable to many years’
penal servitude; who finally surrendered, and was found
guilty and sent to prison. That man was a leading
Christian in the city he represented, and held] Bible^classes
of young men at his residence, where those criminal
intimacies were formed and ripened.
I might pursue this policy of reprisal to a considerable
length, but I will refrain. I have (I hope) exploded for
ever this calumny of the “ Leeds Orgies,” as far at least as
the considerate and impartial are concerned. I have only
to say, in conclusion, that when the character of the Hall of
Science was taken into court its worst enemies had not the
courage to utter a word against it in the witness-box, where
they are liable to cross-examination, and acutely sensible of
the unpleasant consequences of perjury.
April, 1895.
G. W. FOOTE.
�16
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
POSTSCRIPTS.
(1) Mr. R. O. Smith, who was never, I believe, in a witnessbox in his life before this trial, made two little slips in his
evidence, which did not, however, in any way affect its
general tenor and credibility, and were, in fact, quite
unessential. I corrected these slips at the time in the
Freethinker, and I am obliged to do so again in issuing the
verbatim report of the trial in a separate form. Under
cross-examination by a brow-beating counsel, Mr. Smith did
not sufficiently discriminate between inference and know
ledge. He admitted that I had collected funds on his
behalf. What he should have said was, that I had deposited
a certain sum of money with our solicitors, on behalf
of the National Secular Hall Society (Limited), which was
originally one of the plaintiffs in the action. Mr. Smith
also gave an affirmative answer to the question whether
he built the Hall of Science with his own capital.
Subject to qualification—which it was not easy to give on
the spur [of the moment, especially as it did not affect the
main question—this answer is perfectly true. The qualifi
cation is that Mr. Smith was assisted in building the Hall
of Science by a subscription of £1,298, paid over to him by
Mr. Bradlaugh on behalf of the Secular party.
(2) The verbatim report of the trial was made by the wellknown Press Association. I mention this fact to disarm
suspicion and prevent misrepresentation.
G. W. F.
�17
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
On Monday, February 18, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and
a Common Jury, in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High
Court of Justice, the case of the National Secular Hall
Society and another v. Snow and another came on for trial.
Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Cluer appeared for
the plaintiffs; and Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Rawlinson
were for the defendants.
Tho officer of the court, by his lordship’s direction,
ordered that all women and children were to leave the
court.
Mr. Cluer said the plaintiff was Robert Owen Smith,
and the defendants were John Snow and Messrs. Cook & Co.
The plaintiff claimed damages for a libel, printed and
published by the defendants. Defendants admitted the
publication, but denied that it in any way referred to the
plaintiff.
Mr. Lawson Walton : Gentlemen of the jury,—As, no
doubt, you have gathered from the announcement just made
by the officer of the court that all women and children are
to leave the court, this is a somewhat painful and distressing
case. Mr. Robert Owen Smith, the plaintiff, has come into
court to meet a libel, published (as he thought and you will
probably have no doubt) of him, possibly in common with
other persons, of a most flagrant kind. The defendants are
the printers and publishers of the paragraph which Mr. Smith
impugns, and they are responsible for having given to the
world one of the most atrocious charges which, perhaps, can
be launched against the character of any individual. The
libel appeared in a publication which professed to be a
report of a public discussion which took place in the city of
Leeds between a Mr. Powell and a Mr. Fisher. The
pamphlet was headed “ Is Secularism Degrading ?’ and it
placed into the mouth of one of the controversialists the
charge of which Mr. Smith complains. It runs thus : “ Now,
sir, in the Hall of Science in the Dancing Academy, the
headquarters of the Secularists, which is built just opposite
a lunatic asylum—(laughter)—they had held meetings—and
B
�18
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
this is vouched for in the daily Standard of August 11,1879
—where they got boys together and taught them the act-of
self-abuse, in order, so they said, to make muscular and
strong the organs of procreation. I am in a mixed audience,
and cannot open my mind freely.” I think, notwithstanding
the mixed audience, that disputant had opened his mind
freely, and had used his tongue with equal freedom. That
charge, of as horrible a course of instruction for the young
as the human mind can conceive, was fixed to a class of
persons, not designated by name, but sufficiently designated
by description to lead every person acquainted with the
facts to come undoubtedly to the conclusion at whom
it was directed. They have had meetings. They have
established a dancing academy, and in that academy
they have given this atrocious and horrible instruction.
The question which arises, and which appears to be
the only question involved in the inquiry, is the identifi
cation of the persons against whom the charge was launched.
Who were the individuals referred to in the expression as
“ they ”? Who was responsible for founding the National Hall
of Secularism which existed in the City of London ? Who had
organised, at the headquarters of Secularism, the meetings
for the purpose of propagating Secularist opinions ? Who
established the Dancing Academy in connection with the
hall, and who organised these classes for the young in which
this horrible doctrine was supposed to be propagated 1
Unfortunately, Mr. Robert Owen Smith has had to come
forward, because, undoubtedly, to every person who is
acquainted with his relationship with this Hall of Secular
ism, and his connection with the classes, there can be no
doubt that, if anybody was responsible, Mr. Smith was
responsible ; and if anybody was to come forward and clear
his charactei* from these odious accusations, that person was
Mr. Smith ; and I will tell you why. Mr. Smith, in the year
1868, purchased the site upon which the Hall of Science, in
Old-street, was built. That was the very year in which Mr.
Brad laugh, perhaps one of the best-known lecturers at the
Hall of Science, first stood for the borough of Northampton.
Mr. Smith built the hall with his own capital, and conducted
it at his own expense. The lecturers were paid by him, and
any receipts from them were received by Mr. Smith, and
were applied by him to meeting the expense of the venture.
Mr. Bradlaugh, Mrs. Besant, and various other persons of
Secularist opinions, lectured from week to week at the Hall
of Science; and, after a while, Mr. Smith established in
connection with it a Club and Institute. Classes were
opened for the instruction of the young, entertainments
were given of a special character, and among other classes
was one for teaching dancing. Mr. Smith organised these
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
19
classes, superintended them, and some of them he actually
conducted himself. Under his supervision the art of dancing
was taught to young people by dancing masters whom he
employed, and I hold in my hand the public bills which were
issued, and the tickets which were issued : and on the face
of them Mr. Smith was publicly described as the Secretary
and Manager of the hall, and of all the undertakings and
classes held in connection with it. Therefore, the Hall of
Science which was referred to in the paragraph owed its
origin to Mr. Smith’s enterprise, to his capital, and its
operations to his supervision and personal management.
Therefore, if it is suggested that, at that Hall of Science,
practices which outrage human nature took place at classes
actually superintended by Mr. Smith himself, the person who
came forward to meet an accusation of that sort, and the only
person against whom it can be levelled, and popularly regarded
as such, is Mr. Smith, the plaintiff in this action. When this
paragraph appeared a letter was written to the defendants,
who had given it to the world, and to the defendants alone.
The obscure libeller and slanderer, who said what he had to
say in some obscure hall in a provincial town, is a compara
tively unimportant person, and the slander was a com
paratively unimportant matter. But here, in the City of
London, under their own names, the two defendants, as
publisher and printer, gave to this slander the prominency
of print, and the currency of a pamphlet scattered broad
cast over the whole country. Mr. Smith therefore wrote to
these two defendants, and called upon them for some expla
nation and retractation of this horrible accusation. They met
that appeal with absolute silence. Neither of them deigned
to answer the letter which was written to them. Absolute
silence on the part of both of these defendants. But some
third person, who had not originally uttered the slander,
and to whom no letter was written, voluntarily put himself
into the breach, and made himself responsible for the charge.
Mr. Smith had, under advice, sought to hold the two defen
dants—the printer and publisher of this pamphlet—as
primarily answerable ; and it was from them alone he was
determined to have some retractation, as public as the original
charge was which had been made. Unfortunately, the
matter does not rest there. This accusation was not met by
silence, but it was met by persistent repetition ; and I shall
be able to show you that another publication, which was
issued by one or both of the defendants, and which describes
itself as the Anti-Infidel, made an appeal for subscriptions
trom the credulous public—who, I suppose, are willing to
Relieve any foul thing, in their wealth of charity, of any
body who does not share their own religious opinions. An
appeal was made for contributions—for the purpose of
�20
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
retracting ? No ; but for the purpose of proving the charge
up to the hilt; and in this publication an assurance is made
that the charge is going to be proved up to the hilt. What
is their course now ? They originally start by bluster, and
they now meet us in this Court of Justice with the cowardice
of the person who would make such a charge, and then say
that they will prove it to be true. Now, do they say it is
true ? Do they use the subscriptions raised by the credulous
public for the purpose of proving it is true ? No ! The
appeal, I presume, resulted in the flow of the money they
desired ; and, having obtained these funds, they put them
into their pocket, and come into court, and try and back out
of it, and escape their responsibility for having made it
and the defence, and the only defence, that they have put
upon the record is this : It is true it was said—we don’t say
whether it is true or false ; but we certainly say we did not
say it of Smith. I doubt not that you will deal with such a
defence in the way that it merits. If they did not say it of
Mr. Smith, of whom did they say it ? If they did not speak
of the person who organised the classes, and who personally
superintended them, then who was the man responsible for
this outrage ? Why did they not care to take the first
chance of exonerating him, and repudiating the suggestion
that he was the person referred to. Instead of meeting the
challenge, they tell the world, when Mr. Smith is suing
them, that they are going to prove the truth of the charge
up to the hilt. The defence has only to be set out for you to
grasp the true situation, that there is, and can be, no answer
to the action. Why are the defendants here if all this
could not be proved, as they did not suggest it could ?'
Why, if it cannot be seriously denied that Mr. Smith is
seriously reflected upon, are the defendants here in a public
court of justice to resist the accusation ? I think you may
guess. They are here because they think there are persons
so steeped in religious prejudice that they will believe to be
true any gross accusation made against persons who do not
share their views, and because they think that, on the jury,
there may be a man so biassed by his religious opinions that
he cannot do justice to a fellow citizen who does not happen
to share his opinions. I hope they will be defeated by your
verdict, and that you will show that spirit of justice which
shines among the highest virtues. On behalf of Mr. Smith,
I ask you by this action to clear his character from a stain
cast upon him for which there is no sort of justification;
a stain on a long record of an honorable life, and to give him
the only reparation which the law allows for such an injury.
Mr. Robert Owen Smith, the plaintiff, then went into the
witness-box and made affirmation, giving his address as
81 Ridge-road, Hornsey. He was examined by Mr. Cluer.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
21
In 1868 did you take a lease of the premises on which the
Hall of Science in Old-street is built ?—I did.
Did you yourself have the building erected there ?—I did.
And paid for it ?—Yes.
What position did you hold from 1868 to 1892 with
reference to the Hall1?—I was the leaseholder and proprietor.
I was also secretary and manager of the Club and Institute,
which was established by myself, up to 1881. Through illhealth I gave up the secretaryship and management, and
was the treasurer of the Club j and I was the sole proprietor
and organiser of the lectures given there.
Was the Hall of Science the headquarters of the
Secularist party 1—It was ; and their council meetings were
held there.
Is it an annual meeting you refer to ?—No ; monthly.
And they meet there regularly *?—-Regularly.
Were there lectures delivered at the hall ?—Yes; every
Sunday evening, and sometimes Sunday mornings and week
nights.
Who arranged the lectures ?—I did.
Did you pay the lecturers 1—I did.
Had you control over the hall and the meetings that took
place there ?—I had.
And did you personally attend to it during the years from
1868 to 1892—I did.
When was it that you started a series of dancing classes
there ?—In 1869.
Would you look at this 1 Is that an advertisement of the
dancing classes 1—Yes.
Was that inserted by your authority 1—It was ; and my
name is at the bottom of it.
The Judge : What is the book ?—It is the North London
College and School Guide.
Mr. Cluer : Is it a fact that every day in the week there
Was dancing carried on under your superintendence ?—There
was.
Did you personally supervise those classes and see to
them 1-—I did.
For how many years did you personally look after them ?—
From 1872 to 1881.
At that time did you actually yourself give dancing
lessons with assistance ?—I did.
Was any instruction given there during that time without
your supervision *?—There was no instruction given there
that I was not responsible for. I did not give instructions
in science, because I was not a duly-qualified teacher. All
the classes held there I was responsible for, and for every
thing that took place in the building. Science classes were
taught by Dr. Aveling.
�22
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Were there classes in which the pupils were examined
by a Government department ?—In connection with South
Kensington.
And examinations were held on the subjects taught in the
science classes of the subjects prescribed by the South
Kensington school ?—They were.
And lectures delivered by responsible, qualified persons 1—
Yes.
I believe the Rev. Stewart Headlam was one of the
lecturers ?—Yes ; he has given lectures there, and he was a
member of the Science Classes Committee, who were
responsible for the teaching. The authorities at South
Kensington insist on having a committee on which there
must be one clergyman. I was also on the Committee.
With reference to the club, did you establish a club and
institute ?—I did.
Were you daily on the premises 1—Daily.
That was your business, you had no other ?—Yes.
What date was it that the club was established ?—1870.
Were you a member of the club yourself?—I was
secretary and manager.
Did you see yourself what went on from time to time
among members of the club ?—I did.
Will you just look at this copy of the libellous pamphlet,
A Secularism Degrading ? Will you tell me, with regard to
the paragraph in question, first, was the name of the
building in Old-street the Hall of Science ?—It was.
Had you there a dancing academy?—I had.
Is St. Luke’s Lunatic Asylum nearly opposite your place
in Old-street ?—Yes.
Your place is on the South side, and that is on the
North ?—Yes.
Before you saw that pamphlet, had you ever heard of any
such report, as is there vouched, in any paper called the
Daily Standard or any other paper ?—Never.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : What is the Daily Standard 2
Mr. Cluer : There is no such paper, I believe. (To the
witness). Is there a word of truth in the suggestion that
is made in this libel ?—There is not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Murphy, Q.C. : This pamphlet
purposes to be a debate between Mr. Walton Powell and
Mr. Greaves Fisher. Is that so ?—Yes.
And the preface seems to be in these words : “In October
last Mr. Walton Powell, President of the Liverpool Branch
of the National Anti-Infidel League, conducted a crusade in
Leeds ; and as the debate, of which the following pages
contain a report, arose out of that discussion, it is now
published in the belief that it will excite thought on matters
of importance to society, and enable readers to answer for
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
23
themselves the question, 1 Is Secularism Degrading ?’ ” and
that appears to be signed by W. R. Bradlaugh, President of
the Anti-Infidel League. Is there such a person as W. R.
Bradlaugh ?—There is.
The next thing we find is this : A reporter’s certificate,
dated January 1894, certifying that it is a correct transcript
of the debate between Walton Powell and Greevz Fisher, at
St. James’s Hall, Leeds, October 17, 1892, signed by two
reporters. Then there is the debaters’ certificate as to
accuracy, signed by Mr. Powell and Mr. Fisher. Then
follows what purports to be a verbatim report of this debate,
as it is called. When first did you hear of this pamphlet ?—
I cannot tell the exact date.
Shortly after it took place ?—Yes.
And you knew the name of Powell, who used these words,
and you knew the name of Bradlaugh too ?—-I knew of
Bradlaugh, but not Powell.
Did you make any complaint of the publication at the
time ?—I did not.
Although it was published in the papers. Have you made
any complaint to Mr. Powell, the utterer of these words ?—
I have not.
The debate took place at Leeds ?—Yes.
Had there been, to your knowledge, in the year 1878, a
great scandal about some immoral proceedings at a hall in
Leeds ?—I heard something.
Very disgusting proceedings had taken place there ?—I
don’t know.
Did not you ascertain that 1 Was it not a matter of dis
cussion, to your knowledge, of this trial that took place in
1878 ?—There was a trial.
And evidence was given of very disgusting proceedings
at a hall there 1—I was not aware of it.
Do you seriously say that you did not know the trial was
with reference to certain obscenities at a hall in Leeds ?—-I
was under the impression that it was for disorderly conduct;
but I did not read the trial.
And had never heard it discussed?—I had heard that
proceedings were taken.
And that evidence was given of disgusting conduct in the
hall ?—No.
You say that ? Think ! You never heard it alleged that
evidence was given of disgusting proceedings in a hall
between boys and young men. Have you ever heard of
it? I beg for a distinct answer to a plain question.—I
have not.
Do you know Mr. Foote ?—I do.
Has it been discussed in his presence and in yours ?—I
don’t know.
�24
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Come, do yourself justice in this matter. Do you say
you never it heard alleged that evidence was given of dis
gusting conduct in the hall in the year 1878?—I am not
aware of any of the proceedings in relation to the matter.
I am not asking whether you are aware ; my question is
whether you heard it discussed.—Not to my knowledge.
How can you have heard it if it was not to your know
ledge ?—I will say no more than that.
Do you persist in saying you never heard the matter
discussed?—I don’t remember on any occasion it was dis
cussed, in my presence, with Mr. Foote.
With anyone ?—Or with anyone.
You never heard of it before ?—I have heard of the pro
ceedings.
Have you heard it suggested before that evidence was
given of disgusting proceedings in the hall at Leeds ?—I
have said I believe it was for disorderly conduct, but I
really don’t know any more about the matter.
Have, you never heard until this moment ?—I have heard
that evidence was given.
Never heard it suggested ?—No.
Have you not seen the report in the public paper of what
occurred there ?—No, I have not.
Have you never seen the report ?—No, I have not.
Did you ever hear of a place called the Secular Hall,
Leeds ?—I have heard of a hall at Leeds used for Secular
purposes and lectures.
Lectures in connection with gentlemen of your opinions ?
—Yes.
And owned and leased by gentlemen connected with them ?
—I have no knowledge who was the owner.
Well, leased by persons of your opinions ?—I believe so.
Did you hear there was a prosecution about something
that occurred there ?—I did hear there was a prosecution in
connection with proceedings held at that hall. I do not
know whether the proceedings were against the persons who
leased it, or against other persons.
Did you never hear of this charge ?
Mr. Walton : I object. My friend is referring to a matter
extremely remote, because we are dealing with a hall speci
fically described; and now he is travelling to some other
matters in another part of the country. The witness has
already said he saw no report relative to that prosecution.
My friend is not entitled to suggest that such a report did
appear, unless he can .prove it by his witnesses. He is not
entitled to hold by this witness that there was a report after
the witness has said he did not see it.
Mr. Murphy : I disagree entirely with my friend. My
friend says the article here points to his hall. I say,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
25
Nothing of the sort. The debate was carried on at the
Secular Hall at Leeds, which is another hall entirely. I am
going to put to the witness-----Mr. Walton : My friend is not entitled to read a docu
ment with the object of suggesting to the jury certain facts
(of course that is his object), after witness has said no such
paper was ever seen by him.
Mr. Justice Lawrance: Yes; but he may put it to
him.
Mr. Walton : The opening out of a newspaper is a way to
suggest facts which he is not entitled to prove. I think it
is most irregular. If the witness says he did not see these
reports, that is the end of it.
Mr. Murphy (to witness) : Have you not been present
when the report of these trials has been discussed 1 —I may
have been present when the matter was talked about.
The report of this trial ?—No.
Never in 1878 ?—No; I don’t know the date. I have never
been present when the report of the trial was discussed.
Nor about what was reported to have occurred then ?—I
have said before that I have heard this matter talked about.
Have you never heard it suggested that disgraceful pro
ceedings took place there 1—No, I have not.
Do you read the Secular Review sometimes ?—No ; I have
seen it.
Did you ever see the passage speaking of the unspeakable,
obscene character of the orgies seen in the Leeds Branch of
the National Secular Society ?—No. You are speaking from
the Secular Review ?
Yes. You have never taken pains to ascertain what took
place at Leeds ?—No.
We have heard something about subscriptions. Have you
and Mr._ Foote been applying for subscriptions in support of
this action ?—I have not.
Has Mr. Foote, with your knowledge ?—Yes; on my
behalf.
Was it with your authority that this passage was written:
“ The London Hall of Science, for instance, has been the
constant object of calumny. It is said to be opposite a
lunatic asylum, though it is not. It is really midway
between the church and the asylum, and on the opposite
side of the road. The position is a good one, as it gives us
an opportunity of intercepting persons whose wits may
be disordered by the House of God”?—No, not on my
authority.
Is the Freethinker one of your party’s papers?—Yes, it
represents the Society’s views, but it is Mr. Foote’s paper.
It was one of the papers in which you advertised for
subscriptions to conduct this trial ?—Yes.
�26
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
And on the 15th April it contained the passage I have
just read ?—Yes.
Without any protest from you ?—Yes.
And the same number contained an appeal for subscrip
tions ?—Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Murphy : I did not read the whole of the quotation,
to do Mr. Foote justice: “It gives us an opportunity of
intercepting persons whose wits may be disordered by the
House of God before their arrival at the house of imbeciles.”
Mr. Walton : I submit my friend is not entitled to read
this, unless he has called evidence to connect it with the
plaintiff. Mr. Smith says it was not issued by his autho
rity.
Mr. Murphy : I entirely disagree. The witness has said
this paper was issued for the purpose of obtaining subscrip
tions for this trial, and was issued by the Society.
Mr. Smith : No, not by the Society.
Mr. Walton : That does not make the witness responsible
for the language Mr. Foote may have used. The paper was
not issued by the plaintiff, and it does not belong to the
Society.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I do not understand it.
Mr. Walton : The witness went on to say it was not the
property of the Society, but belonged to Mr. Foote, and
that it only represented the views of the Society.
Mr. Murphy : He saw the article, and used the paper to
collect subscriptions.
Mr. Walton : My friend is not entitled to use this. The
article is published by some other person without being
submitted to Mr. Smith. It is true it contained an appeal
for subscriptions, but that does not make _ Mr. Smith
responsible for the language used in it. Until my friend
shows that Mr. Smith authorised the publication of the
article he cannot be held responsible.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I understood him to say he
saw it.
Mr. Walton : Yes, after it was published.
Mr. Murphy : He saw it, and used it for the purpose of
obtaining subscriptions.
Mr. Smith : I did not use it to get subscriptions..
Mr. Walton : I think it was in October that this appeal
for subscriptions went out ?
Mr. Murphy : No; you are wrong.
Mr. Walton : Well, they are Mr. Foote’s views, and not
Mr. Smith’s. The whole object of my friend is. to prejudice
this gentleman. If he says, I have not published it, it is
clear my friend can’t use it.
Mr. Murphy : The whole object is to make this gentleman
responsible for their opinions.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
27
Mr. Walton : My friend must prove that Mr. Smith
published this article.
Mr. Murphy (reading): “ The solicitor is instructed to
accept no offer of compromise. The case must be determined
in court, where all the circumstances can be clearly under
stood ”—was that with your consent ?—No, it was not.
Was this with your consent: “There happens to be a man
of reckless scurrility—”
Mr. Walton : I object to this. He cannot produce this
till he has shown Mr. Smith is responsible for the publi
cation.
Mr. Murphy : I am going to ask him if he authorised
this.
Mr. Walton : But before you can read the passage you
must first show the witness published it. You are not
entitled to get the advantage of reading the passage,
and then ask the witness was that published with his
authority. If it is his publication, you must first show the
witness was responsible for it, instead of taking it as the
foundation of your question. The witness said he never
saw it before it was published. It was not published by
him, but was published by Mr. Foote.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : I did not know he said he did
not see them before they were published.
Mr. Smith : I had not seen these things before they were
published, my lord.
Mr. Murphy : Did you see them after they were pub
lished?—Yes.
Did you afterwards agree with Mr. Foote that he should
write in the same Freethinker and invite subscriptions for
this case ?—-I did not agree with him in anything. He did
not consult me.
Did you know he was doing it 1—I did not know until the
articles and paragraphs appeared ; but I knew he was going
to solicit subscriptions in the Freethinker.
And you thought it right that he should do this ?—I could
not help myself. It is his own paper.
You left him to write what he thought proper, and to ask
subscriptions for your case?—Yes ; of course he would write
what he thought proper.
I will put the matter in another way. Does this passage
represent your opinions ? “ It is said to be opposite a
lunatic asylum, though it is not. It is really midway
between the church and the asylum on the opposite side of
the road. The position is a good one, since it gives the
opportunity to intercept persons whose wits may be dis
ordered by the House of God before they arrive at their
destination in the house of imbeciles.” Does that represent
your opinions ?—Are my opinions under discussion ?
�28
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Yes ; your character is at stake.—My character ?
Does that represent your opinions?—They are not my
opinions.
You are not shocked by them?—No, I am not shocked.
(Laughter.) Abuse is given on both sides in this question.
That was in the course of the debate, was it not ?—I was
not at the debate.
You have read it ?—I have read it.
You have not applied to Mr. Powell, or to Mr. Bradlaugh,
I understand ?—No.
Here is a book called The Elements of Social Science. Are
you familiar with it ?—Yes.
Is it sold by your Society ?—Yes ; by members, not by the
Society.
I see in the book the passage : “ Prostitution is a valuable
substitute until we have reached a better state of things, by
banishing the marriage laws.” Are those your opinions ?—
No.
But it is one of your books, which you sell 1—No, it is not
sold by the Society. It is sold only by members of the
Society.
Is it sold at a shop over which your Society has control ?
—No ; our Society has no control over any shop.
Is it sold at the hall ?—Yes.
By the Society of which you are a committee-man ?—
Yes.
Is this a passage from that book : “ The laws of exercise,
and the health of the reproductive organs and emotions,
depend on their having sufficient means of normal exercise :
and the want of this tends to produce diseases in men and
women ” ?—I have read that.
Is that one of the books you sell ?—It is one of the books
sold.
Have you seen advertisements of this pamphlet ?—I have
not.
Ke-examined by Mr. Walton: Have you any connection
with either the printing or the publication of this work,
The Elements of Social Science 1—No ; all the books we sell
we do not approve of. We do not approve of every doctrine.
We sell books containing all sorts of doctrine ; but it does
not follow we approve of them.
You do not hold yourself responsible for the opinions of
every professor of Freethought ?—Certainly not.
Freethought means freedom of thought on the part of
every member of society ?—Yes.
And this book my friend has referred to, which is written
by a doctor of medicine, has on its frontispiece this quota
tion from J. S. Mill: “ The diseases of society cannot be
prevented or cured without being spoken of in plain lan
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
29
guage.” How many years has that book been before the
world ?—I have known it for thirty years.
Has any effort been made to suppress this book as im
moral or illegal ?—Not so far as I know. I do not agree
with the writer of the book.
But he is entitled to his own opinions ?—Certainly.
And the law allows him to sell the book ?—Yes, but they
are not my opinions.
Have you ever made any charges of immoral misconduct
or any accusation of that kind against your opponents 1—I
have not. I am not in the habit of making charges.
It is now suggested that this pamphlet had reference not
to what took place at the Hall of Science in London, but at
the hall in Leeds. Have you ever, till this moment, heard
the suggestion ?—No, I was not aware that there was a Hall
of Science in Leeds. I do not think there is a hall called
the Hall of Science there.
Did you instruct your solicitors to write to the defendant
before the action commenced ?—Yes.
Mr. Murphy : The only one I know of is the one issuing
the writ.
Mr. Walton : In answer to that letter, or at any time
during this action, have you ever heard it suggested by
anybody that the Hall of Science here mentioned was the
hall in Leeds ?—I have not. I am informed there is no Hall
of Science in Leeds.
Is there any other headquarters of Secularism except
that with which you and the late Mr. Bradlaugh were
connected ?—No.
Is there any other Hall of Science opposite a lunatic
asylum 1—No.
Is there any Hall of Science in the kingdom to which this
description can apply except your own ?—No ; it has been
specially spoken of as being opposite a lunatic asylum. It
is some twenty-five years since I first heard the expression.
Have you any sort of connection with what has been
described as the Hall of Secularism at Leeds ?—No; and I
am not aware of what goes on there.
Or any responsibility for what happens there ?—No.
You are told fifteen . years ago there was a prosecution of
some persons at Leeds, in connection with the hall. Do you
know anything about it ? Have you ever heard it suggested
that that prosecution referred to disgusting conduct in the
nature of that imputed ?—I never knew any of the facts. I
knew there was a prosecution there, but I did not know the
facts connected with it.
Do you happen to know if the prosecution was with
drawn ?—I do not know how it terminated.
�30
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Suppose there had been a conviction, would you have
expected to hear of it ?
Mr. Murphy : You may have expected a good many things.
Mr. Walton : Did you ever hear of anybody being con
victed in connection with it 1—No, I did not.
By Mr. Murphy : Have you seen the advertisement of
this .pamphlet in the Torch, under the head of “The Leeds
Orgies. Full account of the Abominable Proceedings in
the Leeds Secular Hall. Demoralising Result of Secular
Teaching ” ?—I never saw the Torch, and never heard of it.
Mr. Walton : The date is significant. It is February 1,
1895, and the writ was issued April, 1894.
Miss Edith Vance was the next witness. She made an
affirmation, and was then examined by Mr. Cluer.
Are you the secretary of the National Secular Society 1—
I am.
Did you, on April 14, go to the defendant Snow’s place of
business 1—I did.
Five days after the writ in this action 1—Yes.
Did you purchase there, from his place of business, a copy
of the publication of this libel ?—Yes.
Mr. Murphy : I have nothing to ask the witness.
Mr. Robert Forder, examined by Mr. Cluer: Have you
known the plaintiff since 1868 ?—I have.
Have you constantly been at the Hall of Science yourself
from that time ?—From 1868 to 1870 there was a break, but I
came back in 1871. I became committee man in 1873, and I
was elected paid secretary.
Mr. Justice Lawrance : We don’t want all this history.
Mr. Cluer : In 1873 you were a committee man ?—Yes.
From that time had you an intimate connection with the
hall 1—Yes.
Was Mr. Smith there ?—Yes, as a rule, every night.
Who was the person responsible for the meetings, lectures,
and classes that went on there ?—Mr. Robert Owen Smith.
Did you know that science and art classes went on
there ?—Yes ; I was secretary of them.
Did Mr. Smith supervise what went on at the Hall 1—Yes.
Was he known among Secularists generally as the
manager ?—Yes, of the hall. We hired the hall for the
science and art classes of him.
Was he known generally as the person who conducted the
dancing academy there ?—Yes.
By Mr. Murphy : Who were you who hired the hall 1—
The Society engaged the hall every Sunday.
Were you your own manager ?—No; Mr. Smith managed
them all.
He was the lessor of the hall and manager of it ?—Yes ;
on Sundays.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
31
It was only on Sundays you held it 1—Yes ; but we were
entitled to it on Good Fridays, Christmas Days, and every
Sunday, and generally also on Wednesday evenings.
He managed the dancing ?—Yes ; with lady assistants.
Mr. Charles Watts, examined by Mr. Cluer : Have you
for many years known the Hall of Science ?—Yes; and
Mr. Smith in connection with it.
Who was responsible for the conduct of the classes ?—Mr.
Smith.
He would be regarded as responsible for the conduct of
the classes of the Dancing Academy and for the Society’s
meetings held there ?—Just so.
By Mr. Murphy : What did you say you were 1—I am a
journalist and lecturer.
Lecturer for any particular body ?—No.
A general lecturer ?—Yes.
What connection, if any, have you with the Hall of
Science ?—I was on the committee.
How long have you been so 1—Since my return from
America, about two years ago. Formerly I was there for
ten or twelve years.
Where were you in 1879 ?—In London.
It is suggested you were in America ?—No; I went to
America in 1884.
Then you were in London at the time of the Leeds trial ?
—Yes.
Did you hear of the trial 1—Yes, I heard of it.
Mr. Walton : I object to this. This cannot be relevant
to the question of damages—what he may have heard about
the Leeds trial—until my friend is in a position to make the
evidence at the Leeds trial pertinent to this matter.
Mr. Murphy : I really don’t know what the meaning of
this objection is. The question is whether these words
uttered in the reports pointed to something in London. All
the surrounding circumstances must be taken into account,
in order to see what the words meant. One of these things
was whether there was a trial at Leeds immediately before,
and what occurred at it. My friend assumes that this
relates to the Hall of Science in London. My case is that it
does not.
Examination continued: You have heard of the trial at
Leeds ?—Yes.
Did you hear evidence was given there of abominable
bractices ?—I did not.
Never heard it suggested till to-day ?—Never.
Dp you know a paper called the Secular Review 2—I have
not read it lately, I used to.
Were you not editor of it ?—I was.
Tn what year1?—Up to 1883.
�32
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
And not after that ?—Not after that.
Had you a kindly interest in it after that ?—No, no interest
directly, kindly or unkindly.
On June 26, 1886, will you undertake to say you did not
see a paragraph in that paper about the obscenity alleged to
have occurred at the Hall of Science at Leeds ?—In 1886 I
was in America.
Was it never discussed in your presence 1—-Never.
There are many of these Halls of Science in different parts
of England, are there not ?—I only know of two; one in
London, and one in Sheffield.
One in Leeds ?—No, that is not a Hall of Science; it is
never known by that name.
So far as you know ?—That is all I can say.
Mr. Walton : I put in a paper called the Anti-Infidel of
May, 1894. It is printed by the defendant Cook, and is
published by the other defendant, J. Snow & Co. The letter
appears on the first page of the paper. The passage I rely
upon is the last paragraph in the first column [stating that
when the case came into court the libel would be proved
up to the hilt].
Mr. Murphy insisted the whole article should be read.
Mr. Walton thereupon read the whole of the letter, and
upon concluding said that was the plaintiffs case. The
Court then rose for luncheon.
After the luncheon interval Mr. Murphy proceeded to
open the case for the defence. He said : That the state
ment which is contained in this paragraph is untrue I am
not here to dispute. My client does not pretend to justify
it. It was set out in this book as having been stated
publicly at this debate—about that there can be no sort of
doubt •, but to say that it was true at present is a thing my
clients have not said, and do not say. That they are legally
responsible I do not also dispute. One is the publisher and
the other the printer of the pamphlet. The publisher’s
position in this particular matter seems to be this. He
allows his name to be used as the publisher of the pamphlet,
and he gets a commission, which, in this particular instance,
if the number which had been sent to him had all been
sold, would have produced the magnificent remuneration of
16s., and in respect of that matter he stands his trial for libel.
The printer, on the other hand, has had his remuneration for
printing the pamphlet, and I think you will find it is not of
an extravagant character. The one was employed to print,
and the other to publish, by Mr. Bradlaugh, whose name has
been mentioned ; and it has been known to the plaintiff and
to the committee of this National Secular Hall Society ever
since the time of the discussion, when Mr. Powell was th#
�33
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
person who uttered these words, subsequently that Mr,
Bradlaugh was the person who authorised their publication
in the shape which they are at present. For reasons best
known to himself, the plaintiff, who is most anxious to
vindicate his character, which he says has been assailed, but
which I deny, has passed by the man who used the words
and the man who authorised their publication, and has come
upon the printer and publisher, neither of whom, it will be
proved, ever had any idea that there was any libel
contained in the words at all, much less that the
plaintiff was the person designated by them. It is
a lawful course for a man to take ; whether it is a just or a
fair one is another question. It has been said that the
plaintiff came into court without the slightest idea that
there could be any question that the Hall of Science in
London was not the one designated by Mr. Powell when he
spoke at Leeds. Do you believe it ? Do you believe that
these gentlemen, one and all, have come up here and told
you the full truth as to whether or not they ever heard of a
disgusting trial at Leeds in the year 1878 ? What do you
think, of the way in which the plaintiff answered my
questions? Had he answered them in a straightforward
way ? Do you think you got his whole mind ? Do you
think he told you all he knew about the trial ? Do
you think he ever heard.it suggested there was a scandal
attached to the proceedings of 1878 which came before
the public, and published in the newspapers of the
time in reference to the occurrences in the Hall of
Science, or the hall connected wibh the Association, what
ever it might have been called, in the year 1878 ? You are
men of. the world. I could not force them to say more than
they did ; but was the impression left on your minds that
they were telling the whole truth about the matter?
Judge for yourselves. The. President of the Society (Mr.
Foote) is, for aught I know, in court, sitting in front of my
learned friend. Does he know nothing about it ? Why was
not he called ? His name has been frequently mentioned,
and he is the person who was employed to collect subscrip
tions in support of the action. Where is he ? He is a
gentleman whose opinions on the subject of the proximity
of the lunatic asylum to the place of worship you have
just heard would be valuable. Where is Mr. Foote ? Does
he know too much about the Hall of Science, or the
hall at North-street, Leeds, about which it is suggested
this trial took place ? Do you think this discussion
has been going on all the time without any inquiry
being made by the authorities as to what took place
at the trial ? Gentlemen, don’t believe it for a moment.
Bring your own good sense to bear on the matter, and then
C
�34
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
you will be in a position to see whether the article points
to anything that occurred in London, as distinguished from
what occurred in Leeds. The pamphlet purports to give an
account of a public discussion, not in London, but in Leeds,
between two advocates of the two systems. The subject
was whether or not Secularism was degrading, and you
won’t expect me to attempt to justify the course of that
debate upon the one side or upon the other. If there are
people who think that the cause of religion, upon the one
hand or upon the other hand, is advanced by discussions of
the character you have heard, let them have their opinions.
You won’t get me to express an opinion favourable to the
one or to the other. What I have got to do is to defend my client
as best I can against the proceedings in this libel action, which
neither of them ever contemplated or intended. They
may be legally responsible, and, in one sense, may be
morally responsible _ in not having read this article and
pamphlet, and inquired what was referred to, and justify
the statements made before they published them; but as
regards any feeling in the mind of either of them, either
against the National Secular Association or against Mr.
Smith, before the end of the case you will be satisfied, I
am certain, that they had no malice of any sort or kind. Of
Mr. Smith I believe they never heard until this action, and
certainly it is a very strange thing that it should be in the
year 1895 that Mr. Smith should emerge from his com
parative obscurity in order to fight the battle of this Secular
Association. When this action was commenced, it began as
one would have expected. It was an action brought by
the National Secular Hall Association, Limited, and another.
That another was Mr. Smith, but the real plaintiffs in the
matter were the Association. It was found, as the action
went on, that they had no locus standi in the matter, and
their names were struck out, so that they had to fall back
on the “ another.” Mr. Smith nobody had heard of until
this matter was brought to its present shape. What is the
answer to this case ? It is this. It is made on behalf of my
client, who knew nothing about the facts. That the debate
at Leeds took place in reference to matters that were
familiar to the audience, we have proved. They all knew
about the trial of 1878. Somebody has got the name of the
Daily Standard in, showing the muddle that Mr. Powell
must have got into. He was obviously referring to the
Leeds Daily News, which did contain a report of the trial—
a trial which disclosed, if the evidence was to be believed,
the existence of obscenity and filthy practices in this hall, and
which was disclosed in the course of the prosecution. It was
a prosecution against licensed premises, and the license was
opposed by the police ; and it was the subject of discussion,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
35
not merely in Leeds, but all over the country. Perhaps that
is the reason why we do not see Mr. Foote. He is a journalist,
and is familiar with the subject of Secularist literature, and
would know how far discussion went at Leeds. He is
not called, and you can draw your own inference. I have
been wondering to see whether they would call witnesses to
say : “ We have read this article. We know Leeds, and we
know London: and, when we read the article, we saw at
once that Mr. Smith was the person pointed to.” No such
person is called, and you are left in the dark. Every
attempt has been made to exclude me from throwing any
light on what took place in 1878, in order that you might be
invited to take a leap in the dark, and find a verdict for
the plaintiff. I shall ask you to keep your judgment
open, and say whether or not it is more probable that
the people were talking in Leeds to a Leeds audience,
and were referring to matters that took place at the North
street Hall, Leeds, and not in London. That is the main
question, and the one upon which I propose to address you.
I shall lay before you, as one of the surrounding circum
stances in the case, the papers from the British Museum
containing an account of the trial. I shall also lay before
you such papers referring to the Leeds scandal in order to
enable you to form a judgment as to whether the speech of
this gentleman pointed to the plaintiff. No doubt it is a
very convenient matter for the proprietors of the Hall of
Science to come here and obtain a cheap popularity, with
the assistance of other people’s money, by bringing an action
of this sort; and, if it ever becomes a question of damages,
I beg you will remember some of the views expressed by
the champion of this hall, and say what damages ought
to be awarded to persons of such a character. People
who sell such a book in their own hall as the one
that I have read passages from to you, admitted by the
plaintiff to be part of the current literature of this sect—
what title have they to come and ask for damages, even if
they are unjustly assailed 1 Let them sue Mr. Bradlaugh or
Mr. Powell, the people who are responsiblej but don’t let
them go and make victims of the printer and publisher,
even though, perhaps, they ought to have exercised some
supervision, even although the name of Smith was not
known to them at the time, and they never anticipated, for
a single moment, the feelings of him or his friends could be
affected by the paragraph in question.
Mr. Graves was then called. He said he was an officer of
the British Museum, and produced from their custody a file
of the Leeds Daily News.
Mr. Walton : I take your Lordship’s opinion whether it
�36
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
is admissible evidence to produce the file of a newspaper.
I do not see on what issue this has bearing.
The Judge : I understand Mr. Murphy’s case is that this
matter had reference only to what took place in 1878.
Mr. Walton : My friend says that the Hall of Science
referred to is the Hall of Science so called at Leeds. That
is the first proposition, and that is evidence which can be
proved by calling persons who will describe the situation of
this hall in Leeds, and tell us how it is known ; but it can
not be proved by producing the file of a newspaper.
The Judge : This witness only produces a file of the
paper. The use made of it after is a different thing.
Mr. Walton : I object to the file going in at all as
evidence.
The Judge : This is the paper which I suppose Mr.
Murphy means is referred to as the Daily Standard.
Mr. Walton : Of course London should be Leeds, and
Daily Standard should be Daily News. His friend could
not put in the Daily News, and say it was meant instead of
the Daily Standard.
Mr. Murphy : The view I present is this. The question
for the jury is : Has the plaintiff made out that the pamphlet
refers to the London Hall of Science, and to the orgies
there ? I propose to prove, not the facts of what occurred
in the Hall of Science at Leeds, but that it was a matter of
discussion amongst newpapers at the time referred to in the
pamphlet; that there had been in the hall at Leeds orgies
of a scandalous description. That will enable the jury to
decide one way or the other.
Mr. Walton : My learned friend is trying to draw a
herring across the scent. When the question as to whether
the Hall of Science described here as the headquarters of
the Secularists, and the situation in which it is in reference
to a well-known public institution, is the London hall, how
could his learned friend propose to show, not that it was
an accurate description of the Hall of Science at Leeds, but
that certain proceedings, which he does not propose to
prove, took place in another institution, which is not this
institution, and to which this description does not apply ? I
submit we have nothing to do with any proceedings except
those in the Hall of Science, which corresponds to the
description.
The Judge : This took place in October, 1892. Was he
clearly referring to something which took place in 1879 ?
Mr. Walton : At a place indicated. If his learned friend
could prove that the place indicated was not the place I
have referred to, let him do so.
The Judge : It may be that the paper is not sufficient
proof.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
37
Mr. Walton : That is my objection. The production of
the paper is evidence of nothing, and I submit is irrelevant.
The contents of the paper are not proved, and can have no
bearing on the inquiry. I object to its production.
The Judge : Well, I think the paper had better go in now.
What use is made of it is a different matter.
Mr. Murphy : I may as well meet the matter now. I have
got no witnesses from Leeds, but I press the paper upon
these grounds. It would have been open for me to have
proved that during the meeting someone called out: “ Oh,
■ you are referring to the hall at Leeds.” That would be
evidence to satisfy the jury that the speaker was referring
to what took place in Leeds. In the same way, publication
of the paper is known to the audience that was being
addressed at Leeds.
Mr. Justice Lawrance: That is a long way from pro
ducing the paper, saying you put everything in it in.
Mr. Murphy : I don’t put it in as evidence of what
occurred there, but as evidence of what the speaker was
speaking about. The paper shows there is a scandal at Leeds.
Mr. Walton : Let him call Mr. Powell, and ask him what
he was referring to.
Mr. Murphy : My friend is inviting me to call a person
whom he won’t bring an action against. I decline to do it.
I propose to read an account of a trial in 1878, dated
September 6, 1878.
Mr. Walton : The paper referred to in the libel is
August 11, 1879.
Mr. Murphy : I am quite aware they were wrong dates,
wrong names, and wrong towns.
Mr. Walton : I ask your Lordship to rule that it is not
evidence.
The Judge : I think not.
.Mr. Murphy : I tender it as containing an account of a
trial in which obscenity took place at the Hall.
Mr.. Walton : My friend is not entitled to use that
description,, because I don’t agree with him. There is no
suggestion in this report to which the term “obscenity”
can. apply. He is not entitled to describe an article which
he is seeking to prove, bearing on the case.
The Judge (to Mr. Walton) : Your people knew nothing
about it, except that there was a charge of disorderly
conduct.
Mr. Walton : They do deny that they ever heard the
conduct was obscene.
Mr. Murphy : Your lordship rejects it.
The Judge : Yes.
Mr. Murphy : I ask your lordship to take a note of the
objection.
�38
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Mr. Rawlinson (to witness): Do you also produce another
Leeds paper ?
Mr. Murphy : You need not go through the form. I have
another witness on another paper, but the objection will be
the same.
Mr. John Snow, one of the defendants, was then examined
by Mr. Rawlinson. He said he was a publisher and book
seller, carrying on business in Ivy Lane, London. His name
appeared on the pamphlet.
As a matter of fact, what connection had you with the
production of the pamphlet?—I am merely agent for the
sale of the pamphlet.
That is a common practice in your trade, I think ?—It is.
You receive so many copies from the printers, and sell
them and account to the proprietors ?—Yes.
On what terms do you receive them ?—I sell them at a.
commission of 5 per cent.
That is all the connection you had with the production
of these pamphlets ?—Yes.
Before this action was brought had you ever heard of
Mr. Smith ?—Never heard of his name before.
I need hardly ask you whether you had any feeling of any
sort against him ?—None.
You knew that this pamphlet was a reproduction of what
had already been published in some other paper?—-Yes.
It also appears that it is a verbatim report of what
occurred at Leeds ?—Yes, certainly.
So far as you were concerned, had you any knowledge at
all even of the existence of this paragraph in the middle
°f the pamphlet?—Not until I received a letter from the
plaintiffs’ solicitor.
The Judge : What is the date of that ?
Mr. Rawlinson : 6th April, 1894. (To witness) In that
letter there was no indication to you as to what part of the
pamphlet was complained of ?—None whatever.
And no suggestion that Mr. Smith was in any way con
nected with the Hall of Science, which it now appears he is
connected with ?—No.
And at that time had you any idea of what was com
plained of in the pamphlet?—None.
Now since this action was brought have you, through
your solicitor, collected a large number of different papers,
Secular or otherwise, having reference to the conduct of
Secular halls at Leeds ?—Yes.
Amongst others have you received a copy of a review
called the Secular Review ?
Mr. Walton : How is this evidence, passages which may
have appeared in other contemporaneous papers ?
Mr. Rawlinson : In this way. The question here is
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
39
whether or not the audience who heard this remark would
apply it to the Leeds or London hall. I venture to sub
mit it is evidence of a discussion which appeared in the
Secular papers published by people who held the same line
of thought, to show, as a matter of common notoriety, it
was a subject which had been under discussion between
Christian and Secular debaters shortly before the time of
the speech complained of. I propose to bring a large
number of papers to show the Leeds question had been
discussed, and it was a matter of public interest at the time,
and therefore to ask the jury to hold that when the speaker
referred to a hall, speaking at Leeds, he referred to a hall
in Leeds, and not in London.
Mr. Walton : It is a very simple issue. The question is
whether Mr. Powell said this having reference to a building
in Leeds. That could be proved by calling persons who
heard it and the person who spoke it, and proved by giving
a description of the building in Leeds, which would answer
the description given in this article. It is not proved by
throwing in a large armful of newspapers and saying, If you
look at them you will see the speech discussed.
Mr. Rawlinson : I propose to show that the speech on
conduct at Leeds was the subject of public discussion.
The Judge : You don’t find in the pamphlet that it was a
subject of discussion.
Mr. Rawlinson : Up to that time it was an important
subject of discussion ; and in the pamphlet itself it was also
the subject of discussion.
Mr. Walton : Your lordship has already ruled upon that
point.
The Judge : You cannot put papers forward as evidence
of what took place in Leeds. There is surely another way
of getting it.
Mr. Rawlinson : I don’t care what took place at Leeds.
The Judge : You have got a faint denial from the plaintiff
of having heard that some scandal had taken place at Leeds.
Had not you better be content *?
Mr. Rawlinson : I am showing that this subject was
under discussion between the parties during all these years,
and that it was referred to by these gentlemen on that
occasion. That is the line of my argument. Of course it is
a very loose description on page 29 of the pamphlet. In
other parts of the pamphlet the matter is put more
accurately. I don’t know that I can put it any further than
"that.
The Judge : You have got the pamphlet there, and if you
can find a case in that, so much the better.
Mr. Rawlinson : Then I will deal with the pamphlet, and
I shall hope to alter your lordship’s mind, to a certain
�40
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
extent, so as to show what I mean. I submit I am entitled
to prove what he was referring to.
Mr. Walton : He describes it, not as having happened at
a Hall of Science, but at the North-street Hall, Leeds ; but
that was in his first speech.
Mr. Rawlinson : I submit it is the same subject.
The Judge : Then you are met with the same difficulty.
If you can call somebody who is able to tell us what
happened, all very well; but at present it is like asking to
put in a copy of the Times, and saying you are not going to
call any witnesses, asking me to believe everything in it.
Mr. Rawlinson : If it was a subject of ordinary interest,
I should be entitled to read articles in publications which
appear to show that it was an article of public interest.
Here I am asking your lordship to allow me to read a matter
which must have been known to the Secularists at the time.
The Judge. : Already you have got proved by the plaintiff
that something had taken place at Leeds, and that the
matter had been discussed in his presence. You have got
that. Mr. Smith says himself he was present when the
report of the trial was discussed.
Mr. Rawlinson : I was wishing to tell your lordship what
the nature of the scandal was.
Witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Walton.
. I understand, Mr. Snow, you publish numerous publica
tions of this class 1—Yes.
Do you publish a paper called the Anti-Infidel 2—I do.
With your name upon the face of it ?—Yes.
And I think you were the first in the pages of the Anti
Infidel to give this discussion to the world ?—The proprietor,
Mr. Bradlaugh, was.
I am speaking of you as publisher. You published it
under .your name; is that so 1—The discussion was pub
lished in the Anti-Infidel.
Do I.understand you to tell the jury you published that
discussion in. the newspaper, without troubling yourself to
read it ?—I did not read it.
The Judge : What had Mr. Bradlaugh to do with it ?—He
is the editor and proprietor.
Mr. Walton : What is the circulation of the Anti-Infidel 2
—I sell about 2,000.
I did not ask you what you sold.—I only receive it from
Mr. Bradlaugh on sale.
How many copies pass through the press ?—I don’t know.
I am not the printer.
You have no idea?—No.
Not the remotest ?—No.
The Judge: You did not print the pamphlet, I under
stand ?—No.
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
41
The Judge : It was sent to you to sell, the same as the
Anti-Infidel was ?—Yes, on the same terms.
Mr. Walton : It appeared in pamphlet form, with your
name on frontispiece ?—Yes.
Do you regard yourself as responsible for what appears
under your name as publisher ?—No.
Mr. Rawlinson : That is a legal question which your
lordship may have to decide later.
The Judge : If he does regard himself as liable, and he is
not legally so, it won’t hurt him to say he is.
Mr. Walton : You tell that to the jury. You issue a
pamphlet with your name on the front, and you do not
consider yourself responsible for having given it to the
world ?—I am responsible for the copies I sell, of course.
Are you responsible for allowing your name as publisher
to appear on the document for its contents ?—Responsible
for the name appearing.
Before you allowed your name to appear on this, do I
understand you did not trouble to read it ?—I did not see
it before it was put on.
Your attention was called to it by the solicitor later ?—
It was.
That was a serious letter 1—It was.
Did it complain that this pamphlet contained a serious
libel both upon Mr. Smith as the manager of the Hall of
Science, and upon the National Secular Hall Society,
Limited ?—I don’t think the letter did.
Let me read it; perhaps you did not read it ?—I did
read it.
Mr. Walton (reading) : “ I have received instructions
from the National Secular Hall Society, Limited, and from
Mr. Owen Smith, the late manager of the Hall of Science, to
commence an action against you and the printer for certain
defamatory libels.” Did you, after you got the letter, take
the trouble to read the document ?—I did.
Did you come across the passage in question ?—I did not
notice it particularly when I received the letter.
When did you first notice it ?—On the receipt of the
writ.
Did you answer the letter 1—No, because I thought I had
better see the proprietor of the pamphlet first.
When you did read the passage, did you think it a very
shocking libel on somebody I thought it was a libel on the
Hall of Science.
In London ?—Well, I did not know where it was.
Do you really tell the jury that ?—I do.
. You are the publisher of the Anti-Infidel and similar
literature, and did not know where it was 1—No ; I had
never seen it.
�42
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Did you. know it was in London 1—I knew there was one
in London.
-Did you know it was the one in London that was suing
you ?—I did not suppose anything about it.
Did you say you did not form any opinion ?—No.
Did you think it was any other Hall of Science in
London I—I did not know.
You did not know which it was 1—No.
And you did not trouble to inquire ?—I went to see Mr.
Bradlaugh.
Did you ascertain from him that it was any other ball
than the one in London that was referred to ?—No.
You thought, then, it was the Hall of Science in London 1—
I thought it might be.
And was no other 1—Well, I knew of the hall in Leeds.
Did you think that the one referred to?—I thought it
quite possible ?
You swear that ?—I do.
Then you thought it did not refer to the plaintiffs?—I
thought not.
When you were served with a writ ?—Yes.
That you swear ?—Yes.
Then, having pome to the conclusion that this did not
refer to the plaintiffs at all, did you write and tell them
so?—No.
Why not ?—Because I saw Mr. Bradlaugh.
I am not speaking of what you said to Mr. Bradlaugh, but
of what you said, to these gentlemen complaining of the
libel ?—I said nothing.
Why not ?—Because I did not know him. (Laughter.)
You think that is a serious answer ?—I do.
.And you tell the jury you thought it did not refer to
him ?—I put the matter in the hands of my solicitor.
I see. Did you continue to publish the Anti-Infidel after
the action had begun ?—Certainly.
Did you happen to have been publishing it in May and
June, 1894?—Yes.
In May and June, 1894, you were strongly of opinion that
this did not refer to the plaintiffs who were suing you ?—
I cannot say what happened in May and June. This was
in April.
Did you change your opinion before May, 1894, as to whom
the libel referred to ?—No.
Then you thought it did not refer to the plaintiffs ?—I
thought so.
Will you tell the. jury, if you did not think the action
referred to the plaintiffs, how you came, in May, 1894, to
publish a letter containing this passage : “ The fact that Mr.
G. W. Foote can only bring forward one solitary paragraph
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
on which he thinks it even possible to base an action is a
tacit admission on his part that every other charge con
cerning the filthy and immoral literature issued from the
Secular press, and the vile conduct and practices of
Secularists themselves, has been proved up to the hilt.
When the case comes before the court the evidence lacking
in the involved paragraph will be forthcoming, and then the
charges will be proved up to the hilt”? How came you, if
you thought in May, 1894, that this paragraph did not refer
to the plaintiffs at all, to publish a statement that you were
going to prove the charges up to the hilt ?—Mr. Bradlaugh
wrote that; I did not.
You published it. Do you mean to say you did not read
that ?—No ; I don’t mean to say so.
And do you mean to tell the jury you allowed these
gentlemen to come into court under the impression that the
libel referred to them, without having in any way sought to
correct that opinion ? You know now, perfectly well, it refers
to them ? It was only my opinion.
Have you any doubt about it ?—Oh yes.
Do you suggest there is no Hall of Science in London ?—
No, there was one.
In 1879 ?—I cannot say what year.
Did you ever hear of a Hall of Science in Leeds, so-called ?
—Yes.
The National Secular Hall is referred to in this libel. Is
there any Hall of Science in Leeds the headquarters of the
Society ?—-I don’t know.
Can you suggest any Hall of Science in the United
Kingdom which can be described as the headquarters of the
Secularists, except that managed by Mr. Smith ?—I cannot
suggest any.
Or any situated, as that is near a lunatic asylum ?—I don’t
know where it is situated.
Inasmuch as this Hall of Science is a Hall of Science in
London, and inasmuch, therefore, as Mr. Smith manages it
and conducts it, you now understand that the passage
refers to him ?—He says it does.
Have you any doubt ?—Oh yes.
If what he says is true, it must ? —Yes.
Have you offered any retractation or apology yourself ?—
No, I have not.
Are you indemnified in respect of damages and costs ?—
Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Rawlinson : My learned friend has
asked you about the Hall of Science in Leeds in 1878. Did
you know when it was shut up ?—I can’t say from my own
knowledge.
Only from what you have read ?—Yes.
�44
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
The Judge : Is it shut up 1— It is, I believe.
Mr. Walton : There is no such building, and never was.
Mr. Rawlinson : There was a Secular Hall.
Mr. Walton : There is this hall in North-street, Leeds :
but it has not this description. It was not called the Hall
of (Science. I am instructed that that is a malicious and
malignant fabrication.
Mr. Rawlinson : The (Secular Hall was the one I asked about.
You cam if desired, tell what has become of the hall in Leeds?
Mr. Walton : M.y friend is not entitled to that.
The Judge : You are both knocking vour heads against a
brick wall. One of you refers to the Secular Hall, and the
other to the Hall of Science.
Mr. Rawlinson : I was only going to ask the date.
The Judge : Mr. Walton says there is no Hall of Science
at Leeds.
Mr. Cook, the second defendant, was then called, and said
he was the printer of this pamphlet.
Were you instructed to print it in the ordinary course of
your business ?—Yes.
At the time you printed it did you know of this paragraph,
the subject-matter of this action, being in at all ?—I did not.
It was printed as a reprint of what had been in the Anti
Infidel 1—Yes.
And that was a copy of a report of a meeting held at
Leeds?—Yes.
You never heard of Mr. Smith before this action ?—No.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walton : Are you indemnified
too, are you in that happy position ?—Yes.
Damages and costs ?—I don’t know.
Which ?—I don’t know.
Both ?—I don’t know.
Which do you think ? (Laughter.)
The Judge : Have not you got what you want, Mr. Walton ?
Mr. Walton : I think so.
Mr. Rawlinson then addressed the jury for the defence.
He said : I shall detain you a very short time in summing
up the evidence laid before you. The point which my
learned leader, Mr. Murphy, made when he addressed you is
one which I think is certainly worthy of your consideration.
The main question for you is, Was this remark, which was
made by Mr. Powell, reasonably to be understood , as
referring to the London Hall of (Science, or was it referring
to a Secular hall in Leeds, about which scandals had arisen.
And a prosecution had taken place shortly before the date
referred to in the pamphlet ? I do call your attention most
carefully to this. As appears from the pamphlet, these two
disputants, Mr. Powell and Mr. Fisher, made alternate
speeches. Mr. Powell first made a speech, and Mr. Fisher
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
45
replies at some length. Mr. Powell again replies on him,
and so the combat is carried on. In his first speech Mr.
Powell opened the case against Secularism in great detail,
and in that opening, one very short part of which I shall
read to you, he deals in detail with the charges of disgusting
conduct against the National Secular Hall at Leeds. There
is not the slightest doubt as to what he is referring. When
he refers to the “rotten proceedings” at the National
Secular Hall, he is obviously referring to the scandal which
was well known to his audience, because he does not go into
detail. Mr. Fisher then makes a speech of some length, and
then Mr. Powell has the reply upon him, and it is in the
second speech that this paragraph occurs. If it was meant
to have referred to the London hall, you would have found
it set out in his first speech. As it is, you find it in the
second speech, which is a continuance merely of his first
speech. He puts his case in his first speech, and details
very shortly the proceedings which occurred before the
Leeds magistrates, and then goes on to the Elements of
Social Science. In his second speech he again refers, as I
submit, to the Leeds Hall in the paragraph complained of,
then reverts to the Elements of Social Science. My friend
very properly objects when I want to put in the Leeds
Daily News, because it is not the Daily Standard, so I cannot
show you to what this libel refers. It is spoken by a man
who is summing up his case replying to Fisher. He has
identified the hall before in detail, and he sums it up,
saying : “ If you doubt me, look at the Daily Standard of
August 11, ’79.” There is no such paper, and so you are
asked to take the words verbatim, and say, if you take the
man as having spoken exactly what he knew, you cannot
have the slightest doubt it applied to the National Secular
Hall in London, and it was impossible to apply them to the
hall in Leeds. The point I wish to make here is this : Mr.
Fisher, one of the disputants, was a member of the Council
of the National Secular Society. He went down to speak
as representing the Secular Society to that extent. He was
a member of the committee, fighting their side of the case.
After this remark had been made he had a reply, and he
made full use of his opportunity and entered fully into the
reply. If he had thought it applied to the London hall,
would not he have replied at once and said : “ What a
scandalous lie you have told 1 There has never been a sugges
tion against the London Hall of Science. There has never
been a suggestion that the Hall of Science allowed unnatural
offences to take place in their hall ” 1 He was in Leeds ; he was
present there carrying on the dispute. If he thought it
meant London and not Leeds, would he not have answered
it ? Of course he would; but he does not, because he knows
�46
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
perfectly well it has been referred to properly in the first
speech, and he knew what was being referred to—the hall at
Leeds. If he had, the answer would have been : “We know
the class of thing that went on there ; we know what came
out before the magistrates.” I am entitled to use that as a
fair argument here. My learned friend has suggested that
I ought to call Mr. Powell. As a matter of fact, we cannot
call him to help us in this matter. He is not helping us ;
but why does not my learned friend call Greaves Fisher, the
member of the National Secular Society who took part in
the debate, and who did not answer the charge. He must
have known perfectly well to what hall it referred, and the
whole facts ot the case. Why is he not called ? My friend
comes down here and defends, with the ardor which is
perfectly right, the idea that anything could be meant
about Leeds instead of London. Why does he not call Mr.
Fisher to come and say, “ I knew he meant the Leeds hall ”?
Remember that my friend has opened the case saying they
had no idea of the case they had to meet. The defence, in
this matter, was put in on June 4, 1894, and that defence
was this : “ They admit that the words set out in the
complaint were printed and published by them ; but they
deny that the said words had any reference to the plaintiff,
either in reference to the position as alleged, or at all.”
Could you expect a clearer denial than that ? We have said
from the beginning that this does not refer to the plaintiff
at all. Greaves Fisher must have known it never referred
to them, and he did not reply on it. It was not until it was
printed by Cook and published by Mr. Snow that the action
was brought against us. My friend has made a very strong
point about why we did not answer that solicitor’s letter
more fully before the action was brought. Can he suggest
any sort of answer we could have made 1 We know that
Mr. Powell had not been attacked in the matter; that no
action had been brought against him. He had spoken the
words complained of, and could have been attacked. They
knew we had done it at the request of Mr. Bradlaugh, the
proprietor of the Anti-Infidel. We are the first to get the
solicitor’s letter. What possible answer could have been
sent to that 1 A great point has been made that no answer
was made to it; but what sort of reply was there to a
solicitor’s letter of that kind 1 Does it request an apology
or withdrawal ? Does it tell us what part of the pamphlet
of forty pages was complained of 1 Never a word suggested
as to what the libel complained of was. Never a suggestion
it was that passage subsequently taken out and put in the
statement of claim. Never a suggestion that it applied to
Mr. Smith as manager of the hall. The answer is obvious :
we cannot, because we don’t know what part we are
�THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
47
attacked about. The letter does not ask for an apology or
withdrawal, but simply says : “ I wish to have the address
of solicitors to accept service on your behalf, and if you do
not send it I will serve you personally with a writ.” I can
only say that my friend must be consciously hard driven
when he had to come to such a complaint against the
defendant in this case. Directly he puts in his defence he
says : “ I admit I published the words, but they do not
refer to you, either in your position as manager of the hall
or refer to you in any way.” What more can my friend wish
for than that ? Have we had a chance from beginning to
end of more clearly expressing our case than we have to-day,
and in our defence 1 Now, I have put the simple facts before
you. I don’t think anything the plaintiff has done here will
make you think he is entitled to large damages in this
matter. Do you think his character has been seriously
affected? They all knew the attack was made in Leeds, and
the whole subject of the controversy was in Leeds ; and do
they mean to say the plaintiff was damaged at all, looking
at all the circumstances ? Further than that, are there any
matters in the conduct of the defendants which make you
think they ought to pay larger damages than they ought to
if they are wrong 1 Both the defendants knew nothing at
all about the libel before it was put in print. They were
very negligent, and possibly they ought to have read, it
before they put it in. But I say there is nothing which
defendants have done which should lead you in any way to
unduly press the case against them. The last topic of pre
judice is this: They have been indemnified; and, it is
suggested, by Mr. Bradlaugh, on whose behalf they were
published. If you think that is a topic which you ought to
take into account, by all means do so. But the main question
is : Did the audience who heard the statements, and the
persons who read them, not know perfectly well from the
context, and from the fact that Fisher did not reply in any
way to the charge—must they not have known that the
real sting of the libel was against the Leeds hall, and had no
reference to the London hall, still less to Mr. Smith, whom
nobody ever heard of ? (To the Judge) : I do not know
whether I ought to have taken the point as regards the
question whether the publisher is liable. As Mr. Snow was
merely a conduit pipe for the selling of the book, under a
case which I will hand up, he would not therefore be liable,
as he was in the position of a mere news-vendor. Where a
publisher publishes, it is another thing; but here the evi
dence is that he simply received copies from the printer, to
sell on commission.
The Judge : His name is put on them as publisher.
Mr. Rawlinson : But that is only a custom of the trade.
�48
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
He certainly sold them on commission. If necessary, I will
put the point before your lordship later.
Mr. Walton then addressed the jury on behalf of the
plaintiff. He said : I am not surprised that my learned
friend has not more than once in the course of his speech
referred to three persons who are before you in this litiga
tion ; and, before I advert to one or two material obser
vations which, it occurs to me, I ought, on behalf of the
plaintiff, to make, I think it would not be inadvisable to ask
ourselves for a moment, Who is Mr. Smith 1 who are these
two gentlemen in the position of defendants ? Mr. Smith
and his connection with the Hall of Science, referred to in
this libel, has been made abundantly clear. My learned
friend has had the opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Smith;
and, with that opportunity, with the large license which the
law gives him—with the little scruple which has charac
terised my learned friend’s method in using that license,
which you have witnessed—he has completely failed to dis
credit and disparage Mr. Smith : but my learned friend has
had no instructions to suggest that Mr. Smith has not been
a man of eminent respectability and of unimpeachable cha
racter, and who has borne himself honestly and honorably
in all relations of life. It is perfectly true that Mr. Smith
has what some of us would regard as a misfortune—not
those religious opinions which many of us hold. But, except
the fact that his religious opinions differ from those of the
majority of us, there is no kind of suggestion that Mr. Smith
is not moral and trustworthy in every relation of life. Mr.
Smith has been connected with this building called the Hall
of Science in a very intimate way. He helped to found it;
and within those walls men of the most eminent character,
men who lectured in the cause of Freethought, have lec
tured ; men who, although they have suffered for . their
opinions, won the respect of the British people. These men
here have had the opportunity—which I trust every man
may be afforded—in the light of day of expressing freely, to
the people who thought them worth hearing, the views which
they entertained. And it turns out further that Mr. Smith,
through a long course of years, endeavored to make the Hall
of Science a centre of education and instruction. He con
nected it with the Art and Science Classes of South Ken
sington. He had associated with him a clergyman of very
free opinions, but of the very highest character—the Rev.
Stewart Headlam, who was a member of the committee,
and co-operated with him. He had, in addition, enter
tainments for the amusement of the young people who
were members of his Society, and whose parents were
connected with the movement; and in this way it is
obvious that, in the actual conduct of these very
�49
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
classes, the foundation, of the dancing academy, admis
sion to which was by ticket, the regulation of these pro
ceedings, the supervision, and the mode in which it was
conducted, Mr. Smith is regarded by his own people—by
the Secularists throughout the country—as a respectable
person. Mr. Watts, only told us what is obvious. He said :
“ I regard Mr. Smith as responsible in this matter.” Mr.
Smith of himself says : “ I am responsible. I was actually
present at these instructions, and actually superintended
these very classes. . A state of things such as that indicated
would have been impossible without my knowledge, and
could not have occurred without my authority ” ; ana there
fore Mr. Smith, with the long years of respectable character
which he is bearing, comes face to face with these honorable
and moral and honest men, who hold Freethought in relation
to religion. Mr. Smith is compelled to come into court, and
to challenge from them some sort of substantiation for this
monstrous attack levelled against him. It is essential that
Mr. Smith leaves this court to-day with your verdict, with
damages marking your sense of the attack made against
him, and his right to invite an expression of opinion against
him. Who are the defendants ? They have been put into the
box, and, if they had to pay these damages and costs, I could
understand why my learned friend should call them, and make
an appeal, ad misericordiam that you should take into
consideration their own negligence and own general
respectability in awarding that sum ; but why they should
be put forward when they are not the real defendants, and
when the verdict will not involve them in any damages,
when they are merely show defendants for the spirits that
are stabbing in the dark, wreaking their malignity in the
dark, and were not put into the box, gentlemen, it is very
difficult to understand. Of course Mr. Cook is only the
printer, and of course Mr. Snow is only the publisher, and
your verdict will be a verdict against them. But through
Cook and Snow you are hitting those men who, for aught I
know, have been sitting, here within sound of my voice, and
who have put. in motion the printing press which gave
currency to this malignant attaek, and who dare not answer
for it and submit themselves to cross-examination. After
Snow and Cook have told us they will not be affected by
your verdict, you need give very little consideration to the
sort of appeal which my learned friend has addressed to
you. Even though they are the defendants, I fail to see
how they can ask for any consideration in the matter of this
action. Mr. Powell, the obscure person who goes from
Liverpool and vanishes into the obscurity from which he
emanated, might have been made a defendant in this action
What would have been said then ? They would have said
D
�50
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
that what Mr. Powell stated he said in the heat of the
moment, and it was an excess of zeal; and, therefore, he
made a statement which, in calm moments, he would regret.
It is these defendants who have given prominence to the
libel. They have put it into the hands of every person
interested in the matter throughout the kingdom, and they
have professed to refer to a paper called the Daily Standard,
which most men would understand referred to one of the
most influential London papers. The defendants, who care
lessly printed and carelessly published a document such as this,
are not in a position to ask for any consideration from the jury
when they have to do justice to the unfortunate man who
may have been injured by the publication for which they
are responsible. Now, let me consider for a moment how
my learned friend, on behalf of the defendants, has sought
to meet the case. I do not wonder at the line he has taken.
I think I proved a true prophet in my opening. I ventured
to predict what the real defence to the action was, and
what the real tactics were which Mr. Murphy was instructed,
on behalf of these persons, to pursue ; and I do not wonder
he tried to induce you to disregard the motive of justice,
which is, perhaps, as sacred as any other motive in
human nature, to disregard the motive of justice, because
you disapprove of the opinions of the man who asks you
for the justice of your verdict. My learned friend produces
this book called The Elements of Social Science, and reads
pages from it, and from the work of another Freethought
writer; and he said to Mr. Smith, Are these the opinions
of Freethought writers? are they your opinions? My
learned friend knew perfectly well they are not the opinions
of Mr..Smith, and he said so at once. He said : I am a
Freethinker, and belong to the school which says that
every man is entitled to speak and think freely on those
subjects, and these are the opinions of honest men published
in the light of day. It challenges the interference of society
and the interference of the police, and neither society nor
the police have interposed in any way to stop the dissemina
tion of these books. We may dispute them and think them
in error ; but every person thinks differently. Here is a
book which for forty years has been on public sale, being
sold up and down the kingdom, dealing with matters of
great importance, and it has never been challenged by any
public authority, charged with the administration of the law
in the matter. Mr. Smith says it is perfectly true it is sold
on a bookstall which is licensed to a bookseller by the
person who owns the Hall of Science in Old-street ; but he
is entitled to sell any books he likes. If they ought not to
be sold, the police can interfere; but we simply let the man
the bookstall, and he sells what books he likes, and Mr.
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
51
Smith says it would be an impertinence to come forward
and attempt to revise his list and proceed to make out an
index of certain books which I, Mr. Smith, in the exercise of
my superior wisdom, will not allow him to sell. That is an
affair between the owner of the book shop and the police.
And this book has laid on this bookstall for thirty or forty
years without any sort of challenge. It is the kind of line
by which my learned friend hopes to disparage Mr. Smith
in your estimation. I think all of us draw a strong line
between opinion and moral conduct. My learned friend
would be the last man to say this was a country in which
opinion ought not to be as free as air. There was a time
when those who professed different religious opinions had
no tolerance, even in courts of law, or in society; but, for
tunately, the time has come when every man is entitled to
express his views freely ; and just as we give freedom to
men for religious opinion, so we allow freedom to other
opinions, conscious that the forces of orthodoxy are stronger
than the forces of error; and therefore we need have no
fear of error. Against Mr. Smith’s moral conduct, and the
character of all the men associated with him, there is not a
suggestion in this case ; and yet this libel is not a libel of
his opinions, but of his conduct, because it alleges a con
dition of things which makes the best feelings of one’s
nature rise in revolt. It is not that he taught these lads
Freethought : that he taught them to disregard the Divine
Being ; that he gave them nis views about the future state ;
that he expounded the tenets of Secularism ; but it is that
he taught practices which can only be mentioned in order to
be scouted in every society of human beings. It is not a
matter of religion, depending on orthodoxy or heterodoxy
•of religious opinions : but it is a matter of ordinary common
decency, in connection with which this libel has been pub
lished. What is the sort of defence which has been put
forward ? First we have what I may describe as the illegiti
mate defence; then we have the legitimate defence. The
illegitimate defence I described, while my learned friend was
cross-examining, as drawing a herring across the scent; and
it has been admirably illustrated by the tactics in this case.
We have had to deal with what occurred, in the year 1879,
in connection with the Hall of Science in London ; but my
learned friend has sought to divert the whole of our atten
tion to what occurred at a different place and at a different
time ; to what occurred, not in London, but in Leeds ; not at
the Hall of Science, but at the North-street Hall in Leeds;
and my learned friend has suggested, in what is the most
dangerous and the most illegitimate mode conceivable in a
court of justice—he has suggested that these proceedings
were in relation to obscene and improper conduct. The sug
�52
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
gestion is absolutely false. There is not a tittle of evidence
to support it. The only evidence is that given by Mr. Smith
himself. He said he heard that certain proceedings had
been taken against a place in North-street, Leeds ; but what
those proceedings were Mr. Smith had never heard. He
never heard until this moment that they spoke of obscene
conduct, or that the nature of the conduct was obscene;
and, so far as Mr. Smith is aware, that prosecution was
withdrawn. He never heard of a conviction as in fact having
taken place, and Mr. Murphy would have been the first one
to prove it.
Mr. Rawlinson : You ought not to say there was no
conviction.
Mr. Walton : I say it was a charge of disorderly conductMy learned friend is a lawyer, and knows that if, a publican
allows dancing to take place in his house, he can be charged
with keeping a disorderly house; and the prosecution
against the Jockey Club at this moment is for disorderly
conduct. My learned friend ought to be the last to make
cheap capital out of the facts, because he knows perfectly
well that, if you allow proceedings to take place on premises
and you are not properly licensed, you are charged with
allowing disorderly conduct to take place if you allow the
public to take part.
Mr. Rawlinson : The proceedings were not against a.
licensed house.
Mr. Walton : I quite understand my learned friend’s
restlessness—(laughter)—and his anxiety to make up a case
which cannot be proved by evidence of what took place.
Where is the conviction—where is it ? In the imagination of
those who instruct my learned friend, in whom they have
succeeded in infusing some of the spirit which seems to have
characterised the proceedings on their part. Nothing would
have been easier than to have called the police who laid the
prosecution. Nothing could have been easier than to have
put in the conviction; but we are told, and that is the whole
evidence you are told by Mr. Smith, that the prosecution
took place; but, so far as he knows, no conviction occurred,,
and if it occurred he would have been the first to hear of it.
I say this effort to draw this question into a trial of what
happened at Leeds, in another place, and for which other
persons are responsible, is done in order to confuse your
minds as to the real issue. That is the illegitimate defence,,
and, like all illegitimate defences, tries to establish itself by
illegitimate means; and my learned friend, instead of
bringing witnesses from Leeds to prove the facts,,
comes here with an armful of newspapers. A more
irrelevant and and fruitless inquiry I cannot imagine-
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
53
These papers, some of which have been raked up from
the cellars of the British Museum, he wants to scatter
around, and create a confusion as to what we have to try.
I am perfectly certain if any witnesses came up from Leeds
we should have listened to them with the greatest respect;
but, as there is no substance in this sort of suggestion, they
have endeavored to infuse into these proceedings an animus
which can only have been introduced to confuse your minds.
What is the real defence ? It is that this was not spoken of
the Hall of Science in London at all, but spoken of the Ha,11
of Science in Leeds. In the first place, that defence would
have been established by calling two or three witnesses. It
would have been established by calling the speaker of this at
the discussion, who would have told us what hall he was
referring to, and by calling the people to whom he was
speaking; but, instead of calling them, they leave you to
imagine that this description applies to a hall in Leeds. If
you look at it, there is no Hall of Science in Leeds at all.
The only Hall of Science out of London is the one at Sheffield.
It is.true the Secularists have a hall at Leeds, but they don’t
call it the Hall of Science. But this is referred to as the
headquarters of the Secularists, which is in Old-street.
Then you have a reference to a newspaper called the Daily
Standard, which is not produced, but the Leeds Daily News
is attempted to be set. up as the one meant. Such efforts are
only the sort of devices which we expect from persons
having a hopeless case. Now how is this case met,
because that is the real question for your consideration 1
It is obvious they knew perfectly well (both Snow and
Cook) the very serious nature of this libel. The solicitor’s
letter has been read, and when that letter was received I
should have thought that one course—and only one course—
could be pursued by honorable men anxious not to do
injustice to anyone. Honorable men in a matter of this
kind would be most anxious not to do an injustice to people
against whom a prejudice was entertained, because there are
some men of whom, if you say a foul thing it does not matter,
because, no one believes it; but if a man happens to be a
Secularist, there are a great many evil-minded men who will
believe it. And the defendants knew this was being said of
persons who were Secularists. If they were anxious to act
honorably, they would have been the first to repudiate the
libel and make reparation. Mr. Snow said he thought it did
not refer to the plaintiff. Why did not he write so at once
and say they were mistaken, withdraw it, and offer an
apology. 1 Because he had those behind him, those who had
indemnified him, and were putting him forward to bring
this into court to satisfy their fanatical prejudice,
^instead of that, Mr. Snow published a letter, signed under
�54
THE HALL OE SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
the name of the man he represented, and those who were
supporting him in the matter, which contains this passage :
“ When the case comes into court we will not say, 1 It is not
true what it was I said about you ’; we will not say, ‘ It is a
mistake,’ and ask the jury to give as little damages as they
can, because we are poor printers and publishers. Not that
sort of defence at all. But, when it comes before the court,
the evidence lacking will be forthcoming, and that charge,
like others, will be proved up to the hilt.” So that we get,
until the last moment, when they are anxious to save their
skins—we get the language of bluster. “It is true. Take
us into court, and we will prove it. You did give this
instruction. You (the plaintiff) are responsible for the Hall
of Science, where it took place. We shall prove it, and
publish it to the world; and kind friends will come forward
with their subscriptions, and we will fight under the flag of
truth.” Now, instead of fighting under the flag of truth,
they are skulking and crawling away, and making piteous
appeals to the jury. I should have had some respect if they
had stuck to their guns, and, having got the public money,
had tried to prove their case, and failed. But, having got it
under this brave profession, the courage oozes and the bravery
vanishes, and they now say : “We are poor publishers and
printers. Let us off, because we are only agents.” I ask
you to give Mr. Smith such a verdict as will enable him to
still hold up his head, so that those who may be connected
with this matter will have no ground for saying there was
one tittle of evidence of the monstrous and barbarous charge
made against him. (Subdued applause.)
Mr. Justice Lawrance, who was very indistinctly heard,
in summing up, said : Gentlemen of the jury, the question
you will have to consider is, how far the defendants have
made out that which they say is an answer to the case—viz.,
that this matter had no reference to the plaintiff’s place at
all; that it was not known to the man who uttered the
slander first—Mr. Powell. Smith was not known to him,
and he was not known to Mr. Cook or to Mr. Snow, the
other defendant, the publisher and printer of the libel; and
it is said that the transactions had no reference to the Hall
of Science in London at all. A great many considerations
have been imported into this case, necessarily from the very
nature of the case. All I can suggest is, that you should do
the best you can in the matter, and not allow whatever
feelings you may have on one side or the other to interfere
with you in the discharge of your duty. Look at it just as
you would at an ordinary case. The matter is a very
simple one. Smith, the plaintiff, is the manager and
treasurer and organiser of lectures, etc., at the Hall of
Science in London, and he held that position till, I think,
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
55
1892, when it was turned into a Limited Company. (To Mr.
Walton) What position does he hold now ?
Mr. Walton, Q.C. : He is a director of the Company,
and that is why the action by the Company was discontinued,
because the Company were not the proprietors of the hall at
the date referred to. The action was originally brought by
the Company, but when it was seen that the Company were
not the proprietors of the hall in 1879, the action was
discontinued.
Mr. Justice Lawbance : Now, Mr. Smith says it was his
duty to carry on the business of this Company, and to do so
he had lectures and science classes, and was generally
responsible for the management of the hall. The debate
took place in October, 1893, and the plaintiff says he heard
of it soon afterwards, and made no complaint against Mr.
Powell, who said there had been a great scandal at Leeds.
He also said he had heard of the trial in 1878, but he did not
read it, and did not know what the evidence was. He says
he knew Mr. Foote, but never heard the matter discussed in
his presence, and he had not seen the report of the debate.
He says he did not know who owned the Secular Hall at
Leeds ; but he seemed to say he had heard the report of the
trial discussed. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Murphy has asked you
to say that Mr. Smith’s answers were not satisfactory on that
point, and that he was not clear in giving a distinct denial
to the statement; but that the fact was he knew exactly
what had taken place at Leeds. On that point you must
judge by your own conclusions from the evidence given
before you. With regard to the suggestion that the defen
dant has been indemnified of the costs of this action, the
plaintiff also seems to have been getting up money for the
costs of the trial; so there is not much to be said on either
side, because “ what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for
the gander.” (Laughter.) It appears that both of them
were getting up public funds for the trial. No point has
been made that plaintiff was not responsible for the manage
ment of the Hall; and Mr. Charles Watts said he was
on the Committee, and always looked upon Mr. Smith
as the responsible person of the Company. Then a copy
of the Anti-Infidd was put in, in which portions of
the letter from Mr. W. R. Bradlaugh were printed, and on
this it is said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the points
taken by Mr. Bradlaugh there were that, if this case went
on, the charges made in the libel would be proved. Well,
that was said to depend on what was the defence in the
action ; and I may have a word more to say about Mr.
Bradlaugh’s position, and the letters written by him in the
case, because he is the person responsible for them and the
person making profit out of it as the owner of the Anti
�56
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
Infidel. Therefore, he is one of the persons who would be
primarily responsible and liable for any injury the plaintiff
might have sustained. Well, Mr. Murphy’s case is shortly
this : That the observations made by Mr. Powell at Leeds
reference to what had taken place at Leeds, and that
Mr. Powell, like a great, many other public speakers, not
only in matters of religion, but in other matters which we
every
—say Pities, for instance—(a laugh)—
Mr. Powell was like a good many more people who used
extremely strong language, and had gone a great deal
further than they were entitled to go, or would have gone
in their calmer moments. There can be no doubt at all
about that ; and it is said here that what Mr. Powell had
done was to mix up two or three things, and what he really
intended to convey was that what he was saying had
reference to the scandal that took place in Leeds in 1878.
That there had been a scandal at that time there can be no
doubt from the evidence of the plaintiff himself. Mr. Walton
is quite right in saying he. won’t permit anybody to say that
it was so of the Hall of Science, because there is no evidence
about that. . There had been something in the shape of a
prosecution in Leeds, which may have been for only keeping
a disorderly house—we are left in doubt; but there had
been something—a prosecution which was of interest to
Secularists generally, because the plaintiff said the matter
had been talked about before him, and Mr. Watts remembers
the Leeds trial. But I suppose we shall never know the real
truth about the Leeds trial. That being the state of things,
let me. read you the parts of the pamphlet relied on by the
plaintiff. It is said the Hall of Science was not the proper
name, and that it should have been the Secular Hall,
and therefore it could not refer to the London hall. It
was said by the plaintiff: “ The dancing academy must refer
to me because there is no proof that there was a dancing
academy at Leeds ”; and then he relies on the fact of its
being near a lunatic asylum, thus completing the identifica
tion. These, things are said by the plaintiff to point—and
can only point—to the Hall of Science in London. It is
said by the defendant that the date 1879 was wrong, and
was intended, for 1878 ; that it was wrong to call it the Hall
of Science ; it should have been the Secular Hall in North
street, Leeds, and that the Daily Standard should be the
Daily News. All that is said to be a mistake made by the
speaker in the heat of debate, and what he really meant was
the hall in Leeds; and the reference to 1879 was a reference
to what had already taken place in 1878 in regard to the
hall at Leeds, and not to the London hall. It is to be noticed
that Mr. Powell was a Liverpool man; he was said to be
an obscure Liverpool man, who had emerged from there, had
�THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
57
spoken, and had retired again. Mr. Fisher was a Leeds
man; and Mr. Powell, I observe, talks about certain books
sold by Kingfisher of Leeds, and in one discussion Fisher
acknowledges he is the person who sold the books referred
to. Then he goes on to make the charge complained of.
The question you have got to decide is whether that really
had reference to the place in London, or whether it had
reference—badly expressed by a man in the heat of debate
—to the proceedings which had taken place in Leeds, and
was intended and taken to be understood by those who
heard him to have reference to the Leeds hall only.
Mr. Walton : May I say, so far as the libel is concerned,
would not the question be whether persons reading this
pamphlet would not take it to refer to the London hall 1
The Judge : Quite true. It is not what was spoken at
Leeds. The question is this: Without knowing anything
further, would anybody taking up this book, and reading
what was said there—and you have heard the most that can
be said, and the best way it can be put for the defendants—
the question is whether a person taking that up would apply
it to the Hall of Science in London, and so apply it to the
person—namely, the plaintiff—who was responsible for the
manner in which that business was carried on. Mr. Murphy
produced a paper which is not the Daily Standard, but is
the Leeds Daily News; but of course he cannot go any
further than that. Mr. Snow then comes, and it turns out
that the contents of the pamphlet had been published week
by week, so far as I can gather, in the Anti-Infidel; and
therefore it must have been going on for some time between
October and January. It is dated January, 1894.
Mr. Rawlinson : The pamphlet was not published until
March, I am told.
The Judge : There is the whole of the evidence upon the
one side and the other. There are only one or two other
considerations. We have heard a great deal why Mr. Powell
has not been called on one side, and Mr. Fisher on the other.
You always have, in cases of this kind, complaints by learned
counsel on each side. They have each got complaints, and
I suppose the answer to them really is—Mr. Walton does
not hesitate to say : “ I have nothing to do with Mr. Powell.
He is not worth powder and shot, and I am not going against
him.” I do not know what your view is; but, when
you are considering the position, one would have thought
Jhere was some reason why Mr. Bradlaugh should not have
been made a party to the case. It may be that they think
he is not worth going for. I don’t know. He is the owner
of the pamphlet and of the Anti-Infidel, and he was the
person who was going to take any profits, and when you
cannot get the man who is going to profit by the libel then
�58
THE HALL OF SCIENCE LIBEL CASE.
you generally go for the printer and publisher. There may
be some reason, but no reason has been forthcoming, as to
why Mr. Bradlaugh should not be made a party to this suit.
Mr. Bradlaugh was the person who, if any profit was to be
made, would be entitled to it. But the writ reached the
printer, who, I do not suppose, ever takes the trouble to see
what he is printing; and the publisher, who only had a
certain number of copies sent to him, having no control over
the matter at all. But for some reason, best known to the
plaintiff, Mr. Bradlaugh was not included. He seems to
have been one of the principal parties concerned. There
are the whole facts. The question is, Did these words refer,
or would they reasonably be taken by anybody reading the
pamphlet to refer, to the plaintiff, or do you think that the
defendants’ case is made out that they referred, and ought
enly to be taken to refer to, the case at Leeds and the Leeds
hall ? . If you find they refer to the plaintiff, then comes the
question of damages. That is a matter for you entirely to
deal with. The libel, no doubt, is a serious one. The action
is brought against two men, who are, as far as they are
concerned—if there is any injury to the plaintiff—are not
nearly so much concerned with the matter as the parties
who get a profit by it, and who have been let go—viz.,
the man who spoke the words and the man who was the
owner of the pamphlet. That may make a difference to you
when you come to consider the amount of damages to which
the plaintiff is entitled. It is for you to say whether you
find for the plaintiff or defendant. If for the plaintiff, what
damages do you think he is entitled to ?
The jury retired at 4.30, and, after a deliberation of threequarters of an hour, came into court and gave a verdict for
the plaintiff, with £30 damages.
On Tuesday, February 19, Mr. Lawrence Walton, Q.C.,
who. appeared for the plaintiff, said, in the case of the
National. Secular Society and another versus Snow and
another, in which the jury, the day previously, found for the
plaintiff, he had now to apply that judgment be entered in
accordance with the finding of the jury.
Mr. Justice Lawrance assented, and judgment was
entered accordingly.
�Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d., post free,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
Hundreds of exact References to Standard Authorities. No pains spared
to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable
Indictment of Christianity.
Chapters :—1, Christ to Constantine; 2, Constantine to Hypatia; 3,
Monkery; 4, Pious Forgeries ; 5, Pious Frauds ; 6, Rise of the Papacy ;
7, Crimes of the Popes ; 8, Persecution of the Jews; 9, The Crusades.
“ 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
opponents of Christianity.”—0. Bradlatoh, in National 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 Aae
(U.S.A.).
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Price Is. 6d.; superior edition, superfine paper, cloth, 2s., post free,
The Bible Handbook
FOR FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING CHRISTIANS.
BY
G. W. FOOTE
and
W. P. BALL.
Sold also in separate parts as follows :—
1?—Bible Contradictions. The contradictions are printed in
parallel columns. 4d.
2. —Bible Absurdities.
All the chief absurdities from
Genesis to Revelation, conveniently and strikingly arranged, with
appropriate headlines, giving the point of each absurdity in a
sentence. 4d.
3. —Bible Atrocities. Containing all the godly wickedness
from Genesis to Revelation.
line for easy reference. 4d.
Each infamy has a separate head
4. —Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities, Broken
Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. 4d.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�221 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
(FIRST SERIES)
BY
G.
W.
FOOTE.
Contents/—
| Judgment Day
The Logic of Persecu
Huxley’s Mistake
tion
The Gospel of Free- Luther and the Devil
thought
Bible English
On Ridicule
Living by Faith
Who are the Blasphe Victor Hugo
mers ?
Walt Whitman
Christianity and Com Desecrating a Church
mon Sense
Tennyson and the Bible
The Lord of Lords
Christ’s Old Coat
Consecrating the
Christ’s Coat, No. 2
Colors Scotched, Not Slain
Christmas in Holloway God-Making
Gaol
God and the Weather
Who Killed Christ ?
Miracles
Did Jesus Ascend?
A Real Miracle
The Rising Son
Jesus on Women
St. Paul’s Veracity
Paul on Women
No Faith with Heretics Mother’s Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Old Nick
Fire !! !
Sky Pilots
Devil Dodgers
Fighting Spooks
Damned Sinners
Where is Hell ?
Spurgeon and Hell
Shelley’s Atheism
Long Faces
Our Father
Wait Till You Die
Dead Theology
Mr. Gladstone on Devils
Is Spurgeon in Heaven ?
God in Japan
Stanley on Providence
Gone to God
Thank God
Price Is., post free,
SATIRES AND PROFANITIES
BY
JAMES THOMSON (B.V.)
(Author of “ The City of Dreadful Night ”).
Contents:—The Story of a Famous Old Jewish Firm (Jehovah, Son,
and Co.)—The Devil in the Church of England—Religion in the Rocky
Mountains—Christmas Eve in the Upper Circles—A Commission of
Inquiry on Royalty—A Bible Lesson on Monarchy—The One Thing
Needful.
“ It cannot be neglected by any who are interested in one of the most
pathetic personages of our time.”—Academy.
“As clever as they are often profane.”—Christian World.
“ Well worth preserving.”—Weekly Dispatch.
“Reminds one of the genius of Swift.”—Oldham Chronicle
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�302 pp., superior paper, bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
[Second Series]
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Contents :—
Luscious Piety
The Jewish Sabbath
God’s Day
Professor Stokes ,on Im
mortality
Paul Bert
Converting a Corpse
Bradlaugh’s Ghost
Christ and Brotherhood
The Sons of God
Melchizedek
S’w’elp me God
Infidel Homes
Are Atheists Cruel ?
Are Atheists Wicked ?
Rain Doctors
Pious Puerilities
“ Thus Saith the Lord ”
Believe or be Damned
Christian Charity
Religion and Money
Clotted Bosh
Lord Bacon on Atheism
Christianity & Slavery' Down Among the Dead
Christ Up to Date
Men
Secularism and Chris Smirching a Hero
tianity
Kit Marlowe and Jesus
Altar and Throne
Christ
Martin Luther
Jehovah the Ripper
The Praise of Folly
The Parson’s Living
A Lost Soul
Wage
Happy in Hell
Did Bradlaugh Back
The Act of God
slide ?
Heir Hardie on Christ Frederic Harrison on
Blessed be ye Poor
Atheism
Converted Infidels
Save the Bible !
Mrs. Booth’s Ghost
Forgive and Forget
Talmage on the Bible The Star of Bethlehem
Mrs. Besant on Death The Great Ghost
and After
Atheism and the French
Revolution
The Poets and Liberal
Theology
Pigottism
Christianity and Labor Jesus at the Derby
Dueling
Atheist Murderers
A Religion for Eunuchs
An Easter Egg for
Christians
Rose-Water Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G, W«
Foote. Is.
Miscellaneous Theological Works. Is.
Complete Theological Works.
(Including the Age of
Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political
Biography by J. M. Wheeleb. Is. ; bound in cloth, 2s.
London : R.'Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Price Is.; bound in cloth, Is. <5d. post free,
THE GRAND OLD BOOK.
A REPLY TO THE GRAND OLD MAN
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
An Exhaustive Answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s
“ Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.”
Contents :—Preface—Preliminary View—The Creation Story—The
Fall of Man—The Psalms—The Mosaic Legislation—Corroborations of
Scripture—Gladstone and Huxley—Modern Scepticism.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Price Is.
Superior edition for Subscribers, bound, numbered, and
signed, 2s.
VOLTAIRE :
HIS
LIFE AND
WORKS.
WITH SOME SELECTIONS FROM HIS WRITINGS.
By G. W. Foote
and
J. M. Wheeler.
“ The English people ought to know Voltaire, an admirer and lover of
their nation, better than they do, and this lively shilling pamphlet will
give them a good deal of information as to his life and work.”—Literary
World.
“ A lucid and interesting sketch of the great French philosopher. We
strongly recommend it to all who want to know what the influence was
which Voltaire exercised.”—Weekly Times and Echo.
“Those of the new generation who desire to know more of a man with
whose writings their fathers were intimate should consult this little
shilling volume.”—Reynolds's Newspaper.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Price Is. 6d., post free,
ESSAYS IN RATIONALISM.
BY
CHARLES ROBERT NEWMAN
(Atheist Brother of Cardinal Newman).
With Preface by G. J. Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch
by J. M. Wheeler.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
�Price 2d., by post 2|d.,
AN ESSAY ON SUICIDE.
BY
DAVID HUME.
With an Historical and Critical Introduction by
G. W. Foote.
London : Robert Forotcr, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
A CHAPTER FROM
Strauss’s Original “Life of Jesus.”
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
G. W. FOOTE.
(A Most Thorough Analysis and Exposure of the Gospel
Story by a Master Hand.)
Price Sixpence.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
Handsomely bound in cloth, post free 7s. 6d.,
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY
OF
FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
BY
J. M. WHEELER.
“ The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Freethought party.”—National Reformer.
“ The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought,.
“At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, asserting that all great
men have been on the side of Christianity.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ The most important Freethought work published this year.”—De
Dageraad (Amsterdam).
“A good and useful work that was much needed.”—Commonweal.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E C.
�Colonel Ingersoll’s
Great New Lecture
ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE
Price Sixpence.
132 pp., price Is.; bound in cloth, Is. 6d., post free,
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
The only Complete Edition published in England.
Accurate as Colenso, and Fascinating as
a
Novel.
Now Ready, Price Twopence,
IS
SUICIDE
A
SIN?
By COLONEL INGERSOLL.
Together with the Reply of Monsignor Ducey.
Price Twopence,
LAST WORDS ON SUICIDE
A Reply to the Critics of “ Is Suicide a Sin ?”
By ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�IF
£
1
��
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 Hall of Science libel case. With a full and true account of "The Leeds Orgies", edited, with introduction, by G. W. Foote
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] (ed)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 58, [6] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. A libel suit against John Snow and Messrs. Cook & Co. by Robert Owen Smith and the National Secular Society. Snow and Cook & Co. were sued for publishing a pamphlet entitled, 'Is secularism degrading?' (from a speech by Christian Evidence lecturer Walton Powell), that charged that the Hall of Science where the National Secular Society held its meetings was used for a class in which boys were taught "self-abuse". 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
[1895]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N244
Subject
The topic of the resource
Freedom of the press
Libel
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 Hall of Science libel case. With a full and true account of "The Leeds Orgies", edited, with introduction, by G. W. Foote), 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
Hall of Science
National Secular Society
NSS
Secularism
Trials (Libel)